cannuck
-
Posts
2,355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by cannuck
-
-
It is sad indeed to see images of building after building in Gaza being destroyed - often because Hamas has chosen to hide behind the skirts of women and toys of children. It leads me to wonder where the cold hard cash to build a city of 2mm people came from? Best I can find is small industry never employed more than 40k people at any time over last century - agriculture about the same size. Can't see 80k low income jobs support 2mm people. From what I can see Palestine overall but Gaza in particular takes in money from UN agencies, some MENA countries (Qatar mostly) and Iran and produces nothing more than more Gazans and a home for Hamas. The reported 500 truckloads a day of stuff coming in is/was a LOT of money going out, but little evidence of more than a trickle of exports to bring the balance in.
-
4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
Tough question.
We have the most to lose...
We also have the most to gain and furthest to fall
-
Yes, there is very much a new world order where Putin and Xi are at the top of the heap stitched together by Khamenei and Kim. India's pretend democracy is stuck in the middle with no choice but to follow where their oil comes from. Sadly this list includes over half the population of Earth essentially against NATO. The UN has become an ineffective bad joke.
-
23 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
BLOCK IRANIAN PORTS AND STOP THE EXPORT OF OIL. The regime will fall in a massive uprising as it fails to pay its murderous mercenaries.
I would do it a bit differently. I would use .... in fact force banking to intercept the money and give it to Israel and Ukraine. Any trader that facilitated you just take away their banking privileges.
-
Just now, cannuck said:
Ah....sorry but that is EXACTLY what is required - because you know their intent and they might score a hit next time. It is a legitimate defensive response to an attack.
The sad part is that the whole mess goes right back to the Go Brandon administration coming into power and cancelling sanctions on Iran and sending them a few billion reward for being what they are. Just to show you how bad it is: the people who scrap marine vessels are hurting like Hell because of ALL of the old tankers being kept in service as floating storage or back door delivery fleets for Russian and Iranian oil. The Swiss oil trading houses are making billions per month over these clandestine and disguised trades and deliveries. Both Russia and Iran are fighting their wars on megabucks of oil and gas sales and the rest of the world is collectively too stupid and gutless to stop them. Kahmenei LFAO.
-
2 hours ago, I am Groot said:
Just because someone shot at you and missed, that does not suggest you should not shoot back.
Ah....sorry but that is EXACTLY what is required - because you know their intent and they might score a hit next time. It is a legitimate defensive response to an attack.
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
Yes I have, even in the harbour with DFO going by. You've never heard of bilge socks or other measures to deal with oily bilges? We have planes with equipment that can detect a pumped bilge in the middle of the night out here now.
Now I'm thinking of writing a proposal for our local harbour authority that boats come with a legally binding disposal plan for when their owners are done with them. I'm counting on a lot of push back. Maybe even death-threats.
Any idea how many prosecutions have been done over illegal discharge of bilge water? Just curious about jurisdiction and penalties.
On the second part: you win the interwebs today. IMHO one of the reasons we have SO MUCH problem with waste disposal is that hardly anyone pays or puts in place the life cycle costs of products and projects. In the oil business, it is normal that when a well is drilled cash bonding must be put in place to cover the cost of plugging and abandoning that includes re-establishing native vegetation cover. People love to dump on the petroleum industry, but few have a clue what goes on within. I used to live near what was once a massive nickel mine with electrolytic processing. It eventually got sold off to a Brazillian company that couldn't stop laughing at how cheap they bought in. Now that they are facing at least $4Bn in decommissioning costs they have to keep it running hoping tomorrow will never come. Why wasn't that put in place as a condition of original permitting to cover end-of-life costs? In so many cases, the companies are long gone and the cleanup costs will end up on taxpayer's
-
1
-
-
On 4/9/2024 at 9:39 AM, Black Dog said:
And what's killing phytoplankton?
oceanic pollution - led by plastics and including some of the nastiest poisons in UV protectant chemicals in plastics, PFAS, BPA, phthalates - the list just goes on and on. Then add the microplastics into the mess and you now run right down the food chain.
Just now, Michael Hardner said:Yes, so.... Immigration policy has a giant impact and it was also done by the Liberals. Yes. Carbon tax though? No.
People seem to just enjoy arguing unwinnable points today.
I agree: show me any one single thing this "carbon tax" has accomplished to save the planet and control inflation in Canada.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
The carbon tax is a major reason people are homeless? Do you really believe that?
The carbon tax is not doing this. It's unrestrained predatory monopolies, and our whole system.
All of which are supported by the policies, laws and regulations of this country - INCLUDING carbon tax (that exists solely to build yet another bureaucracy to redistribute money from the West to buy Liberal votes. Instead of controlling immigration, the massive campaign to bring anything with a breath into the country in the hopes they will vote for the people who handed them a free pass to Shangri-la we sit by and watch our legacy population suffer the incredible level of inflation in both consumer goods and real estate without a second thought of the consequences.
