blackbird
-
Posts
7,831 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
Yet we regularly hear Trudeau and others say it had no impact on the election overall. What a disgusting point of view.
They have no respect for the democratic rights of Canadians.
I thought the motto was every vote counts.
If one particular candidate is defeated because of Chinese Communist Party interference that is a very serious matter. It means Canada's electoral system has been undermined and Canadians cannot trust the system.
It is possible that a number of candidates lost because of foreign interference. This could have a serious impact on important close votes in the House of Commons. So yes it could have a serious impact on the overall outcome of an election.
The spy agency and government authorities responsible for overseeing the election for fairness are not doing their job properly.
The question is what should be done now?
-
2
-
-
34 minutes ago, Black Dog said:
A belief you have admitted isn't based on any science or data,
Really? What I said is based on data available on the internet through search engines. The simple facts are on various websites. The total amount of CO2 man emits is a tiny fraction of the amount of natural greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That is a well known fact. You can do some searching and find the figures yourself.
Another fact is the amount of CO2 mankind emits is known. Canada emits 1.5% of the mankind's total emissions. You can easily verify that on the internet yourself.
These simple fact lead me to the opinion:
1. Mankind is not emitting enough greenhouse gas in the form of fossil emissions to have any real effect on global warming or climate change. That is an opinion only.
2. Canada's emissions of 1.5% of mankind's is miniscule and no matter what Canada does, it is unlikely to have any impact on mankind's total emissions. Therefore we are wasting our resources, energy, and time on "fighting pollution" as Trudeau claims.
Instead of insulting people on here, you need to grow up and converse in a sane manner.
-
There is no empirical science that proves man is causing global warming or climate change. It is all supposition, hearsay, or speculation, which is not science.
-
27 minutes ago, Black Dog said:
A belief you have admitted isn't based on any science or data, just a worthless and ill-informed opinion.
Since you are so well-informed, what is the underlying scientific proof that man is causing climate change? Or where is the proof the minute amount of man-made CO2 is causing global warming?
I have not seen it. Speculation is not proof. Neither are the rantings of Greta Thunberg, Trudeau, or any politician.
-
1 hour ago, herbie said:
6 decades of reading and studying with my eyes open is not brainwashing, Listening to what someone SAYS the contents of one book means without thinking yourself is brainwashing.
You don't know the difference between apples and oranges, i.e. you don't know the difference between right and wrong. An orderly, law-abiding society has to have the foundation of the God of the Bible, that is, Jesus Christ. Without that you have nothing except anarchy.
You say you have read and studied for six decades, but the question is what have you read and studied? It sure wasn't the Bible or anything from it.
-
35 minutes ago, cannuck said:
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.
I can agree partially with you that we should not be dumping chemicals or plastics into the ocean. I see on television sometimes people trying to clean up huge messages of garbage on the beaches. All that garbage should not be there in the first place. But I don't see the environmentalists making much of a fuss over that. They are busy trying to stop the oil and gas industry and forest industry.
You are mistaken about God. Islam does not believe in the true God of the Bible. You would have to study the Bible to learn about that. It is not something which I can comment on that you would believe. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God (the Bible, in English the King James Version). There is lots of proof in the Bible. The fact that eye witnesses saw Jesus Christ after he rose from the dead is real proof.
-
4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
And CO2 and Greenhouse gasses caused that too.
Almost all the CO2, water vapour, and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are normal and nothing to do with man. As I said many times, man contributes a miniscule amount of CO2 which is not going to make any difference to anything except our wallets.
-
52 minutes ago, herbie said:
This adoration for what things used to be, the worship of nationalism and church and "order" are by definition fascist ideals, not normal 'conservative ones'.
You have been brainwashed by the left and Marxists into believing patriotism, God, the Bible, and church are "fascist". Far from it. Those things are normal, traditional family values that produce a good society and more happiness.
You need to start reading the Bible, especially the New Testament, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior while you still have time. Nobody knows the hour or day of our death. Now is the day, now is the time of salvation.
-
3 hours ago, Aristides said:
You are the one who is denying basic science and pretending humans bear no responsibility. Stop blaming everything on God.
