Moonbox

The Russians weren't terribly concerned with the Canadian Navy. They were more concerned with intelligence the anglo world has been gathering on the Russians themselves. From what's been disclosed, it seems like quite a bit of intelligence (American, British, Australian etc) was leaked to the Russians, which is a catastrophic breach in terms of how it affects our reputation with our allies. Unless we can somehow ensure them that this was a freak occurence, the Americans are going to treat us like incompetents and won't share any of their intelligence with us. This clown needs to be made an example of. $3000 a month to betray your country and cause possibly immeasurable damage is enough for a bullet in the head in most other parts of the world. At best, this guy should be locked up for life with a bunch of 'bears' somewhere nasty.

A research report is best prepared by a grad from the related field of research. A history grad has no advantage over any other liberal arts major in this regard. They're all highly trained in reading and footnoting, which has extremely limited applications in the real working world. The coffee shops near work here are full of history and geography majors. They make great barristas. If I want to present a report on 12th century Byzantium, sure, I'll hire a history grad. If I want to present a report on trans-fats, that history grad would probably be the last person I'd look at.

Germany relies on coal for their energy. It accounts for probably 40-50% of their electricity generation. As they shut down nuclear plants, they'll be replacing it with clean, yet inefficient and expensive renewables and also a lot more coal. It seems pretty counter-productive, but I don't live there so w/e.

Deflection? Really?!? YOU are criticizing someone for deflection!?!? :lol:

I can buy drone aircraft at Future Shop. What's your point? Hezbollah's drones are garbage and get shot down.

Tim no offense but that's pretty broken logic. That type of argument doesn't hold any water and you're best off abandoning it.

Nobody is questioning the oil industry's interest in continuing the status quo, so everything you just wrote there is just a big red herring. All people are saying is that the insurance industry has the exact same sort of bias, but in the opposite direction. Given that the IPCC has concluded that climate related disasters have not been on the rise over the last few decades, the fact that Munich Re has concluded they have is interesting, albeit unsurprising.

As far as Syrian rebels are concerned, Iran is already terrorizing them. By supplying Assad with weapons etc they believe Iran is directly involved in the murder of Syrian people. They also know that the Iranian army would be pounded into the ground the minute they crossed the Syrian border.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

The 'attack' on Turkey was pretty tame as far as attacks go and certainly doesn't justify mobilization for war. The conflict, however, is spilling out of hand, and NATO has a member on the conflict's border. I think this is Turkey's ball game and whatever action they decide is necessary (short of annexation or carpet bombings etc) should be supported.

Do you realize how dumb this sounds? How is an energy's company concern with their bottom line any different than Munich Re's concern for its bottom line? An energy company wants to poo-poo the threat of climate change to ensure people keep burning fossil fuels, and an insurance company wants to exaggerate it as an excuse to hike premiums. Besides, didn't we already show you the IPCC's conclusion that extreme weather events were NOT on the rise???

I think papa Pierre was the worst PM Canada's ever had, but his son has taken steps already to acknowledge his father's failings. People have already started tearing him up after a few speeches, but let's wait and see what his policies are. He doesn't have to be brilliant for me to consider him. He just has to REALLY not be like his dad.

Check out the "Climate scientists keep getting it wrong" thread. It's a common theme for him.

Out of curiosity, could you please tell us what your background is in science?

You see through VERY little, and you've offered little more than childish 'denier-world' for most of the thread. Yeah you mine these 'experts' and come up with some real 'gems'. From this we can either assume that these 'experts' aren't really experts at all, or you can't understand anything they're saying. Remember our medieval history talk? A few pages ago I believe you were offered several citations, from both the IPCC and the US Hurricane Centre, showing that atmosphere related disasters have NOT been on the rise, yet you still insisted that they were. Ever heard the term, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."? You may be able to mine your relatives and associates for information, or google search, but you've show an alarming inability to unravel what any of the information means for any practical considerations. You are, however, great entertainment. Call me arrogant if you want. I make no effort to disguise my contempt for your flailing, child-like arguments. Denier-world...denier-world...denier-world. Keep saying it.

That really only proves that whoever's answering polls on CBC (or Maclean's or whatever) doesn't have a clue what Trudeau was really about. We're still paying for the debt he accumulated to finance his legend. His grandchildren will still be paying it. He did more harm to this country than any PM in Canadian history. The author of the article in question is also not exactly a right-wing hack. I've read some of his other stuff and one of his books describes the time he spent with the freedom fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation as well as on the borders of Kashmir with Pakistani military. He's deeply anti-imperialistic and has a beef with autocracy, thuggery and bullying.

