.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
JCauto
-
Posts
1,772 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by JCauto
-
-
28 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:
Things are running just fine there, check our economy. But hey, YMMV.
I disagree, Russia's economy has some major structural issues and is dominated by oligarchs.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:
Within 4 months an additional special prosecutor will be appointed and these FBI fascists will be indicted. Bet a beer at Hillary 1 on it.
Im old enough to remember FBI abuses under Hoover. Im old enough to remember the CIA and FBI scandals of the 70s. Guys like Angleton....men who thought their positions made them a law unto themselves.
What is sad is that folks let their hatred of Prez Trump obscure the deep institutional problems in the alphabet agencies. I remember a time when the press did more than just cheerlead for their favourite political position, like when they ferreted out real abuses and exposed them no matter whose ox was gored...
I've told you before - choose a different name when you're a Russian troll, you don't want to make it so obvious...
-
1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:
My point wasn't about his competence, but about him not recusing himself when he had an overwhelming bias against Trump.
Sessions recused himself for less.
No, no he did not. Sessions recused himself because he'd been involved in meeting the Russians during the events in question and then lied (oops, sorry, uh, mis-spoke, didn't recall, seemed to have forgotten...) about it under testimony to Congress. He did not recuse himself because he was biased for Trump.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:Long overdue. Well done deputy director for doing what his boss should have done.
While Strzok obviously never considered that his texts would have been uncovered ( because he was convinced HRC would win ), he was so obviously biased against Trump, he should never have been on any investigation about Trump. That he did not recuse himself shows, IMO, bad judgement, and sacking is probably the least of his problems now.
So is it your position that anyone holding strong political views should be removed from their government positions? Or that they should automatically recuse themselves from any work activities that involve people whom they dislike? Do you think this is a good policy?
Good luck on implementing Law Enforcement with those guidelines.
-
2
-
1
-
Well, the first thing he's managed to get right - allowing private sector sales - is balanced by the stupidity of further pushing back implementation to April. What's the point? The private sales network is already well established, and the only thing that stops it is police deciding in various precincts to raid them. Once the raids stop, you'll have neighbourhood stores everywhere. And why the hell not? Why do we have to give our money to the damn Beer Store or LCBO?
By the way, to answer my own question, the point is that Ford never wanted legalization and this is just another way for him to delay it.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:
Unless you can prove that a vast majority of the world's scientists agree, I think you should not use that as evidence of anything. I've known scientists that were as dumb as a rock, so I wouldn't agree that they actually "know" anything.
I don't think there was any dispute as to the destruction of the ozone layer, and a solution was found and implemented. No such agreement exists either that man is the primary cause of climate change, or how to deal with it, whatever caused it.
The dinosaurs didn't cause the asteroid to strike the planet, and CC may just be a natural event, not to our benefit. Personally, I think Gaia has had enough of our destruction and is going to get rid of us, by one way or another.
Well, there's this.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Sure, it's only the consensus amongst those who study climate, but you know, if I want to know what is going on with the Large Hadron Collider I'm not going to ask a Biologist.
What, it's only NASA? Can we get a broader consensus? How about if we review the opinions of only the people who have studied and published climate papers? How about if we review the 12,000 or more climate papers and see what their results are? Yep. Same, somewhere between 90 and 100% with most settling at 97%. That is what we call "broad scientific consensus" of the sort that you only get when you usually deal with questions like "does smoking cause cancer".
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Your previous posts have been quite reasonable. I don't understand why you're suddenly veering into invention of facts that are easily debunked. Does acknowledging that human activity is having major detrimental results on the planet something that disturbs you? It's so obvious that it calls into question your previous judgments and sincerity in engaging in discussion.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, bristolboy said:
Actually, if it's the environment you are concerned about, then it makes much more sense to reduce the numbers of the rich and middle class, since they consume a disproportionate amount of Earth's resources.
Except that by removing the people who are the best hope of changing their behaviour and adapting to the new situation in favour of the least educated and most likely to continue destructive practices, you'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Certainly we need to re-orient the economy towards recycle and reuse and enlist those people to lead that battle, rather than discarding them in some misguided attempt to punish what has not been illegal behaviour. After all, they're the ones holding the political power and who will determine what happens.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:
Just when you thought the debate couldn't get any dumber...look, hot in one place doesn't prove global warming any more than putting my arm in the oven does. One place and the globe are different entities. These are complex and interrelated systems.
Are you sure you're not a member of congress or are you just another doofus?
Except that one has the overwhelming support and consensus of the vast majority of the world's scientists. The other has a bunch of contrarians with no evidence.
-
18 hours ago, RickBradford said:
And so we circle back to an earlier point; that climate "change" of any sort, in any direction, is claimed by activists to be driven by, or at the very least "consistent with", catastrophic man-made global warming.