The problem is you think man is responsible for everything that happens in nature, which is false. Man is not responsible for climate change and man cannot control the climate. You have to trust God for some things like what is happening in nature and things you cannot control. People that don't believe in God and trust Him are in a panic and think they can do God's job. It is ridiculous. Read the Bible and believe what God says. Then you can stop worrying about such things as the climate and CO2 emissions.
-
39 minutes ago, Aristides said:
You are the one who is denying basic science and pretending humans bear no responsibility. Stop blaming everything on God.
Never blamed anything on God. Just telling you some things are in God's hands, not man's. Man cannot control the climate. It is narcissism to believe man had the power to control the climate. You hide behind the claim it is science when there is no proof that man is causing climate change or global warming. By the same token, man is not causing climate change. You believe the big lie, not me.
-
1 minute ago, cannuck said:
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 agree immigration and illegal migrants is a major part of the problem. But the Liberals bow to the U.N. which dictates that we shall not stop immigrants from coming or illegal migrants. They dictate that Canada is not a nation state but as reportedly it was said we are a post-national state. Our governments don't even control our own country any more.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
Nothing has been doled out or spent and won't be until after the budget has been tabled, discussed, voted on and passed by Parliament. Following the process IOW.
You must believe Canada has been an authoritarian Marxist dictatorship since Confederation because we've always used the same process.
It is getting far worse now and moving toward Chinada. We are led by Manchurian elites.
You say it is voted on by Parliament, but the government is not even supported by a majority of Canadians. How is that democracy? Trudeau and his clique determine they will spend billions or tens of billions of dollars on and everyone else in their party is whipped to support it. They dare not oppose anything or there will be punishment. That's how it works. The rest of the MPs really have no control over it. It is predetermined.
Just to give you an example of how undemocratic the system has become:
We are now controlled to a large extent by the U.N.
The government bows to the dictates of the U.N. which is run by 200 countries most of whom are undemocratic dictatorships.
They dictated we must adopt UNDRIP and the governments have been bowing to that dictate in Canada. Trudeau bows to the dictates of the U.N. and sends billions of dollars of our money all over the world for various causes. That is not democracy.
-
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
This was conservatism from the Golden era that the populist pines for.
Think about that for a second.
I thought about that just now and realize Pierre Trudeau drove Canada into the deepest debt in its history. Then Mulroney and Chretien had to dig it out of debt.
Politics is far more complex than you think. Socialism drags Canada into deep debt. PP is begging Trudeau to show some restraint, but Trudeau is not listening. Liberals like the idea of making big promises, spending billions of dollars, and then losing an election and letting the Conservatives have to cut back, exercise restraint to reduce the debt and look like the bad guys. Then the Liberals can make big promises to spend again and get re-elected. It is a cycle.
It sounds like conservatism of the past was not very conservative. But Liberals have run the country for most of Canada's history. Conservatives were not much different than liberals in the past were they? So the problem must be something else that has led to all the economic chaos today. What is the problem? It must have to do with government actions.
You say it was a Golden era. Well in some ways it was. Ordinary working people could afford to buy homes. What has changed???? Why not now?? Government has done something to change society and driven the cost of homes out of sight which is criminal. The ordinary people don't control the country; governments do at all levels. They have deprived tens of millions of Canadians from owning a home and even paying the rent.
What was different about the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, from today? Why are we in this crisis now? There must be a reason.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Aristides said:
You say it is a complex thing and at the same time try to reduce it to fit your own simplistic views.
You do exactly that yourself. Yet you think I am wrong and you are right. That hypocrisy.
How the atmosphere works and how it is heated is extremely complex and I don't claim to know a lot about it. Neither should you be claiming to know all the answers.
Let God control how the world turns and how the earth is heated. Don't pretend that man knows all about it and can control the earth's climate. That is like building the tower of babel to heaven. You think you can build a tower to heaven? Maybe you think you can.
You think man can control the climate in any way? If so you have a erroneous idea of the power of man which is just a speck in the universe.
Better get down on your knees and pray for some humility. We all need more humility and learn to respect things that are beyond man to know about and control. Man cannot do everything as some people seem to think.
-
22 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
A Guaranteed Annual Income was a central plank in the Conservative platform under Bob Stanfield and Jim Gillies.
