G Huxley

In PC world only. You should check out the 'alternate history' section at the local bookstore sometime.

"I disagree heartily. Many a person has fallen victim to the fake news site. I have done so myself." Well then who is the crackpot? In that instance no one is a crackpot, (well maybe) because in that instance the fake news site was simply putting out fake news rather than believing in it. But what if the fake news site was operating out of a cave, why then they'd be troglodytes! and we can't have that term used on this forum.

Why deal with it at all? If refugees don't want to come to Canada why bother?

Glad I don't vote for either party.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/03/up-to-50000-syrian-refugees-could-be-in-canada-by-end-of-2016 Now it's 50,000. This country isn't half as bright as it should be.

"A "cite" is not a person. "Cite" means link, source, or reference - like a newspaper." A person has cited something. If a person cites a crackpot claim logically it is because they themselves are a crackpot.

Of course I agree, I just note the hypocrisy in thus allowing people not to call out the mentality of troglodytes at the same time.

"Nope. The cite is what I was referring to." Either the citer or the cited then are thus crackpots. Either way someone is being called a crackpot.

"Of course, you could elevate yourself by providing non-crackpot cites for your claims" Someone in there or many people are being called crackpot(s).

"Apparently Michael is allowed to use the word crackpot, but I'm not allowed to use the word troglodyte. Words are funny things aren't they?"

Probably bought it from a store.

"I fully support your right to say what you think, even if I vehemently disagree with it." and likewise. "Unfortunately some of those on here with their fingers over the delete button get a little over enthusiastic at times." Everyone needs a hobby. Where did you find the sign?

I'm not even allowed to say what I think of you all yet you are allowed to have an icon saying 'hippies use the backdoor.' Yeah this board isn't biased at all.

Actually the burden of proof should be on the polluters because they are playing Russian roulette with the the planet's biosphere, but there is tons of evidence out there for people who actually want to see the reality of what's happening. e.g. this month's issue of Nat Geo covered this exceptionally.

"What I said was the predictions that climate change will be bad are just predictions - not facts." They are facts. They are already a major problem, not in some futuristic sense. Read this month's National Geo if you are still in denial. "Nope. intermittent sources cannot provide the base load power we need. Geothermal, like hydro, is limited by location and cannot provide enough power." Leave 10% for base load power and 90% renewables. Argus: It's called lead by example. India and China are following the example you set.

"Yes, of course the oil sands will affect the climate." - BC Sapper Glad you realize that.

TimG anthropogenic climate change is an obvious fact. There is countless scientific data to affirm this, but if you won't read any of it then it is meaningless to you. As an example I would suggest reading this month's National Geographic. As opposed to there not being viable alternatives to fossil fuels this is obviously false. Wind, solar, geothermal etc., are all viable alternatives.

What is silly is that you suggest that Indian and Chinese emissions (many of which have their origins in Canadian fossil fuels) can affect the climate, but the oil sands can't. Do you realizes the contradictory absurdity of such a statement?

"If a politician claims to spend money for "climate change" he/she is spending money to reward politically connected rent seekers." Usually the case and looks to be the case here. "There is no such thing as a "climate change policy" that is not an excuse for graft. The only way to prevent this vote out governments that insist on wasting money on "climate change" policies." This I strongly disagree with. Destroying the environment for profit is the worst form of graft.

"And the oil sands won't matter anyway. Nothing that happens in Alberta is ever going to affect the climate." What a delightful fantasy you live in.

So it seems Trudeau is playing politics out of both sides of the mouth. His 2.5 billion or so dollars to help developing countries reduce climate emissions looks like a bad euphemism for serious graft. SNC Lavalin ring a bell? So while he fills the bank accounts of African dictators and simultaneously provides major commissions for Quebec and Montreal construction companies, he can use this to do nothing about the tar sands by saying that he has helped offset emissions in other countries and so doesn't need to do much within his own. The whole thing reaks. What does everyone else think?

No if you actually read my post carefully you will realize that is exactly what I said.

Anyway just to clarify I don't think that Harper gave her any money personally, merely that she was an over paid MP acting as Harper's mouthpiece, which incidentally applies to most of Harper's cabinet. The thing that really irks me about Ambrose is her anti-scientific stances as health minister especially in her disregarding or shuttering of scientific studies regarding HAT and medicinal cannabis.

"The claim that she has been awarded extra perks or money for being Harper's toady is flat out wrong," I didn't say that she was awarded extra perks or money. Merely that she was Harper's shill and is due a few million for her job as MP.

I didn't say it was her salary. I just found that information when Google autofilled the word 'Rona Ambrose salary.'