Hot, cold, wet, dry, it's all man-made global warming, according to the activists. It's a living demonstration of the saying: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." When all you have is a hatred of capitalist industry, or humanity in general, everything looks like a greenhouse gas-driven crisis.
On the face of it, it looks like a good strategy, but the problem is that everyone has now seen through it, and the activists have no Plan B. The climate alarmism ship still floats in the ocean, but very few people remain on board.
No, no we haven't, and yes, yes you know this. My point was a lazy one, but then again it was a reaction to the sort of silly comments that drag a debate into banality. You eating a burrito doesn't mean you've solved world hunger.
You have already acknowledged that there is anthropogenic climate change, but that we disagree on the extent and scale. We don't need to continue to "debate" the point with respect to the overwhelming scientific consensus. That's over and anyone who wants to have a go needs to get thee to a university to demonstrate your research. There's lots of folks who are looking for a champion to disprove the science, have a go! But to pretend that it's still not known is disingenuous.
-
- Popular Post
1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:You don't have to convince me. The people that need convincing are the poor in India, Africa, the middle east and China ( now they can have more than one child ). I know a lost cause when I see it.
However, the one thing that could literally change everything, is the invention of functioning, affordable fusion energy, or an equivalent.
Such unlimited availability of electrical energy would indeed save the human race from itself.
We're again in agreement. But you'll never "convince" the poor not to reproduce, there's only one thing that has proven to work - raise their incomes so that they have less kids and put the ones they have in school rather than continuing the poverty cycle of more kids for more labour for less productivity and another large group of poor families for the next generation to repeat.
-
2
-
1
-
48 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:
Ah cynicism- to be frank, I believe mankind has destroyed, exterminated and abused the planet so much in the historically insignificant time humans have existed that our demise is as inevitable as the extinction of the dinosaurs. The only thing humans appear really good at is killing other species and ourselves.
If we don't kill ourselves off with pollution or antibiotic resistant diseases, Gaia will.
Re children, when I realised what the future holds, I decided not to have any as I didn't want them to suffer, so not in response to C C per se.
We are in concurrence in respect to your first paragraph, that is also what I expect to ultimately happen.
Cynicism is accepting that this is inevitable and doing nothing to combat it. That's what I refuse to accept. The cynical, as is their tendency, are also moving further into climate change denial such that they can avoid having any social or material sanction or discomfort while they watch the world (literally) burn. That's beyond cynical and is getting in the way of those of us who are fighting the good fight (whether we're ultimately doomed or not).
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, ELVIS123456 said:
Quote: A cold snap has delivered some of the chilliest temperatures in decades to parts of Australia’s east coast, with more frosty mornings to come.
Quote: But when it's record cold, the news reports don't mention global warming.
Just when you thought the debate couldn't get any dumber...look, cold in one place doesn't disprove global warming any more than putting my arm in the freezer does. One place and the globe are different entities. These are complex and interrelated systems.
In fact, climate change will inevitably result in some places becoming cooler, this being the macro-level impacts on weather systems. The key issue is "change", and the driver is the "climate" which is becoming on a global scale "warmer". Are you sure you're not a member of congress or are you just taking inspiration from this doofus?
http://time.com/3725994/inhofe-snowball-climate/ -
1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:
You won't get "us" on board because we reject the idea that building a few windmills and buying a Prius is going to do anything at all to change anything.
BTW, I did the best thing anyone that believes in man made CC can do and didn't have any children. If man caused the problem, the solution is obviously not to have children till the population is at least the same as in the 17th century, before the industrial revolution.
Yes, I understand the mindset you espouse. It's called cynicism and I refuse to embrace it.
And yes, you have had individually a large impact by not having kids. I rather doubt you did that in response to climate change, but it is still valid.-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
That means precisely zero when it comes to making " "sacrifices for our children." as originally claimed...
I too happily gave up a well-paid job to move into a job paying far less - but admit that I'd had enough of the stress and making even more money for already extremely wealthy people. So it suited ME to finally be able to move into a far lower paid, but 'socially justified' job. I suspect (but obviously don't know) that your reasons were similar.
I apologise for labouring the point, but I dislike people that pretend they have 'sacrificed' - when in reality they've done nothing of the sort.
I have revealed what I am comfortable revealing; I have made a career choice that had a number of different components to it, and yes, one of those was "how does this help improve things in the future and how can I maximize my impact by doing it". One of those was not "will I be able to make as much or more than I did in the past and thereby provide more for my children". I have noted that I also think giving more to your kids doesn't necessarily help them, and can even harm them, so I would question the entire basis of the discussion - is "sacrificing" for your kids actually a good thing? I also am not particularly materialistic. Does my making less money count as a "sacrifice" then? Essentially I think the question a silly one. This is an anonymous internet forum. We're supposed to debate and discuss things and while one is welcome to bring in personal circumstance as it is often effective in debate, this isn't a presidential debate where journalists are here to fact-check us and at the end of the day there will be a vote based on our performances.
