TimG
-
Posts
12,533 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TimG
-
-
4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Reduction and elimination are not the same thing. There is plenty that can be done to reduce.
Carbon taxes do not make Canada a single cent less competitive, that is a complete fabrication. Increased overall taxation may, but moving the tax burden onto those that create the most GHG has nothing to do with overall taxation. Keep crying wolf, but nobody is listening.
There are two things we could do to reduce CO2:
1) Build more nuclear power (next gen uranium and/or thorium);
2) Limit immigration to levels that keep Canada's population stable;Those two options are off the table because the same people who lecture us about CO2 emissions think that the stuff that they care about is too important to sacrifice in the name of reducing emissions. So the question becomes: why should anyone else want to sacrifice anything when the people lecturing us have no interest in doing so?
-
All CO2 reduction schemes are a fraud at their core because there is no real way to eliminate CO2 use while maintaining a modern economy. They are designed to allow preening progressives to pat themselves on the while allowing well connected corporations to fleece consumers with government's blessing.
A real plan would start out with the admission that we don't have the tech to significantly reduce CO2 emissions therefore any targets are a joke. The government would invest heavily in R&D in the hopes of finding some breakthrough tech and tell the UN to go pound salt. Of course such a plan does not massage the egos of progressives so it would never be acceptable. Progressives prefer to pretend to do something (preferably by forcing someone else to pay).
Leaving the tax to provinces is one good thing about the liberal plan because the original scheme pushed by Dion with his Green Shift would have resulted in a massive wealth transfer from provinces without hydropower to provinces with hydropower. At least this way the revenue stays in the province where it is collected (unless you have a idiot for a premier who thinks that transferring billions to wealthy california corporations selling fraudulent carbon credits is a good thing).
-
49 minutes ago, segnosaur said:
I would consider it rather significant that a person is so against abortion that they are willing to vote for a candidate who is both racist and anti-gay.
Now you are doing what was done to Clinton. Trump used rhetoric that attacked identifiable groups based on the actions of a minority of members. That does not make him personally a racist (at least no more than Clinton who rants about "white privilege" which is also racist rhetoric). I don't know where you get the anti-gay thing from. That is invented.
When it comes to climate change you are also engaged in the ignorant scaremongering of the left (which is surprising given you prior nuanced statements on the topic). The fact is almost all regulation proposed by the left in the name of reducing CO2 is an expensive waste of resources. Opposing politicians that are ignorant of economics and engineering is not an anti-science position. I would say it is a pro-science position. If I had a candidate that used the terms "climate denier" or "climate justice" I would have serious concerns about their ability to think rationally.
As for regulation: you clearly have no idea about the regulatory burden being heaped on businesses in the US in the name of various progressive causes. The most recent was a requirement to track the race and salary of all employees so it can be reported to government database for future use by lawyers to mine for data to extort cash from employers. These kinds of regulations are what hurt new business development - not taxes. Clinton promised more of the same.
Clinton's attacks on free speech come from her documented promise to restrict political donations. You can argue that her restrictions on free speech are justified but you cannot argue that she does not desire to restrict free speech.
It is a mystery why you are unable to understand that reasonable people can have very different opinions even when they agree on the facts because different people place different importance on different facts.
-
5 hours ago, segnosaur said:
Correction... they were offered one unpalatable choice (an oompa Loompa who spouted empty catch phrases yet little in the way of rational policies) and another who may have had some flaws, but were 1) overly exaggerated and 2) relatively minor compared to Trump's flaws.
Clinton was unpalatable to many voters because of her *policy* positions. Specifically her policies on abortion, climate change, business regulation and free speech. These have nothing to do with her grossly exaggerated faux pas' when it come to her email account or the Clinton foundation. You may not feel the same about Clinton's policy choices but you should be able to accept that a rational person would have a serious problem voting for her given her stated policies.
