Climate Change and the Invasion of Canada

[lyzingg]

the earth is not heating up thanks to the huge amount of ice in Antarctic, arctic and Greenland. it reflects sunshine. it absolve huge amount of heat when melting down. we saw glaciers retreating, but our temperature does not change much, if any. it's like a huge fridge. but there would be a turning point. when there is not enough ice left, the BIG melting would come. we would see sea levels running high, temperature rocketing, and big seaside cities submerged, and millions if not billions people have to flee away. maybe to the north, where it is still cooler. I don't know how many people live in north american mega cities like new york, los angeles,  or Vancouver. if we have to build new super cities to relocate those poor weather refugees, our economy would have a crazy growth rate. that will make America great again. maybe that is why trump quit paris agreement.

if usa people have to go north for more land with milder climate, well, I don't think it's a bad thing for Canadians. Canadians suffer too much for not being part of usa. they have to pay higher tax and prices, not to mention meng wanzhou. if usa eats up (pardon me for the word I choose), well, who would suffer? Canadian people will have the same life with other usa people. but our leaders like trudeau, they would lose their opportunity to be a stupid puppy. so sorry for them.

[taxme]

On 6/12/2019 at 10:18 AM, Armchairprophet said:

Bullspit. Every race of human evolved during rapid upswings in climate. Almost every empire and civilization came into being during rapid upswings in climate. And during every single one of those events the average global temps were warmer than they are today.

1100 years ago the Greenland ice sheet did not exist other than some glaciers in the far north of the island. Now idiots are freaking out about the ice sheet receding.  They freak out over sea ice extent. An extent that was first measured by satellite in 1979. 1979 saw an abormally high sea ice extent and that's the base line the alarmists are working from.  And the alarmist stupidity doesn't help things. Had one idiot try to convince me that AGW is real because up until the 1960's Lake Ontario would completely freeze  over. The problem with that claim (besides the obvious bullshit that it is) is that Lake Ontario has only frozen over completely four times since Europeans arrived here. Or how about Lenny DeCrapio freaking out over a chinook in Alberta and exclaiming he witnessed AGW first hand and "barely escaped with his life" or some such nonsense.

The problem with climate science right now is that it has become heavily politicized. And when stuff like that gets politicized, it becomes harder to trust. Especially when the AGW mouthpieces refuse to walk their talk. An access to information request revealed that the Groper household spends around $300/MONTH on bottled water.  Groper's family vacations have also created a larger carbon footprint than the average Canadian family does in a year. He's rented a total of 431 luxury SUV's during his annual trips to climate conferences.

The only inconvenient truth about Al Gore's movie is after all his piffle about AGW and rising sea levels, he goes and buys a nice ocean front home in Santa Barbara. The political stance on AGW is loooooong on rhetoric and hyperbole and rather short on actual science.

Between Al Gore and David Suzuki I don't know as to which one is more of a danger to global warming. They both have a problem with not practicing what they preach. And yet their are so many stunned and stupid people out there that cannot figure that one out yet. So many still go and listen to those two bullshitters talk while those two BS'rs are doing quite well making plenty of moola and buying up lots of property off those idiots giving them their money. Incredible. 

[taxme]

On 6/28/2019 at 3:47 PM, lyzingg said:

the earth is not heating up thanks to the huge amount of ice in Antarctic, arctic and Greenland. it reflects sunshine. it absolve huge amount of heat when melting down. we saw glaciers retreating, but our temperature does not change much, if any. it's like a huge fridge. but there would be a turning point. when there is not enough ice left, the BIG melting would come. we would see sea levels running high, temperature rocketing, and big seaside cities submerged, and millions if not billions people have to flee away. maybe to the north, where it is still cooler. I don't know how many people live in north american mega cities like new york, los angeles,  or Vancouver. if we have to build new super cities to relocate those poor weather refugees, our economy would have a crazy growth rate. that will make America great again. maybe that is why trump quit paris agreement.

if usa people have to go north for more land with milder climate, well, I don't think it's a bad thing for Canadians. Canadians suffer too much for not being part of usa. they have to pay higher tax and prices, not to mention meng wanzhou. if usa eats up (pardon me for the word I choose), well, who would suffer? Canadian people will have the same life with other usa people. but our leaders like trudeau, they would lose their opportunity to be a stupid puppy. so sorry for them.

When I see all the snow on Mount Baker in Washington state disappear, well maybe then I will believe in global warming. But until then I have no need for now to panic over climate change. Besides, I hate winter. It's too cold. The earth needs a bit of warming up. LOL. 

