Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riverwind

  1. They have been in armed conflict since Hammas started shooting rockets into Isreal. That is why the blockade is in place and Isreal is entitled to enforce it. Call it a civil war. Same rules apply. So what? The example of loggers illustrates how peaceful protest works and what happens if peaceful protestors resort to violance. 5 ships were boarded with incident. Only one ship had the thugs that decided to start a fight. They are once who are responsible.
  2. Running a country is complex and requires compromise. The only immature people are the people who think they should be entitled to be represented by a fringe party that refuses to compromise and seeks to impose their narrow viewpoint on the majority. And changes were voted down twice in BC and once in Ontario. You can fume as much as you want but it does look like the majority of people who actually vote are fine with the system.
  3. Electoral reform was defeated in Ont and BC - largely because the people who show up at the polls are the people who are fine with the existing system. Because ideology driven parties cant get enough votes. That is why we dont want any form of PR - it would give too much power to the minority nutbars at both ends of the spectrum.
  4. And you know this how? Canadians of all stripes protect their entitlements and that will not change.
  5. Isreal is entitled to blockade ALL ships because of the war. The only thing that it can't do is block the ports of groups not involved in the conflict (read the link i provided). Sure. But then they are armed combatants and are simply casualties of war which deserve no more consideration than a group of Taliban killed by Canadian troops in Afghanistan. But the apologists for Hamas want to pretend that they were 'peaceful protesters' which is clearly nonsense. Here is another analogy consider: logging protesters. These people will stage protests by blocking roads. They get media attention but eventually the police are entitled to arrest them. Peaceful protesters may force to police to physically carry them from the road but they will not resist the police. Violent protesters resist arrest and attempt to injure police. An anti-logging protestor that hit a police officer with a metal bar would likely be shot and no one would shed a tear. Why is this incident an different?
  6. Isreal and Hammas are engaged in a armed conflict. The blockade and Isreal's boarding of the ships is perfectly legimate under the law of the sea. The only parties that did anything wrong are the faux activist thugs on the boat who initiated the violance against the solidiers.Here is more discussion the law in question.
  7. Not having sex works even better. People cut skin off containing 'tens of thousands of nerves' all of the time (warts, skin tags). Rediculous analogies do not help your case. The fact that majority of adult men who have been circumsized do not feel they have been 'damaged' is pretty strong evidence that the procedure is not something law makers should worry about.
  8. Of course there is 0% chance that PEI will give up its 4 seats. Also all provices have a urban vs. rural divide which means geography will matter within provinces too. The only possible system would be a MMC similar to what BC proposed but that was shot down because the people who actually care enough to vote can live with the existing system.
  9. Male circumcision reduces the chances of contracting AIDS.link
  10. The Israelis are really getting unfairly blamed for this one: They had a right to board those ships. They did everything they could humanly do to avoid violence. The blame for the deaths resets entirely with the protesters who sought a violent confrontation.
  11. The paper you linked explicitly states that it cannot do a statistical correlation between CO2 and temperature because the proxies are regional and do not represent global temperatures (I suspect that would not have stopped them if the correlation told the story that the authors wanted). All it has done is look at periods of time where there is strong geographic evidence of wide spread ice as evidence of 'cold' times but when I look at the results I see no consistent relationship between 'cool' periods and CO2. i.e. at times CO2 goes down yet ice disappears. That should not happen if the data is reliable and CO2 is the major driver of temperatures.
  12. May have been true then. Not now. All Mohawk territory falls under the sovereignty of Canada or the US. The only thing the Mohawks have are some special privileges that other citizens of Canada or the US do not have (e.g. the Jay Treaty).
  13. The Quebec language laws are an aberration in Canada and hardly an example to emulate. Teaching Mohawk language and culture to all kids attending reserve schools makes perfect sense. Telling parents they can't send their kids to an off reserve school is gross violation of rights.As for taxes: no taxation without representation. If the Mohawks want to tax non-Mohawk residents then they must offer full democratic rights (to vote and to old office) to all Canadian citizens living on the reserves. That is the price they have to pay for being part of Canada. If they think that having their own citizenship rules is important they will need to set up a truly separate country with no financial support from Canada and customs agents at the border.
  14. Lovely rationalizations. The emails show climate scientists actively conspiring to block sceptical papers and you say they are not damning enough. Like I said, your words are hollow and you seem to be perfectly happy with a corrupt system and have little interest in seeing wrong doers punished. Complaints about this going on have been circulating in the climate science community for years. It is a well known "secret" within the climate science field.Here is the opinion of another climate scientist: You can add that to similar statements by Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Knappenbeger (all published climate scientists).Of course, none of this is enough evidence for you. You need *more* (whatever that means). I find it ironic that you are perfectly happy to imply that sceptical scientists are liers by refusing to accept their complaints as legimate but you blindly accept the excuses of alarmists when they are caught red handed manipulating the system. If you really want to demonstrate a desire to fix the problems with the system then you should acknowledge that secret inquiries controlled by the institutions that are potentially implicated will never uncover the truth. You need to call for a public inquiry with witnesses testifying under oath and facing cross examination. Anything less means you are just making excuses for doing nothing.