That's because they were not conservatives, but were Socialists masquerading under the banner of being progressive.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
You didn't answer if it's increasing. CO2 is.
Water vapour is believed to be a major greenhouse gas and the amount of it in the atmosphere varies widely.
There are assumptions made about a lot of things. But assumptions or suppositions are not proof. Assumptions are not solid science and have often been proven wrong.
Why would anyone grab onto man-made CO2 and say that is the cause of excessive global warming or excessive climate change when there is no way to prove it? The amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule compared with the natural CO2 and also miniscule compared with the massive amounts of water vapour.
Obviously greenhouse gases are made up of a number of things. Atmospheric temperature is a complex thing that cannot be simply said to be caused by fossil CO2 that man releases. That is a huge over simplification that has not and can not be proven. There are also other things that affect earth's temperature and climate besides the greenhouse effect. The radiation from the sun and space also affects temperature and varies. The centre of the earth is molten hot and would radiate energy also up through the earth. Geo thermal heating and cooling systems utilize the heat in the earth. Those things could all be affecting how the climate changes over long periods of time.
-
1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
We can’t wiggle out of our responsibilities just because we are one of those ones. It all adds up.
We only emit 1.5% of the mankind's emissions. But we are punished for it while the other 200 countries don't pay carbon taxes. Why punish Canadians? It will make no difference to climate change. You are living in a dream world if you think Canada's 1.5% will make any difference to global warming.
1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:In addition, our output PER PERSON is far greater than the vast majority of people in the world.
That means nothing. We have a small population compared with many other countries.
We live in a very large geographic area and many people must travel great distances. Our country is also in a colder climate than many countries and we must use more energy to heat our homes. Of course we use more fossil fuels because of our area and northern climate.
Our total emissions are still only 1.5% from a very large geographical area. If you want to look at it that way, then what about our number of square kilometers? Our emissions per square kilometer are far less than the emissions from many other countries per square kilometer.
And what about the fact China's emissions are about 33% of the world's emissions and they are not likely going to reduce emissions. So we are wasting our money on carbon taxes and various other "green" regulations on industry, cars, etc. China will continue to emit a large amount of CO2 as will the rest of the world. Stop punishing your fellow Canadians for nothing.
Carbon taxes and other measures will not stop climate change.
1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:So all the science on this is wrong?
Science has been often wrong through history. Man-made climate change is only speculation. That is not science. Science has not proven man is causing climate change. If you know of the proof, let's see it.
You give examples of climate change. I don't disagree because climate change is normal. It has always occurred. The fact that the climate change is occurring is not proof that man is causing it. You are seriously in error if you think that is some kind of proof that man is causing it. It is natural.
The climate alarmism is more politics than science. The people that push it like Al Gore, the U.N., Greta Thunberg are not scientists, but they sure make a lot of noise.
Of course the earth is warming. It would warm anyway because that is what climate change does. It is normal. Learn to adapt to it, not tax Canadians.
-
13 minutes ago, herbie said:
Announcing things before the Budget is tabled is authoritarian to you? Or do you not know how thing work?
When 2.4 billion dollars is doled out without debate or following the process, we know it is a dictatorship. No more pretending to follow a democratic process. It doesn't exist. The Liberal and NDP MPs know they have no choice but to approve whatever Trudeau says.
Voters have little or no say on how billions of dollars will be spent and on what.
-
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
Is water vapour increase? If the experts aren't looking at it, it's probably not a factor.
Really? I thought you knew some of the basic causes of global warming. One would think you knew water vapour was a major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. But you say "it's probably not a factor"????
If you do find some websites mentioning water vapour, you will find it is by far the biggest cause of global warming. The amount of water vapour far exceeds the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and human emitted CO2 is negligible compared with natural CO2 and water vapoour. Water vapour is what produces the clouds, precipitation and humidity in the air. So yes, if they are being honest, the experts will admit water vapour is a major factor.
-
Trudeau just announced 2.4 billion dollars to invest in AI or artificial intelligence. How is Trudeau able to blow billions of dollars of taxpayer money every day or week without it being duly debated and approved by Parliament? What kind of democracy is that where, one individual, the PM can spend that kind of money without the express approval of the people's representatives?
