cannuck

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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?

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.

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.

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/

That is the correct question to ask, so I will repeat the very simple answer that those with extremist agenda on both sides continually ignore: Because by far the largest sink of carbon on this planet is the ocean - not rain forests, not Arctic swamps, etc. The frigging HUGE thing out there we call not only the saline oceans but also he freshwater inland seas. What we have managed to do from throwing all of our garbage into waterways is poison about a quarter of all of the phytoplankton in global waters. One single class (diatoms) are responsible for the release of 40%+ of all oxygen on this planet. As we kill plankton off we remove the absorption of carbon resulting in not only more carbon in the atmosphere but lower pH in waterways and water bodies. For the few who would like to learn and understand instead of mindlessly spewing a bunch of political agendae buzzwords and phrases, I will, as usual, provide a link to a genuinely authoratative science-based source: https://goesfoundation.com/ One of my responsibilities in business is to be the bad guy in assessing the technical validity of claims or concepts, and without writing a dozen pages about it: the whole direction of most of what we see from governments and "scientists" about our environment fails even THE most basic litmus tests. The whole mess conveniently ignores the fundamental facts that our list of problems (and indeed there are many) are topped by 2 things that nobody seems to have the brains or balls to understand and deal with: Poisoning of our oceans and unsustainable population.

My wife normally abhors bad language and violence - but is totally addicted to Yellowstone. They have managed to get their finger on the pulse of a significant chunk of the population, so I would conclude they are doing something right. I have a business in Wyoming and can tell you the "Dutton" cultural profile fits the majority of the rural and small town population to a "T". I put it right up there in a class of culturally significant television with Peaky Blinders.

Could not agree with you more.

And you don't think what the Liberals have done and are doing to our former national defense ISN'T "political"???????? I wonder who outbribed Bombardier to get the training contracts?

IIRC all that was contracted out was primary training. Might even have made sense to weed out the wannabees and incompetents flying toy airplanes instead of polluting the ranks with that process. What we are seeing now is continuation of the Big Turd's campaign to de-militarize the military and make them into a "peace keeping" entity with the sole task of delivering social engineering goals of Liberalism. I can so well remember a time (IIRC '69) when "people from Ottawa" came onto our base and interviewed every francophone NCO - offering them a guaranteed commission if they wanted to "get with the programme" (if you ever wondered why there seems to be a disproportionate number of officers from Quebec - that is where it started). The goal was to make the armed forces express Big Turd's "just society" - in other words effectively destroy pretty much everything in Canada, leaving us just with his society. The other thing civvies probably don't realize is that the armed forces and its procurement policies are little different from the rest of Canadian civil services - i.e. how the Feds tap the $$$$ of the rest of Canada to prop up Quebec. The Little Turd is just following in at least one of his Daddy's footsteps (which Daddy remains to be seen).

thanks, but it was very much a 2 person deal, and I was the student, not the master

We have 2 girls who raced karts and cars with me when growing up. Probably my most proud moment was when our eldest scored her first FTD (fastest time of the day) on a solo2 event driving a kart we designed and built from scratch. I am sure that is how Sgt P felt when his girls hit the range.

In my early years raised on military bases, my Father made it clear that I did not get access to weapons until being properly trained. One of his closest friends happened an ex BEI expeditionary forces Sgt who was a multi-year Bisley competitor (and I believe winner). Said fellow also had 3 girls - two a bit older than myself and one my age (IIRC about 10 at the time). Each one of those girls could crack off 98-100 scores all day long and sure put the little boys (and more than a few men) in their place.

While I don't particularly think we need to be armed for protection against government the way Americans are, I can not help but notice in our Wyoming business we have property scattered all over in remote places that would be impossible to "make secure" from theft and vandalism. Yet over the last 40 years I can only remember a couple incidents of minor theft ever occurring. One can not help but notice that EVERY pickup has a rifle or two in the back window, and a large portion of the population carries handguns. Would be thieves know this and realize that people seriously believe in protecting their families, homes, properties and neighbours. I am always amused that most people think incarceration is some kind of punishment for criminals. I have learned that there are 3 kinds of people in jail: those who didn't think that what they were doing was criminal; those who feel safer "inside" (not a big percentage, but a definite group); and those who consider their time inside part of their career. This is where they broaden the network of criminal associates and learn many of the skills of the trade. That is why there needs to be some kind of consequence in the unlikely event you are ever caught being a criminal in this country - not rewarded by career advancement. The risk of a bullet in the brain from your victims can be an effective deterrent.

What stunned us was how a country 34 trillion in debt can tolerate some fool standing up in front of them and throwing trillions more of blatant vote buying out with no apparent consequences. Thought it ironic that Ukraine was his opening gambit - while I fully realize and agree that Putin MUST be stopped and Ukraine is the place and people that must make the sacrifice to do so, strange none of the babbling, nodding media heads remember the $10mm in his family bank accounts to buy that privilege from the Americans. Brandon bragging about NATO unity when the only person to bring them to start paying their way was "his predecessor" or whatever SloJoe was calling Trump. Yeah, he sure lied about the economy and the border - but knowing what I do about his political opponent

Yup, have to agree with that. I have been privy to a number of investigations, and remember only too well when modern technology revealed that a fair number of convicted killers were NOT the killers made out to be. Not just the Little Turd and his ilk, but human nature within LEO community. Once a theory takes hold pretty much any evidence that doesn't support the generally accepted premise is conveniently ignored. That kind of confirmation bias is simply not acceptable but IS very much how people go to jail. Not suggesting the cops and crown are always wrong, but experience should have taught us they are wrong a fair bit of time and biased all to Hell on carrying out their mission. Now, should a criminal meet an untimely end in commission of his or her crimes - at the hands of victims, bystanders or LEOs I think those responsible should be given a slap on the wrist, no more. We need open season on criminals, not victims.

I agree Harper's government (you might have noticed there was more than one person in cabinet) made a bit of an attempt, but since they didn't tube the CBC and play politics with any great skill they didn't get re-elected - leaving us with a fate far worse than death itself (although it certainly does look like the death of the Canada I once loved).

Canadians don't mind when OTHER people get shot. If that wasn't the case, we would not tolerate criminality becoming one of the safest and most well rewarded careers for an ambitious person. Instead of disarming the criminals we disarm their victims. BTW: I have as yet to see ANY political party do diddly squat about addressing any real problems when in power.

I have dealt with Mulroney on the campaign trail, and strongly disagreed with much of his politics. He was not what I consider a conservative, just another opportunistic, corrupt, Quebec Liberal lawyer - as his whole end game with Airbus revealed. Maybe a great Quebecer, but NOT a great Canadian.

That's where you have it very wrong. I want to pay a fair market value as I value the resources and work that went into producing something. If I continue to reward better design, better quality, better management with a premium I will be doing my tiny little bit within a market economy to reward better things with full expectation for those better things to remain available. I am not going to throw my family into a single engine airplane and head off into an Arctic night counting on some volunteer's design, construction, oversight and maintenance of airframe, engine, prop and avionics. I want to have paid a premium to get premium product and performance in hopes of getting to the other end of the trip alive.

GO BRANDON!!!!