So if you choose to believe whatever about my life, that is up to you. I don't have to pass some sort of litmus test in your eyes in order to have the right to hold an opinion or have my opinion considered valid. You demand that I reveal more of my real life situation in order to claim that I help other people in line with my beliefs, and if I don't provide it, then I'm somehow a fraud or pretending. That's a false dichotomy.-
2
-
-
45 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:
That the 'Paris Accord' allowed China to increase its pollution by 40% while at the same time mandating that USA Aust UK etc etc must reduce it by 20%, and that they implement penalties and charges to 'tax carbon', all to the cost of average western people, shows how flawed and ridiculous the whole 'solution' is and why it is not accepted by most people. Add to that the fact that climate scientists have been deliberately exagerating their findings by using flawed climate models (inputs and outputs), and people like Al Gore have become very rich off this 'climate change' sham, and you can see why so many people are so sceptical.
As more and more time goes by and the world doesnt come to an end, more and more people will realise the truth. Climate Change is just another 'Dogma' (religion) demanding that you agree with its rules and demands, otherwise you and your children will be 'punished' in the future. There is just enough truth it was the Dogma says, and just enough to make people think that the Dogma might be right, to suck in the foolish and unwise. How can you prove them wrong until you are dead or 50 years has passed?? It is the perfect sham, and is atypical of all Dogmas that are all based on the 'Witch Doctor Method' - claim everything that happens is evidence of you being 'all powerful and knowledgeable' and keep your own vested interests above question.
Yes, the predictions and science of climate change just keep getting proven incorrect. They're under-estimates of the speed and impact of the change. This is not debatable, it's proven. You choose to pretend it's something else and then go off on an irrelevant tangent comparing what is science to what is religion. It's an interesting debate strategy - try to make your opponents get stupider by reading what you write so that you can eventually drag them down to your intellectual level.
The reason for the negotiations in Paris was to take account of who got rich and developed while creating the problem and therefore were both more responsible for it and more able to deal with it. But you already knew that, didn't you?
-
39 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
In other words, you haven't actually made any "sacrifices for our children." as originally claimed....
FWIW, I largely agree with you - but at the end of the day, we are reliant on big business and govts. to take the destruction of our planet seriously - but sadly they are in cahoots and only care about their money and power. Consequently, the changes made are small - and only benefit those with the money and power to profit from the new, 'clean' energy sources ☹️.
To look on the bright side, the 'message' is getting through to a certain extent - as a increasing number of people nowadays make (what I suspect) is the same effort as you (and, to be fair, myself). i.e. Using as little plastic as possible/reducing energy consumption (but not enough to make us uncomfortable...) etc.
No, it means that I didn't feel obligated to inform you of details of my personal life. I will make a concession though and inform you that I work in forestry in Southeast Asia if that helps you understand and makes you more comfortable. I chose to go into that as I believed it more important and useful than what I had been doing prior. I make less money, and I contribute a lot of my own time and money in order to make things work because that's what is important to me. I also think I should let my kids solve their own problems as much as possible, and that leaving them a great whack of money (had I been in position to do so) would be counter-productive. But these are personal situations and choices, and why I didn't want to get into them in the first place. Everyone has their own reasons, many people like to help others, many would rather do so without blowing their own horn.
It's not a competition and whether I do more or less than you is less important to me than that more people recognize the importance of change and doing something to move in the right direction. That you do and take some measures is laudable, and I hope you continue. That you choose to argue against doing things while recognizing that these are important issues and doing you own bit is curious.
-
1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:
The research for removing CO2 from the atmosphere has been done and is proven. However, governments seem remarkably reticent to develop that technology. Perhaps because they know that just removing CO2 won't achieve anything.
In the meantime it's a great way to add taxes.
Or perhaps it's too expensive still. Or perhaps it uses too much energy so would generate greenhouse gases as well. Or perhaps it's one of any other of hundreds of reasons why new technology doesn't stick. Happens every day.
-
17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:
Pray tell us what sacrifices you have made for your children. Given up driving a car and using airplanes perhaps. Not using electricity generated by fossil fuel perhaps. Travelling by horse or sail power only perhaps.
BTW, I fail to see how my opinion is in any way stopping you from doing anything. I don't even know you, or you me. Just do it.
I do what I can, and am under no illusions that any small (or massive for that matter) changes I make in my life will not affect the climate. It's collective changes that are the only hope. By recognizing that there is a need to change and by changing my own practices, behaviour and rhetoric, I am moving in the right direction towards that individually. In doing so, I positively affect my family, my kids, my kids' future kids, my friends, my acquaintances, etc. This helps push more people in the right direction, such that collectively we can change things a bit. We need some mega-wins, such as alternative no-carbon energy that can only come from research and development, true. But that alone won't fix it, and continuing to accept the destructive practices will only result in more suffering and impacts before any positive things can happen, and they risk knock-on effects such as mass migration and political instability that could well ruin the thing that could save us.