-
18 hours ago, Black Dog said:
Again: the evidence is the increase in global temperatures corresponds with the increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human activities. What's the alternative explanation for why global temperatures have increased so rapidly?
Problem is: the vast majority of pseudo science is attributing what they would like to see to the wrong cause.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
I see.... Is there a paper I can look at ? I googled and found lots of examples of climate change affecting phytoplankton but not the other way.
I imagine there are more than a few. You could start by contacting Dr. Howard Dryden - the man behind the goes website and a oceanic scientist with academic credentials and professional accomplishments in water treatment far beyond almost any mere mortal. While he stands WAY out in front, he is hardly alone in his understanding of these issues.
-
2 minutes ago, Aristides said:
Once more, simplistically claims the effect and completely ignores (or is ignorant of) the actual cause.
-
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. If not, then what is causing the increased water vapour to trigger temperature rise.
I did explain that, but if you go to the goesfoundation link there is a much better explanation.
-
3 minutes ago, cannuck said:
oops, wrong button
-
14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
Read the link.
You didn't answer my question either, although you seem to think that you did.
Sorry, kind of busy around here and I can easily drop a ball while putting out fires.
Yes, water vapour is increasing - but the simplistic "activists" have the cart before the horse and tend to blame ocean temp rise on CO2 and thus increased water vapour - which is not at all correct. Oceans present about 80% of all evaporation into the troposphere and much of that is controlled by the SML (Surface micro layer) composed of phytoplankton - and it is the kill off of phytoplankton that is primary driver of surface evap rate increase that CONSEQUENTIALLY ocean temperature increases from greater water vapour in troposphere is most likely
dangerous to lean on pseudo science from those who profit from demonizing carbon..
I have not read your link because of how you entitled it....but promise I will do so over next couple days.
-
5 hours ago, blackbird said:
ate in any way? If so you have a erroneous idea of the power of man which is just a speck in the universe.
sorry, cut the "think man can control climate"
Yes, we can and we have. Did it by poisoning the ocean and we can only avoid a genuinely man made catastrophe by STOPPING IMMEDIATELY discharging our "forever chemicals" into that ocean. No "god", santa clause, mohammed or anything else but human intervention is going to fix this. Instead we have let the Euroweenies and who knows who else demonize the oil industry to place blame for what other parts of the chemical industries and totally irresponsible waste management have done.
-
20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
Is water vapour increase? If the experts aren't looking at it, it's probably not a factor.
It is a HUGE factor, and many atmospheric and oceanic surface things contribute to changes in water vapour. The other biggie is of course methane - an extremely large natural emission that is massively contributing to climate change.
Please note your sig line is extremely dishonest. Anthroprogenic CO2 emissions are not the "cause" of climate change, they are a very minor contributor.
-
9 minutes ago, blackbird said:
What was different about the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, from today? Why are we in this crisis now? There must be a reason.
Several things very different. Globalism had not yet arrived so immigration was not the HUGE problem it is today for productive economies. Finance was confined by laws and policies put in place after 1929 crash. The West had a complete industrial economy that wasn't bombed to crap by WWII. People looked at life working towards some financial security vs. today worshipping nothing but greed and consumerism.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:
There are pockets of pogey all over this country.
Welfare, social assistance, or whatever it is called these days is far to easy to get and taking people off is far too cumbersome so, they stay.
Guaranteed government income will be exactly the same. Once on, on for life.
I am assuming you are not an employer. Someone who doesn't want to work nobody in his right mind wants to employ - except of course for governments and heavy union places where those same totally useless tits suck on the teat for life at 5x the cost of GAI.
-
18 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
And you didn't answer if you support guaranteed basic income with no qualifiers?
As I had mentioned in my previous post on this subject: No qualifiers is IMHO the measure of good legislation, but also the end of all of the programmes manipulated to buy votes - and all of the bureaucracies that administer them.
3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:A Guaranteed Annual Income was a central plank in the Conservative platform under Bob Stanfield and Jim Gillies.
Thanks. I had forgotten about that!
-
This is actually a very interesting topic that deserves some serious discussion.
Let me start with the difference between Canada and USA: while we share a huge border and electronically distributed popular culture, there are actually some HUGE real differences. Americans are hard pressed to separate what is business and what is (or at leas IMHO SHOULD be) a social service. Sick care is a good example: the US system costs twice as much as Canadian and delivers overall much poorer results. IMHO (and again MY opinion) how we do legal systems, sick care, health care, pharmaceuticals and some other stuff actually works vs. our far wealthier neighbour to the South. From that perspective, a logical view is that one way or another we WILL be giving virtually every Canadian some sort of income - but instead of approaching it intelligently we will instead hire tens of thousands of VERY expensive bureaucrats and pay them a staggering wage and benefit to have those in need grovel and beg for their attention and money.