Second, the Orangutan could be seen of a less objectionable candidate if one assumes that:
1) The solemnity of the office would temper him;
2) He would pick a cabinet of reasonably competent people;
3) Congress and the courts would tie his hands;Now 1) has turned out to be a pipe dream but it was plausible before the election. 2) and 3) are still plausible. So you can't really argue that it was obvious that the system could not manage with a Orangutan in charge provided one had suitably low expectations. It is rational to pick the candidate with incoherent policies if some of those polices sounded good when you absolutely hated the coherent polices of his opponent.
I am also speaking based on experience talking to Trump voters who simply do not fit into your stereotypes and by insisting on applying your stereoytypes to all Trump voters you are no better than someone saying that all Muslims are terrorists or all illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, segnosaur said:
Keep in mind that some may consider it a slightly different situation when the discrimination is about something which can't be controlled and/or which shouldn't affect your job performance (e.g. skin color), and something that can be controlled.
American voters were offered two extremely unpalatable choices. I would have held my nose and voted for the one with many policies I adamantly oppose but I can hardly criticize other people whose judgement fell on the other side of the line.The Trump voters I know voted for him in spite of his general obnoxious appeal to negativity. It is simply wrong to make an assumption about someone simple based on knowledge of their voting choice. This is why bigotry is so problematic: it leads people to make decisions about individuals based on group behavior and it wrong when applied to race and it wrong when applied to political choice.
Now if there are additional factors such as someone being obnoxious in the workplace and not showing respect for the many people that disagree with them then that is another situation. But such judgements are based on the actions of the individual - not assumptions about the group.
-
26 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Give me a break, every time someone from Hollywood talks about climate change the self-identified 'right' spew more hate than all the smokestacks in the world combined spewing C02. This victim card is getting tired. Trump supporters are not victims, and pretending they are is childish.
You don't seem to understand how the vitriol plays into Trump's hands by making him look like the reasonable one. The same dynamic affects climate skeptics who use words like 'hoax' instead of simply talking about the unjustified claims of certainty when it comes to predictions of the effects of climate change.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
The Republicans had an active campaign to boycott Bradley Cooper (American Sniper) because he appeared at the DNC. There is absolutely nothing new here.
Nothing comes close to the hate and vitriol emanating from the left. All these people are doing is ensuring that Trump will get a second term.
-
42 minutes ago, The_Squid said:
Who cares? People have been passed over for employment for a couple centuries because of the colour of their skin.
So you solution for bigotry is more bigotry? I am of the opinion that supporters of "progressive" causes are the worst bigots we have in society today. It appears you think this is a good thing which makes you quite the hypocrite whenever you complain about discrimination.
-
1 hour ago, kimmy said:
Of course it's unacceptable. And it's actionable as well, if someone can prove they were fired (or not hired) because of their political views
Chances of being able to do that is nil if you are looking for a job because there are always plenty of valid reason to reject a candidate.
Although it does sound like fake news the fact is people who don't follow the party line on climate change have been blacklisted/ostracized in the climate science field for years. Skeptical scientists have decided to leave the field all together because of the climate which is hostile to non-conformers. It would not surprise me to hear that this is going on in some fields with people who claim to support Trump. It is all to typical for the self-righteous lefties who have turned their political opinions in a fundamentalist religion.
-
3 minutes ago, Topaz said:
Perhaps we should debate the future of TV, since we can watch programs online now, think the TV will last? Thoughts?
TV as a medium where stories are told in 1 hour episodes over several seasons will always be around.
The mechanisms to distribute and fund these projects will change.
-
37 minutes ago, cybercoma said:
I think it's a lot easier to understand than you make it. They don't feel safe around the police.
There is no difference between someone saying they don't feel safe around police and saying they don't feel safe around black people. Both are bigoted statements that make assumptions about an entire group based on the misbehavior of some members. Gay pride may feel that promoting bigotry is a good thing now. But it seems self defeating.