[taxme]

On 6/12/2019 at 3:11 PM, Zeitgeist said:

I do think climate change is a real threat, and it’s not so much about non-human life, which will continue to evolve and thrive whatever happens to us as long as we live on Earth.  The question is whether we can reel it in to prevent a run away feedback loop that makes the planet uninhabitable for a lot of people, and how much that reduction in emissions will impact standard of living.  The reality is that lower emission technology is replacing higher emission tech, people are flocking to cities which use resources more efficiently, and urbanites have less kids — so do educated people.  Standards of living are rising in developing countries, and so are education levels, which will eventually flatten the population rise.  We’re already adapting to climate change and accommodating mass migrations, especially in places like Canada.  

As Canada’s population rises, so will its ability to support military and patrol of borders/waters.  Of course the US is already a far more powerful country militarily than Canada and will remain so for a very long time.  It’s already embedded in our trade agreement that the US has as much acces to Canadian resources as Canadians have, and they pay what we pay.  That’s the bargain we made to sell into the US market.  That’s a bit too dependent for my liking, but the reality is that, as the US rises or falls, so does Canada.  Americans do buy property up here and visit, and I can see more Americans wanting a quieter, less violent enclave up here if it gets too tumultuous in the US, but it’s in everyone’s interests to maintain order and rule of law.  I actually don’t see why we don’t just allow freedom of residency and employment between the two countries, such that there’s no longer a need for work permits or a six month limit on residency for citizens of the two countries.  However, we need to keep the violence out of Canada.  For that reason alone a border has value.  I know Americans want to keep bad actors out of the US as well.  

An American invasion probably wouldn’t change much because their Declaration of Independence requires government by the people for the people.  Canadians would ultimately be deciding how they want to live.  We probably wouldn’t see a sudden influx of Americans.  If we did, they would still have to adapt to the climate and society.  Ontario and New Brunswick were actually founded by American United Empire Loyalists before Canada became a country.  Americans would demand the same things most Canadians demand and would enjoy the same things.  

If you’re suggesting some oppressive form of subjugation of Canadians, that would be very hard to sustain because many Canadians and Americans have family on both sides of the border and there are many duel citizens.  

I think you’re worried about more people fighting over limited resources.  I’d say we’re already there.  That’s what the rise of populism is reacting to.  More and more people will be sharing the land and the cost of property and production will continue to rise.  Maybe right now the Chinese and other peoples will accept lower wages.  I believe eventually we’ll all have similar living standards and good international rules to protect air and water quality, curtail greenhouse gas emissions, maintain decent labour standards, protect human rights, and so on.  There’s no choice.  The world will be too violent and unmanageable otherwise.  I also think there will be periodic right wing reactions when people feel their ways of life are under threat.  How we manage climate change and the greater pressure on our land, water, air, and resources will determine how peaceful and healthy we will be, and I think that’s as true for Canada as it is for Europe or China or Africa.  

I have an answer to global warming? Tell the people in the developing third world to stop breeding like flies. The people who live in the western countries of the world are doing their part and they only make up about 8 - 9% of world population. The other 92% live in non western countries of the world and they must be contributing a hell of a lot more to global warming, right? But all we ever hear from the climate change gloom and doom people like AOC is that we only have 12 more years left to fix the problem. How she ever came up with that 12 year figure I will never know. The third world is the problem, not the western world. But listening to the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki, they try to make us all feel that North Americans are the main reason for this so called global climate crisis. Bull shit on that. Only brainwashed idiots will believe that bloody nonsense. Sadly, the world is full of brainwashed idiots. 

[lyzingg]

On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 1:04 PM, taxme said:

I have an answer to global warming? Tell the people in the developing third world to stop breeding like flies. The people who live in the western countries of the world are doing their part and they only make up about 8 - 9% of world population. The other 92% live in non western countries of the world and they must be contributing a hell of a lot more to global warming, right? But all we ever hear from the climate change gloom and doom people like AOC is that we only have 12 more years left to fix the problem. How she ever came up with that 12 year figure I will never know. The third world is the problem, not the western world. But listening to the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki, they try to make us all feel that North Americans are the main reason for this so called global climate crisis. Bull shit on that. Only brainwashed idiots will believe that bloody nonsense. Sadly, the world is full of brainwashed idiots. 

have to agree on that point. any suggestion to fix this problem?