Does anyone else think wyly is starting to sound like a broken record? Denier-world, denier-world, denier-world...it's funny because it's pretty clear he doesn't even understand what other people are arguing about. It's just denier-world...denier-world... I'm waiting for him to come out and tell us his nephew is a top climate scientist at the IPCC now. I'm surprised that hasn't come out yet!

In wyly/waldoworld it does!

I'm not arguing the physics behind the phenomenon, although I think it's a far more complicated relationship than some simple minds like to believe and recent data hasn't really confirmed it. I'm arguing that any measurement of the monetary impact of disasters caused by the temperature increase can't be measured accurately. It seems that you, at least, acknowledge that.

LoL! Nice try! I didn't say/imply anything of the sort. Increased energy =/ automatically mean increased hurricanes, and it seems the IPCC agrees. Sorry! Chalk up another critical failure in reasoning for the waldo/wyly tag team! I couldn't care less about who he is. I'm more concerned with the IPCC's findings. I suppose they're not credible either when they don't agree with you?

Isn't that what I just said to you? Yeah. It was. Nice kindergarten response. NO YOU! Put reading comprehension on the list of your disabilities too, because that's not what I said at all. I said that nobody can accurately measure what the % of atmosphere related disasters can be blamed on CO2 emissions. I'm still waiting for someone to prove that they can. In any case, TimG gave us a nifty link early which summarized the findings of: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change" from Chapter 4 of the IPCC's own report, which is linked on that site as well. You ignored that along with my link showing hurricanes in the USA have decreased in frequency and severity over the last 100 years (despite increased Co2), so clearly there's more to the picture than the simple scenario you desperately need to believe. This wasn't even what I was arguing though. I wasn't arguing that it wasn't happening, I was arguing that nobody is able to accurately measure how much we're responsible for it and how much is just natural weather trends. Once again, I'll invite you to show us otherwise or tuck your tail between your legs and take off.

Instead of spazzing and wetting your bed, how about you take a deep breath and read back my last half-dozen or so posts. It's idiotic on the most fundamental level to ask for someone to prove that something doesn't exist or that something hasn't happened. I'll let that sink in for a minute or two and maybe you'll realize how pathetic your statement is. No wonder you and waldo are on the same side of this debate. Both of you are good at reading a little bit on a subject and then spazzing out on the forums, but neither of you can follow simple logical principles and maintain a rational line of thought. Until someone can show me that climate scientists have been able to accurately, consistently and reliably measure what I've claimed they cannot, my point will stand. It's much like my saying "Aliens don't exist". I don't need to prove/cite that they don't exist. The statement stands until someone's proven the existence of an alien. I know it really sucks to have the whole 'citation please' mechanism used against you, but you guys are the last people who should be calling anyone hypocrites until you put your money where your whiney little mouths are.

This is the type of statement that requires citations. Show us please where the insurance companies have been able to accurately measure how CO2 emissions have correlated with atmosphere related natural disaster damages. There are two problems with this. First, climate scientists haven't seemed to be able to reliably predict increases/decreases in temperature aside from longer term general trends. Second, the information on atmosphere-related catastrophes in the 60's, 70's and even 80's was poorly documented in the developing world, so making comparisons to today is difficult. In any case, here's an interesting tidbit: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml It seems that the frequency and severity of hurricanes striking the USA has been significantly lower over the last couple of decades than it was in the 1900-1960 periods.

This is getting funnier and funnier. You still don't understand!!! The bold statement I made basically says, "Climate scientists cannot measure which % of climate related disasters are caused by man-made climate change." In other words I say, "Man lacks the ability to accurately measure..." This is a statement of something not existing, or something not having happened. It cannot be proven by citation. It's not a matter of me not wanting to cite something. It's a matter of the logical impossibility of proving that something doesn't exist. The only thing that can be firmly proven is its existence. For most people, asking for a citation is just that. For you, it's more like a crutch. Since you have trouble wrapping your head around a simple back and forth argument, you hide behind your citation requests and your insults. Sure, you obviously read about a lot about this stuff, but unfortunately you lack the ability to take this knowledge and form it into a coherent set of arguments. We're not looking for the costs associated with climate change. We're looking what % of natural climate related disasters (ie. drought, flood, hurricane, typhoon etc...) are attributable to man-made emissions. If you have some proof showing that someone anywhere has been able to accurately or reliably measure this sort of thing, please put it forward, otherwise my claim can stand. Here's a few more bold assertions I'm going to make: Santa isn't real. Crab People don't live at the bottom of the ocean. Irradiating yourself won't give you super powers. You want citations?

No. With the industrialization of the developing world, emissions are going to accelerate. That's why it's so critically important to be researching an alternative to fossil fuels. Instead we're wasting monumental amounts of money on idiotic endeavors like bio-fuels, immature solar technology and doomed-to-failure climate treaties.