-
12 hours ago, kabirthapar said:
Hello everyone I would like to ask you all what are your views regarding the demonetization which took place in India recently. It’s a bold move by the Government and can be called as the Surgical strike of the Government on Black Money (add Terrorist funding, arms smuggling and Counterfeit currency to that). Your thoughts and comments regarding same. Will this be successful for Indian economy?
Everything I have read suggests it was a very dumb move that hurt the legions of poor Indians that keep their savings in cash. I don't understand why the phase out period was so short.
-
16 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Gas power plants are cheaper to build than coal.
Yes which is great when the natural gas infrastructure is available. If there is no cheap natural gas supply coal is often the only viable alternative. So if Wynne said that NG will replace coal over time because of the lower costs then that would be a rational argument subject to review as energy prices change. She did not. She simply shutdown the coal plants before the end of the useful life and used particulate pollution as the justification which was a false argument.
-
1 minute ago, ?Impact said:
As I suspected. They don't include capital costs which means they are not useful when comparing power sources.
-
14 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Wrong, the EIA is using real numbers from operating plants over the past 15 years. Hydro has always been the lowest cost, nuclear second. Coal was cheaper than gas until the cost of gas came down. There are not fiction social cost of carbon built into the numbers, they are the real costs - period. I suggest you actually look up the data.
Give me a link to the numbers you are using so I can check what is included and what is not. Based on the ranking it sounds like they did not include the capital costs which means the rankings are meaningless.
-
1 hour ago, ?Impact said:
Can you name one advantage of coal plants?
b.t.w., according to the EIA of the 4 major power sources (coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro) the most expensive is currently coal. For several years gas was much more expensive, but lower fuel costs in recent years brought it under coal.
Coal plants, unlike hydro, can be built anywhere and the infrastructure needed to transport the fuel is much cheaper than natural gas. They are cheaper than nuclear when you do a calculation based on real costs instead of the fictitious numbers the EIA uses (the EIA includes a "social cost of carbon"). Natural gas has only recently gotten cheap and plentiful enough to displace coal in locations where natural gas in available, however, the transport costs associated with natural has means natural gas is not available everywhere. In short, coal is the "default" power source that can deliver power to anyone, anywhere at a reasonable cost. In locations where other options are cheaper it should not be used but that I why I say the decision should be made on a case by case basis on economics rather than globally based on ideology.
-
32 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
If we followed the lead of doing nothing because there are other problems, we would be living in cities with open sewers and no treatment.
You can also do very dumb things if you don't get your priorities right. For example, modern clean coal plants have almost zero particulate matter but these are unacceptable for the CO2 obsessed. The only reason to close coal plants is if alternatives like Natural Gas are more cost effective. Closing coal plant not matter what the cost of alternatives is dumb policy.
-
1 minute ago, ?Impact said:
I don't remember the urban part. Yes Ernie Eves did talk about smog, dust, and mercury emissions but I can't find any reference to that being an urban targeted problem.
Most people live in urban centers. If someone is claiming health benefits the only way the number could add up to a significant number is if one claims these benefits acrue to urban dwellers. Here is Suzuki claiming that a coal phase out would reduce hospital visits in provinces that don't event use coal:
QuoteOut with the coal, in with the new: national benefits of an accelerated phase-out of coal fired power, finds that pollutants from coal-fired power traveling across provinces affect the health of populations in both coal-burning and non-coal-burning provinces. Air pollutants from coal plants are known to produce heart and lung diseases, aggravate asthma and increase premature deaths and hospital admissions.
As I said, such trickery is typical of ideology driven alarmists like Suzuki or Wynne since they know they would never convince people to make sacrifices in the name of their religion so they make up bogus arguments about "health benefits".
-
14 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Did you see the part about totally, 100% ignoring GHG?
GHG is not pollution that affects air quality (i.e. it has no impact on anyone's life).
The plants were sold as a way to reduction *urban* pollution. The paper shows that claim is BS.
Of course, it is typical for AGW activists to use the bait and switch. i.e. use a bogus argument to get some measure passed and when they are called on the bogus argument claim that that they never made it.