I engage in climate change deniers and skeptics not because I expect to change their minds, but because I believe it is vital to get as many people on board as possible, because I know that this issue will not go away and soon enough even the most skeptical will have to admit that what has been forecast is not only happening, but is happening at a much faster pace than even the models predicted. It is not because I believe you will change your mind that I write back to you, especially as you've already basically indicated you are coming eagerly towards the end of life and have had enough. That's more than a bit sad and I feel for you, that's no fun. But cynicism is contagious and so I will continue to try to convince other more open readers that this is something they should care about in the hopes that they too will start to take the small steps that can lead to greater things. So yes, if you wouldn't mind, please kindly get out of the way while we try to save some lives. And I hope that you might just one day say "fark it", try something different and discover some accidental joy that makes your life a bit happier. -
5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:
Soooooo, yet another thread about something that no one can change. I'm sure that there are things government can do, but they ain't doing much.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell us all what a practical, affordable solution that doesn't overly affect the poorest is, but I've been waiting years now, and zero.
Just as well I'm not holding my breath.
Yes, that's how all the world's difficult problems get resolved. Can't do anything immediate and easy, I give up. That's fine, just shut up and get out of the way of those of us who haven't given up and are willing to make the sacrifices for our children.
-
8 minutes ago, pegman said:
555, good thing Canadians in general are not spineless wimps. There are a few ^^^^^^^^^ but not so many as to worry about. If that state sponser of terrorists wants to put the screws to students who presumably will lose their $$ deposits that's on them. More spots for Canadian kids or Chinese. It seems the nut bar is going to take his people out of Canadian hospitals too. What a low life. Any oil or gas workers needing work should head to Alberta where you can have a Blue after your shift. Same guy who jailed then shock-down businessmen and his own family members for $121b. The Thug Prince might be getting to chicken little here ^^^^^^ but most of us say bring it on and let's hope for an Arab Spring comes to the Kingdom soon.
True dat. The real snowflakes are the pearl-clutchers on the Right, they're scared of everything except White folks.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, ezzra said:
If jeremy corbyn and his muppets of the labour party can spew out anti semitic slurs, why not Boris johnson making comments about the black ghosts?...
Because both are wrong, and democratic political discourse suffers as a result?
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, lust said:
I need someone to translate this into English for me.
Ah, you were an immigrant to Canada? No problem, sorry for writing at too high a level of English. Just goes to show you how many directions life can lead.
Most immigrants to Canada enthusiastically take to the place and, sooner or later, start acting pretty much Canadian. Others of course cling to their old ways. Perhaps you came from a more authoritarian state prior to Canada and miss having Big Daddy tell you what to do? If only you'd lived in Ontario, you could be somewhat placated by having Rob Ford's brother Doug be your authority figure.-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Snow Leopard said:
The point i am trying to make is this. There is such a thing called base power that needs to go into the national electricity grid of any country. Mainly industrial ones of course.
or nuclear power stations
What most of the people don't understand is that no matter how many bat bashers or sun beds you have feeding into the grid you still need to have the turbines operational on fossil fuel or nuclear power stations. So although these power stations might be running at a reduced load on a windy or sunny day they are still running. Pointless. You cant just switch them on and off like a light switch You can plan, you can make assumptions but they are still running all the time. Its all political and for show only.
You would be surprised at how many people actually do not have a clue as to where their power comes from. I have been in many public discussions in the UK on this. Its called fracing. Turn on my light i have power. Plug in my electric car and it goes. No need for petrol right??
Yes, I'm fully aware of the need for base power. That's why I have been emphasizing the importance of directing research urgently towards alternative energy, rather than subsidies for the dying hydrocarbon industry.
-
2 minutes ago, lust said:
As a Canadian. The best thing I’ve ever done was move away from that ISIS supporting government, run by a cuck-traitor art teacher.
Well, you did the right thing. When your views are so contrary to pretty much everyone around you, you should leave. And as a Canadian, may I note how happy I am that your ilk are leaving? Perhaps you'd find a lot more like-minded folk down south. Just look for the poorer and dumber states, and you're heading home!
-
1
-
World at risk of heading towards irreversible 'hothouse' state
in World News
Posted
Sorry, "debating" the scientific consensus puts you in the position of those not vaccinating their children because they believe it causes autism even though there's no evidence for that, it's been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, and the overwhelming if not unanimous consensus among the experts who study and understand the science and medicine is that these are safe and necessary. You are welcome to join fellow cranks in pissing on everything the professionals and scientists are doing but it's pointless to discuss further.