Bryan

Largely by choice. It's much easier to hold their hands out and scream like children than it is to do something to improve their own situation.

Copying links is just parroting. I'll need fresh citations requests to move forward.

My citation request queue shows no outstanding requests. I'm afraid you'll have to resubmit them, preferably parrot-free.

Stop typing that drivel and read the information you've already been supplied. You already have the citations, go read them.

You're one of the lucky ones. A lot of people in this area can't even get a response to their application. They're told to stop calling, that they'll be dealt with eventually. Many people who did come to an agreement are still waiting for the actual money. There's a reason why there have been protests at the legislature over this; the govt is over two years behind on many people's payments.

Blah blah blah. Just read it.

You're the one flinging bull. I know several people who suffered total losses. The BEST offer they got was less than 10% of what it cost to rebuild. The majority still have not seen a dime either.

Not even close. The government offer, if you even get one, is pennies on the dollar.

Just read this thread from the beginning. What's wrong with your computer?

Blah, blah, blah. Do you get paid by the word? Just read what you've already been shown.

What does fair have to do with it? They make use of the resources they've got, and that makes them the country's ATM? Quebec has a lot of resources that they don't make use of. They sing platitudes about not wanting to disrupt the environment, but they've got no problem taking the money extracted from the environment that they get from Alberta.

You already have had the material handed to you on multiple occasions, by multiple posters. Your obfuscation by making people go look again for material you already have is pathetic. That wouldn't work in a court of law, it wouldn't work in a structured debate, and it's not working here.

I accept your refusal to acknowledge a direct response to your repeated dodging of the basic facts repeatedly presented to you. Go back to your rabbit hole!

Over 30,000 people supposedly contacted Elections Canada to claim they received the misleading calls. When asked to testify in court, NOT ONE real person could be found.

Different forums have different policies and/or culture with respect to old threads. One of the forums I post at most has a strict "do a search" culture. If you start a new thread on a topic that has been discussed before, you'll be blasted by the members and your thread will be locked. Another one that I post at less often has a strict "no necro-post" policy. If you ever respond to a post that's more than a certain number of months old, you will be automatically be suspended without warning! I think here it would mostly depend on how relevant the old post was, if you were posting to show how something predicted there came to pass. In this particular case, it was worth it just to read your totally accurate post #210!

Name them.

You've been shown plenty of it. There quite a bit in this thread alone. Try reading what you've already been shown instead of arguing blindly, and trying to deflect by sending people off to collect more links you won't even read.

Reality refutes it. No statistical warming for over 16 years. They weren't just a little off, they were completely wrong, and they were told they were wrong a long time ago. The same people who claimed consensus also controlled the publishing. Papers that disagreed with them were denied on the very principle that it didn't line up with the story they decided to tell.

No, it means there was something wrong with the consensus. Adjusting it is what they should be doing, all the time. What they shouldn't have been doing is screaming bloody murder when people have been telling them for 16 years that their models were wrong.

They enforce that by killing babies. I doubt many in the rest of the world will be on board for that. If we are going to actually reduce the human population, it will require killing people. If people are serious about over-population being something we need to tackle, they need to tell me who they want killed first. China decided that it's innocent babies. Another country might do it "Logan's Run" style, and give everyone a set time limit before they are removed, yet another might make executions the set penalty for all criminal convictions, etc. I guess there is one other way... sterilization at birth. I guess that would work. Doubt many would go for that either though. What else can they do? How else can you REDUCE the number of people without removing existing people?

Consensus is not science at all. It's the opposite of science. Science is testing and falsifying the prevailing theories to see if they're correct. There is no component by which anyone is required to provide an alternative. The issue is testing what's put in front of you to see if it's true. Real science invites as much scrutiny as it can get, the more eyes the better. "Denial for denial's sake" is a critical part of the process. It has to be able to withstand that, or it simply is not true. That's what we have with AGW: it cannot withstand even a minor amount of scrutiny. That's why the adherents are using the bogus "consensus" argument and trying to shut down conversation: they know their emperor has no clothes.

Consensus is anti-science. Not providing an alternative doesn't change the absolute fact that the "consensus" has been wrong nearly 100% of the time.

What can you do about that though? We aren't going to start culling the population.

Lots of hollow announcements containing the right buzzwords. Maybe that's what Harper's doing wrong. Instead of really leading this country, he should just give more public speeches with empty platitides. That seems to be what Liberal voters want: More talk, less action.

There are more known oil reserves now than there have ever been. Since the hew and cry over oil "running out" began in the 70's, the supply has increased substantially. In the US, they've doubled since the late 80's! Wells thought to have been dry have refilled, active wells are producing far more oil than predicted, and deposits are being found in places thought to have none. Bottom line, there is a LOT of oil out there, a lot more than we ever thought. Some geochemists even think that oil fields may be refilling themselves naturally.