-
5 hours ago, hernanday said:
Clearly you have a reading comprehension issue. Plato focused on one part of the system of Ma'at (the reason based) that he studied because he did not complete his studies so he focused on what he knew and was taught.
Complete BS. There is no magic behind the number of a years need to the study the material. It was a number likely picked to enforce seniority rules rather than any need to actually spend 40 years learning anything (who spends 40 years in school today?). The Greeks likely left once they realized that they could not learn anything more from them. They took what they learned like any student and developed their own ideas.
The key differential is the Egyptians appear to have conflated the spiritual and the rational. The Greeks broke that connection and developed a purely rational view of looking at the world. You see this idea permeating all western societies.
I also never said that other philosophers should not be studied. I am objecting to the idiots asking that key philosophers be removed from the curriculum because they are white men. The Greeks matter.
-
2 hours ago, hernanday said:
From your link:
QuoteThe Greeks seem to have put their own spin on what knowledge they'd learned.
Plato's education may have expressed it best: The Kemetic Mystery System was based upon a wide array of human knowledge. It encompassed math, writing, physical science, religion and the supernatural, requiring tutors to be both priests and scholars. Perhaps the aspect of the system that best represents this merger of religion and science is Ma'at.
In his "Republic," Plato describes a dichotomy between a higher and lower self. The higher self (reason) pursues knowledge, reason and discipline. The lower self -- the more prominent of the two -- is base, concerned with more crude aspects like sex, addiction and other self-serving pursuits. Reason must ultimately win over emotion for a life to be worthwhile. Thus the emphasis of reason over all else was born. And the concepts of spirituality and reason began to diverge.
So according to your own source the Greeks took what the Egyptians taught them and added their own spin. In particular, they ditched the spiritual mumbo-jumbo of the Egyptians and developed a philosophy which emphasized reason over all which is the true basis for western philosophy (for better or for worse).
Your attempt to minimize the importance of the Greeks is not surprising given the racial lens that you use to view the world. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is hardly sufficient to justify ending the study of the Greeks at western universities. They certainly earned their place in teh curriculum.
-
6 minutes ago, hernanday said:
The fact that the teachers influenced those Greek philosophers doesn't matter?
It matters in the sense that it is important information to include in any discussion of those philosophers. However, study needs to start with the people that actually created the interpretations that underpin western society. Whether you want to admit it or not it was the Greeks that people have been reading and studying in Europe for 2000 years. Trying to pretend that the particular interpretations developed by these philosophers don't matter because they had teachers is absurd since everyone has teachers.
-
6 hours ago, hernanday said:
Plato's Republic is based off of Kemetic Mystery System of Mi'yat (which is why he is accused often by scholars like Cantor of plagiarizing) although I think he was inspired by it, it is a hellenzied form of an African system.
As I said before. What matters is not who came up with an idea but who was able to communicate that idea in a way that influences others. Every scholar has teachers and every scholar's work is inspired by what came before. But a work that becomes influential is unique contributions that the scholar adds to what came before. Learning how knowledge ideas evolved over time and across cultures would be a useful exercise but simply excluding the most influential people because of their race is absurd.
-
1 hour ago, msj said:
For those of us who are "militant atheists" it is not our lack of belief in god that is the issue. It is religious people trying to shove their religious precepts down our secular throats that is the issue - and the fact that we no longer stand for it.
Take 3 statements:
1) There is no god;
2) There is no evidence of a god at this time;
3) There is a god;The first two are variations of atheism but 1) is a dogmatic statement of blind faith that is no different from 3).
I think it is important to keep the distinction in mind.
Canada's carbon tax
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by TimG
Nope. Most skeptics are fine with nuclear. It is Elizabeth Mays of the world that oppose it. Same with immigration - it is the progressives obsessed with diversity that call people racists if they even suggest reducing immigration. If we could get rid of the people screaming racism we could likely come up with a much saner immigrant policy.