Another thing to think of is child care. When our youngest was about 15 or so she asked why we didn't have a fancy cottage at "the lake" as did most of her mortgage heights high school classmates. I replied: "because of your million dollar babysitter". She shot right back that "Dad! I have NEVER had a babysitter in my life" She was an incredibly smart kid and very quickly shot back "Mom would have earned THAT much?" - and of course she easily would have. My wife makes Margaret Thatcher look like Olivia Chow but always brings up that while governments spew constant BS about the value of family care the actual money goes mostly anywhere but into the hands of a full time parent willing to give up outside employment to do a far more important and critical job at home.
Yet another thing to think about is WHO is eligible. I once had the great pleasure and privilege to travel with Sir Roger Douglas - the man who put New Zealand's economy back on its feet when the previous governments had run it into the ground with indiscriminate subsidies to virtually ALL of the wrong things. I once asked him how he could justify the ultra-conservative things he had to do to save his economy with the fact that he was Minister in a Labour government. He said 4 words I think of each and every day as THE model of good legislation, regulation and administration: "We simply removed privilege." He went on to describe how it was a matter of either everyone was eligible to participate or nobody. You see, the purpose of government in most of this world is to dispense privilege - and that I have come to believe is the very worst thing you can do. Oh: not a complete open door, though. If you were not borne in Canada, you should have NO access to such a programme.
So, there you have it: a genuine right wing Conservative who actually supports a GAI (guaranteed annual income) - under the condition that it is the ONLY handout unless you have a medical need that our sick care system doesn't cover. Dump ALL of the federal, provincial and municipal bureaucrats involved in handing out pretty much anything. The GAI level would also be the cutoff for basic personal exemption - and every penny of income above that point will be taxable - once again, for EVERYONE. We no longer will have a parade of millions of "economic opportunists" coming to Canada to bloat our cities and drive real estate costs through the roof - while taking away entry level jobs. We should have I don't know the actual number but hundreds of thousands of former bureaucrats joining the ranks with former CBC employees to actually DO some useful work and make their life valuable TO the country. No more child care handouts. If you want to do he double career and rent out child care thing - that's your problem, not mine. BUT if one wants to stay home and do child care you have been compensated to a living wage to do so. Also: same value for everyone borne and living anywhere in Canada. Why should taxpayers be passed the bill for urbanization? If you want to live in an a-hole factory such as Toronto or Vancouver it should be YOUR problem to pay the way, not mine. De-urbanization IMHO is one key element to restoring a functionally productive and sustainable economy.
To get there it all needs to start with understanding the social programmes are NOT socialism - but they must exist for ANY country to operate and survive, so why not just tackle the issues head on?
-
12 minutes ago, Army Guy said:12 minutes ago, Army Guy said:
I'm starting a go fund me page on this forum, it is going towards the purchase of high quality light wieght aluminum/ titanium/ carbon fiber.... crash helmets/ microwave blocker, alien signals DE amplifiers, chemical gas mask for chemtrails ....
You should know better than to post this in front of a genuine capitalist pig: I can not only make them for you, but our nano-tech scientist today told me he could make really comgy blockers by powdering a regular cotton head cover (like a ski mast, but no insulation) with pure graphene.
I'll PM my Bank of Nigeria account number.
-
2
-
-
to begin with, a sensationalist and ultra-political rag such as The Manchester Guardian is hardly a credible source of ANYTHING. You will note this story blames everything on anthropogenic carbon emissions. If you read about greenhouse gasses carefully you will realize that water vapour and methane are by far the most important GHGs and if you read carefully in the goes foundation link I provided you will see how poisoning of he phytoplankton is far more contributory to water atmospheric water vapour levels than anthro fuel burning (that pales in comparison to natural HC deflagration and decomposition - the latter contributing HUGE amounts of methane).
You need to learn to reasonable pursue the truth instead of just accepting what someone is paid to say has to say.
-
5 minutes ago, Aristides said:
So why don't upper level winds disperse your phantom chemicals the same as they disperse frozen water. What about all those trails made during WW2. Do you think they were busy spreading chemicals while trying to kill each other at the same time. You are incapable of answering the most basic questions. If contrails stick around it's because there is no wind to disperse them.
Just to add a bit of clarity regarding winds aloft: don't confuse what we see as a turbulent interface between surface and wind as you leave the "boundary layer". Winds aloft are simply moving air, turbulence only happens at the interface between two different air masses. So, a contrail (and anything contained within) simply move along their way relatively intact. In WWII, the amount of fuel burned by aircraft was much smaller than what a typical turbine uses today - and enroute altitudes for commercial airliners can be a fair bit higher - so our modern contrails tend to be a lot larger (thus easier to see and last longer). BTW: if you want to see real time winds aloft, atmospheric particle drift, wave action, ocean currents, temps of all of the above there is an excellent website to view: https://earth.nullschool.net/
Canada & NATO
in The Rest of the World
Posted
The Western world (i.e. NATO) has Putin, Xi, Khamenei and Kim - all with or very near full nuclear capability and all led by people a few bricks short of a load. Damn straight we need NATO - just that since the Turd...uh....TRUdeau dynasty has dedicated its every effort into turning or military into some social engineering experiment instead of keeping up and in synch with our allies' defensive technology.