If anyone wants some proof that we live in an authoritarian Marxist dictatorship, there it is. When are we going to start calling each other comrade and admit there is no democracy but a dictatorship ruling by decree.
-
Why is it so hard to find how much greenhouse gas including water vapour is in the atmosphere? When I do a search, I find all kinds of websites that talk about man-made CO2 but not water vapour. Water vapour is by far the biggest greenhouse gas and contributor to global warming. But is seems very difficult or impossible to find the facts about natural greenhouse gases including water vapour. They don't appear to want to talk about that. They prefer to focus on man-made CO2.
Greta Thunberg was arrested twice this weekend for being part of protests that are blocking a highway. She obstinately keeps going back to illegally blocking the highway. She insists there is an emergency. I guess we must all stop driving, going to work, and stop living.
Is there some kind of guilt complex in the world that automatically points the finger at mankind for global warming or am I just imagining it?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
Two other things to consider. Most countries have contributed less than the West has to the excess gases up there already and Canada’s per capita production is enormous.
I believe there are around 200 countries in the world. A small number produce most of the man-made CO2. Canada only produces 1.5 % of the man-made CO2, which is insignificant. Most countries do not punish their citizens with punishing carbon taxes as Trudeau and the Liberal/NDP coalition does. The carbon taxes are already fairly high and will approximately double by 2030 if Trudeau gets his wish.
The U.S.A, China, and Russia do not punish their people with carbon taxes. Since Canada only emits 1.5% why are we paying the price for the world's CO2 emissions in that way? It just doesn't make sense.
Perhaps Trudeau is trying to make himself look good with the U.N. in hopes of getting a good position after he leaves office as PM.
All the carbon taxes in the world on Canadians will not reduce that 1.5% significantly.
Why do the climate change alarmists and all the websites making much of man-made CO2 never mention water vapour. Water vapour is by far the largest greenhouse gas.
Man's total contribution to greenhouse gas total in the atmosphere is very miniscule. I don't believe all the hype about it.
Too many people have their shirt in a knot over man-made CO2. I think one day mankind will look back and think those people were nuts.
-
1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:
Therein lies the real problem. Who is "legitimately unable to work"?
How about a person having to produce a medical certificate from a committee of three doctors who are guided by strict law and replaced or rotated regularly and approved by a government body. One would have to be certified by a real medical condition that prevented one from working.
For those with mental problems, amend the Charter of Rights and re-open mental institutions and put them there. That would eliminate a lot of crime.
-
Scotland's new hate crime law is overwhelming the police services with thousands of complaints of hate crimes.
quote
Oh dear. As the furore around Scotland’s Hate Crime Act extends into its sixth day, there are now fears about police spending as the force looks set to struggle with the sheer volume of complaints. The Scottish Police Federation has said that, since the Act was implemented on Monday, 40 officers a day have been required to work overtime to help tackle reports. With officers being paid time and a third for working extra hours, there are concerns about overstretching the Police Scotland budget. What a mess…
Over 3,000 hate crime complaints were submitted in the first 24 hours of the Act and the Scottish Tories have predicted that at this rate, over 1 million reports could be made in the first year of the new law – though Mr S rather doubts the rate of complaints will continue at the same pace.
A major issue with the new law is that while Police Scotland said last month that it would not investigate certain minor crimes any longer, the force is having to look at every single report made under Humza Yousaf’s Hate Crime Act. Police training has been rather disorganised, prompting fears that an already overstretched and under-resourced force will reach ‘breaking point’, in the words of SPF general secretary David Kennedy, who warned that the new law ‘has just piled on the pressure’.
The Scottish government has so far continued to support the controversial new law, while other parties have made some subtle u-turns. Though she voted in favour of it initially, Alba’s Ash Regan is now calling for the law to be repealed while Labour’s Anas Sarwar says he would amend the Act if he was first minister. Will Yousaf now concede that his hate law has thrown the country into chaos? Don’t count on it… unquote
Total fossil emissions in the world is only 0.1% to 0.2% of total greenhouse gases
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Studies that have no underlying empirical proof are not scientific proof.
Studies citing other studies that have no proof are not proof either.
Repeating the same thing over 435 times doesn't prove anything.