  15. I do not agree. The science for the last 30 years has only really looked at factors which they can quantify like CO2 and ignored factors that cannot be easily quantified like cloud cover or land use changes. Again, they are NOT considering all possible factors. They are simply ignoring the ones which cannot be easily quantified and hoping they are right. On top of that the models cannot really explain the change in temperature from 1900-1940. The IPCC models assume the sun did it but the latest solar science says the sun cannot possibly be the explanation for that rise. And you believe them? The problem with CO2 is we do not have the technology to eliminate or even significantly reduce CO2 emissions at a global scale. The most that can be done is move emissions around (e.g. let China and India do all of the emitting while the rest of us buys their products). The fact that the technology does not exist tells me that all anti-CO2 policies will either fail to reduce emissions or reduce emissions by destroying the economy. E&E may be the only unbiased jounrnal out there because it accepts sceptical papers. Wake up. It has been going on for years and there is plently evidence in the CRU emails. Oopps, I forgot. That evidence is not good enough for you. In fact, it is not clear what you would require in terms of evidence but for some reason I suspect you require a level of evidence that would be impossible to obtain. Look in the CRU emails. It is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course I noticed the word 'legitimate' which allows you ignore any evidence of wrong doing by claiming the paper was not 'legitimate' by whatever standards you make up.
  16. Of course they say that but that does not mean it is true. After all - how can they show they did not leave out things that the don't know about or can't quantify? My issue is there are a number of plausible mechanisms (e.g. sun induced cloud cover changes or black carbon aerosols) that could have an effect as large as CO2 which cannot be ruled out. Sure. Just because there was an MWP that does not mean the modern warming was not caused by purple pixies from antares. i.e. the claim is a meaningless truism. The problem is the entire 'nothing else explain it' argument in incredibly weak as far as scientific arguments go and I need a lot stronger evidence before I agree to policies that will cause economic hardship to billions. I don't really care. The arguments are valid no matter what the alarmists think of it. Aside: I don't bother with wikipedia for information on climate change - the articles hopelessly slanted towards the alarmist viewpoint. E&E is a science jounrnal that happens to be sympathetic to sceptic arguments which is why the alarmsists dismiss it.I am surprised you have not figured out the peer review scam yet given the evidence in the CRU emails. Basically alarmists rely on symapthetic editors at jounrnals to keep sceptical papers out or delay their publication until the alarmists can prepare a rebuttal. If an editor or a journal is unwilling to play their game they blackball the journal (e.g. label it a 'trade' journal).
  17. Excellent commentary for laymen on what is wrong with the hockey sticks.
  18. It means something to Michael. In any case, I have never said peer reviewed papers are necessarily wrong. I have only said that it is wrong to refuse to look at analysis simply because it has not been peer reviewed.
  19. Models are useful tools. It is what people do with their outputs is the problem. That not exactly what I said. The argument I made is all proxies have flaws therefore it is not possible to make any claim about whether the MWP is warmer than today or not. My main issue is with people who claim certainty when there is no basis for it. SteveMc analysis is the best summary you will find on the topic. You should note that he has criticized the Loehle paper as well. If you read the IPCC report on attribution of climate change (which I have done) you will find that their argument is basically, our models cannot replicate past temperatures without including CO2 but our models can replicate temps prior to CO2 being a factor. I consider this to be a nonsense argument because it assumes that the models include all possible factors that could affect temperatures. That is why the MWP is relevant - if the MWP was warmer than today then the models cannot replicate it which means the claim that only CO2 can explain the modern warming must be false. Peer reviewed and published in Energy&Environment. Of course, that journal is blacklisted by alarmists because it accepts sceptical papers.
  20. The vikings did not have access to fossil fuels and industrial farming techniques.In any case, the Greenland ice cores show that Greenland was warmer that today. The one question is whether that was a global or local phenomena. Frankly, I find it ironic that climate scientists are more than happy to use a single proxy (ice cores from antarctica) and claim it represents *global* temperatures but when another single proxy says something they don't like they dismiss it by claiming it only measures local temperatures.
  21. Gee. Why don't you provide some evidence that "sceptical scientists" disagree with me instead of simply assuming they do. You will find that many actual scientists have a nuanced view which is similar to mine when they actually write things down in scientific paper. When they use proxies with a strong MWP they are using them to refute the claim that "we know modern temperatures are unusual". They are not making the counter claim that we know the MWP is warmer than today.Here is a good summary of the issues. Here is the most popular sceptical paper. If you read it you will find that they do not actually compare the MWP to current period because they feel that splicing a temperature record onto the end of the proxy reconstruction is misleading because there is no way to calculate the correct scale and offset. They also state that the individual 'wiggles' are not meaningful. The only claim they make is the proxies show that the average temperature can change by 1 degC without any anthropogenic forcing and it is therefore false to claim that the recent 0.7 degC rise must be due to human influence.
  22. Statistics is used to solve many problems in other disciplines. I have uses similar statistics before I even looked into the climate issue. What it means is I don't need to decide which authority I trust - I read the arguments and counter arguments and make my own decision on who is got the better scientific case. In this case, it is clear to me that the alarmist scientists are picking proxies and/or algorithms that will give them the result they want to see and that the data they are using appears to be mostly noise with no coherent 'climate signal'. If I want to be charitable I ascribe their actions to confirmation bias - i.e. they are so convinced that they "know" what the answer is supposed to be that they unconsciously discard any algorithm that does not give them the expected answer.
  23. Semantics. Democracy is one of the building blocks used to make a system of governance - it is not a system of governance on its own. Your argument is basically: a car does not have an engine since a car is made up of things in addition to the engine.
  24. It depends entirely on where you draw the lines. Natives are the majority in many parts of the Canada. In other words, you have no business complaining when the Mohawks are accused of ethnic clensing because that is *exactly* they are doing.
  25. Technically it is: However, I agree the phrase does imply the use of violance which is not going on here and so I could agree if you also agree that whatever bad things happened at residential schools it was not genocide.
  • Create New...