[taxme]

18 hours ago, lyzingg said:

have to agree on that point. any suggestion to fix this problem?

Short, sweet and simple. Stop listening to the bull chit that is being spread by the likes of Gore and Suzuki and AOC. They are just three of the many doom and gloom fear mongers out there that try to get dummies to believe that the sky is falling down. When the leftist lieberal media constantly tries to push and make climate change a big issue, as they try to do every day, then it has to be a bunch of bull. The leftist lieberal media can never be trusted with the truth any more. They now only specialize in lies and bs. My motto is that if the fake liberal media push anything then I think the opposite. It truly does work. What think you? 

[lyzingg]

well, I thought you would talk about birth control in developing world to solve the over-population thing. seems you only want to fight against left guys.

so maybe I could expect you also go against gay marriage, refugees, women's right, and other opinions on left side.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, lyzingg said:

well, I thought you would talk about birth control in developing world to solve the over-population thing. seems you only want to fight against left guys.

so maybe I could expect you also go against gay marriage, refugees, women's right, and other opinions on left side.

It's difficult to imagine someone complaining about over population and being against gay marriage.  It would be like someone complaining their feet hurt, but being against comfortable shoes.

As for birth control in the developing world, not gonna happen while the Pope is a tosser.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 As for birth control in the developing world, not gonna happen while the Pope is a tosser.

What ?  Like Bangladesh and Indonesia are big Pope folks ?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What ?  Like Bangladesh and Indonesia are big Pope folks ?

If your point is to say that the Pope's attitude towards birth control has no effect on overpopulation, say so.  I'll only laugh.

Edited July 4, 2019 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If your point is to say that the Pope's attitude towards birth control has no effect on overpopulation, say so.  I'll only laugh.

No I wasn't trying to make that ridiculous point.  I was poking a hole in your ridiculous point.

[dialamah]

On 6/30/2019 at 12:04 PM, taxme said:

Tell the people in the developing third world to stop breeding like flies.

The US under Trump and Canada under Harper both refused funding to organizations that provided family planning services, including birth control information, because they might also fund abortion.  

On 6/30/2019 at 12:04 PM, taxme said:

The people who live in the western countries of the world are doing their part and they only make up about 8 - 9% of world population

Improved infant survival, a higher standard of living, higher levels of education result in lower birth rates.  The birth rates in developing nations is slowing as these things become more common.  

On 6/30/2019 at 12:04 PM, taxme said:

The third world is the problem, not the western worl

Poor people have a much smaller carbon footprint than rich people.  Several people living in a small house or shack, no vehicle, few possessions, little food, and even less meat, is a lot more environmentally friendly than even a lower-middle class Canadian living alone in a 600 sq ft apt, with one car, lots of possessions, lots of clothes, lots of food and daily meat.  Even that Canadian is more environmentally friendly than a family living in a 2500 sq ft house, with two or more vehicles, lots of possessions, clothes, food and meat.  The richer the individual, the worse their effect on the environment. The richer the country, the more impact they have on the environment.

Link.

Link.

Choices some climate scientists are making to reduce their carbon footprint.

Edited July 4, 2019 by dialamah

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No I wasn't trying to make that ridiculous point.  I was poking a hole in your ridiculous point.

My point was correct.  You were right about yours.

[Michael Hardner]

43 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

My point was correct.  You were right about yours.

Your point was that birth control in the developing world won't happen, which is wrong.  The pope has some influence but not that much.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your point was that birth control in the developing world won't happen, which is wrong.  The pope has some influence but not that much.

My point was that the Catholic Church is a major impediment to birth control in the developing world, which is correct.

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

My point was that the Catholic Church is a major impediment to birth control in the developing world, which is correct.

Yes, your reworded post is undeniably true.  There's still a general consensus that population growth is slowing, I believe.

I'm starting to suggest immigration restrictions except for humanitarian refugee programs.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, your reworded post is undeniably true.  There's still a general consensus that population growth is slowing, I believe.

I'm starting to suggest immigration restrictions except for humanitarian refugee programs.

We were talking about points made.  The reworded post is the point I was making. 

I might have been a little rude to Peter's successor in my original post but that's due to a general disgust with religions that probably stems from being beaten up by nuns when I was little.

Edited July 4, 2019 by bcsapper

[Argus]

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

We were talking about points made.  The reworded post is the point I was making. 

I might have been a little rude to Peter's successor in my original post but that's due to a general disgust with religions that probably stems from being beaten up by nuns when I was little.

