ReeferMadness

Oh? Let's play back Tim's exact words for the audience. You've claimed that none of the people who think C02 is a problem are engineers or economists? So, are you still claiming this or not? Oh, so that's the way you think it should work. You pull shit out of your ass with absolutely nothing to back you up. And we're supposed to run around the internet finding evidence of the reverse?

Do you always take your mistakes and accuse people around you of making them? I've made no claims at all - I'm simply questioning your calculations. The fact that the single largest store of ice is melting at all should alarm everyone. Climate is a chaotic system - do you have any reason to believe that melting will continue at a steady state?

I'm doing nothing of the sort. You've claimed that none of the people who think C02 is a problem have expertise in Engineering and Economics. I'm asking how you came to that conclusion. Did you personally interview all of the engineers and economists? Did you read something that made this ridiculous claim? Oh, look. Now, you've changed your tune. Originally, you claimed that only theoretical scientists think that C02 is a problem. Now you're saying that the majority of engineers think the only viable fixes to this problem (which, according to you, engineers don't think exists) are nuclear, big hydro and natural gas. One thing hasn't changed though - still nothing to back up your claims. Do you have any actual evidence of your claim that most engineers believe only in these solutions??? Come on, at least try to back up one of your claims. Go for it - you can do it! And if it were to be that most engineers support these technologies, could it be that most engineers are employed by private sector firms that benefit from those same, earth-destroying technologies? I've never said that only the concerns of theoretical scientists should be addressed. It's you who are making up the straw man.

Yes, assuming that the ice melted at a uniform rate. Is that what you think would happen? The last ice cube melts at the same rate as the first glacier? I have to say that your vast store of engineering expertise isn't looking that impressive.

What you've said is that none of the people who think C02 is a problem have expertise in Engineering and Economics. So, I'm asking you to back that up. If you can't, you're just making shit up. Not that that would shock anyone who's read the nonsense you've written before. And don't ask me to do research to disprove your fatuous claim - you said it - back it up. You're suspicions of what I think are only mildly amusing and completely irrelevant.

That's quite an extravagant claim. I'm sure you must have done some research to back up your contention that nobody who thinks C02 is a problem has any expertise in engineering or economics. Please share it with us.

Well, get going then. I'm sure a few others around here would like to join you.

So, there's an analogy that would be not completely asinine if you could just find a few thousand internationally acclaimed experts who would vouch for your claims. Or are you telling us that you think we should treat crackpots on the internet the same as a panel of experts in their respective fields? Tell you what. Issue a retraction and I'll agree not to send your threat on eyeball's life to the RCMP. I'm sure they wouldn't need mad hacking skills to find your IP address.

People who argue that we can keep on changing the chemistry of our one and only atmosphere until the science is "settled" should be willing to volunteer to be strapped into a rocket and fired into a black hole. You might not die because our understanding of black holes is highly theoretical - the science isn't settled yet. Who would like to go first?

And the NFL is financed by American taxpayers. I'm sure this is somehow relevant - perhaps you could help us figure out what point it is you're trying to make.

And what of the $10 billion dollar NFL supported by taxpayer and ticket sales alike? You can punch your wife out and after a suspension of a couple of games, carry on like it never happened. This happened at the CBC - but don't think for a second it is limited to the CBC.

Well put. Where are all those "law and order" Conservatives now?

Factor so prominently in what, exactly? Spit it out.

I mean to say you should study up on the crusades.

I didn't say it was always the case, I said it created the breeding ground. Humans are tribal by nature and religion is a creator of large tribes. Whenever there is a dispute (and most often disputes have some economic element), the fights start. And tribal belongings provide a natural fault line. Every belief system has its extremists - and those extremists can be drawn from the rich as well as the poor. However, it usually takes some strong motivating force (like, say, imminent starvation) to drive the moderate masses to listen to the extremists. Major religions teach peace and tolerance but in any religion you can find the fundamentalists who will discover the passages that meet their needs.

Clearly it's you that don't read your own cites. Or maybe you just don't understand them. It says they spend money - but it says nothing about what they spent that money on. Food banks. Housing. Counseling. Hot meals. Clothing. Could be pretty much anything. But your cite doesn't even mention harm reduction.

Exactly. As in you have it exactly backwards. Religious extremism isn't the cause, it's the result. War, extreme poverty, starvation, humiliation - these are all factors that create the breeding grounds for the extremist views that result in extreme violence. People latch on to whatever belief system that is convenient and twist it to support their actions. Often, that is religion because religion is so prevalent as a deeply held system of beliefs. But not always. When the Nazis rose, they didn't need religion, they had Aryan supremacy. The communists despised religion and used Marxism to justify their actions.

Now you're just making things up. Provide a reference to back up your claim that a million dollars a day are being spent on harm reduction in the east side of Vancouver.

There is indeed a problem but I'm not sure how fair it is to lay it at Mayor Robertson's feet. Your statement above dishonestly infers that Robertson himself is responsible for spending hundreds of millions. In fact the story you've linked says otherwise: 250 agencies. No wonder it's a clusterf*ck. I wonder how many of them are private organizations that stepped in to fill the gap when the federal an provincial governments cut services to lower taxes. So that their wealthy backers could afford that extra trip to the Bahamas every year.

The thought has crossed my mind, although she seemed to be fairly relaxed in the interviews. I hope the story can get more airplay - the bigger it is in the news, the more reluctant people who don't want her talking would be to do something like that.

Well, I'm no expert. But according to Fleischmann, who is herself a lawyer, there was a pretty clear paper trail here. She said that it wasn't that this case was too complicated to prosecute. The only question is how high up in the organization could they have prosecuted. So, the strategy you take is the same strategy as is used in organized crime. You start with the people who signed the documents. Either they take the fall or they implicate the people above them. It's not that hard. When reviewing AG Holder's claim that it was just too hard to prosecute these cases, one commentator wisecracked that it was fortunate Holder retired before he took on organized crime. One of the things that this case confirms is Noam Chomsky's assertion that there are no fundamental differences between the Democrats and Republicans. They are both parties of and for the wealthy, thanks in no small part to America's liberal political contribution laws. When push comes to shove, both parties are beholden to big money.

Well, I guess that's that. Nothing to be done so let's all just watch hockey and stuff ourselves with cheetos.

You clearly have nothing to say. Why don't you just go troll somewhere else?

Well, that would be one way. But if you could get the type of support you needed to mount a revolution, you could get change more easily and without bloodshed. We live in democracies; at least in name. The problem is getting people's attention. They're willing to get bent out of shape over pricey orange juice and senator's living expenses. But here we have a smoking gun that points to the root of the problem. Capitalists are robbing us all blind and the government is covering up the scene of the crime. The problem is that this is just too vast. People shrug their shoulders and look away because they think that they can't do anything. And as long as they believe that, they're absolutely right.

And where, exactly, would that be?