You probably deserved it, you disrespectful little pagan!

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

You probably deserved it, you disrespectful little pagan!

Yeah, it's a funny thing.  Either they made us cry, or we made them cry.  There didn't seem to be any middle ground.

Oops, thread drift!

[Argus]

On 6/12/2019 at 1:15 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Some have suggested that many Canadians wouldn't even notice the invasion, as so much American media and popular culture are already consumed in Canada by choice.

They'll probably notice when the official language is changed to Spanish....

[Argus]

So it looks like Canada lucks out with climate change. It will barely harm our economy at all. Same for the US and most of Europe.

Which means all we need to do is build those walls to keep the rest of the world out and we'll be hunky dory!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/climate-change-moody-s-1.5199652

[Guest]

Always nice to see the Kingdom getting hammered.

[taxme]

On 7/4/2019 at 6:42 AM, dialamah said:

The US under Trump and Canada under Harper both refused funding to organizations that provided family planning services, including birth control information, because they might also fund abortion.  

Improved infant survival, a higher standard of living, higher levels of education result in lower birth rates.  The birth rates in developing nations is slowing as these things become more common.  

Poor people have a much smaller carbon footprint than rich people.  Several people living in a small house or shack, no vehicle, few possessions, little food, and even less meat, is a lot more environmentally friendly than even a lower-middle class Canadian living alone in a 600 sq ft apt, with one car, lots of possessions, lots of clothes, lots of food and daily meat.  Even that Canadian is more environmentally friendly than a family living in a 2500 sq ft house, with two or more vehicles, lots of possessions, clothes, food and meat.  The richer the individual, the worse their effect on the environment. The richer the country, the more impact they have on the environment.

Link.

Link.

Choices some climate scientists are making to reduce their carbon footprint.

The population of the world is increasing and it is all happening in the third world. The population in the world increases by several million people every year while the white western population is dropping. The population of the world is approx. 92% non white and those people do contribute a lot more pollution to the environment than white western countries do because they are having more babies. White western people in the world always get the blame for everything. This needs to stop now. 

[xul]

On 6/12/2019 at 12:45 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Not sure what you mean by "invasion".   Do you mean mass immigration from the United States to Canada, or military invasion and occupation ?

It didn't take any climate change crisis for the United States to become the #1 destination for emigres for over 100 years.....still is. 

Canadians have been "invading" the United States for a very long time....is this a bad thing ?

For the first time ever I see BC2004 is dodging a question. It seems like years of military training and membership of Republic party just can not squeeze all the liberal political-correctness which you leaned from middle schools out of your mind so you feel too shame to speak out what you truly think.

You can use many scenarios replacing the climate change one,  like the volcanic activities which will sink US in film 2012, or comet which will hit US in film Deep Impact, or some aliens who are after some minerals in your country so they ask you to leave or they will kill you like the story of Cameron's film Avatar...anyway,  you need to take Canadian's land to insure your countrymen's survival.

In case my  Canadian friend Rue cries out loud: "No, don't take Canada. We are allies, aren't we? Just take China and kill all Chinese instead, we Canadian will help you....", I create an ideal scenario for the topic:

An alien scientist who study human nature wipes out all other nations but Canada and USA on earth. Then it asks US to take Canadian's land and kill all Canadian, just like what the forefathers of Canadian did to aboriginals of this land before. If you were the president of USA, and the alien was so advanced that you had no chance to resist it, what would you do? Let all your American countrymen die or kill all Canadian instead?  

For some liberal girls who would say:"I would rather die instead of killing others." I had to emphasis this isn't The Hunger Games scenario. As an individual, you can always choose to die for others like what Peeta intends to do for Katniss. But as a president, when you realize your choice will affect not only yours but also other millions of people whom you are committed to serve, the noble choice which Peeta chooses in THG will no longer be noble at all.

Edited August 11, 2019 by xul

[dialamah]

On 7/5/2019 at 9:46 AM, Argus said:

So it looks like Canada lucks out with climate change. It will barely harm our economy at all. Same for the US and most of Europe.

Which means all we need to do is build those walls to keep the rest of the world out and we'll be hunky dory!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/climate-change-moody-s-1.5199652

The report admits that it doesn't take other things into consideration, such as natural disasters and the cost of those, or geopolitical and political impact.  It's a nice positive piece, but I don't think it is complete enough to be realistic.  Can't blame them, of course, it's not like they really have any previous experience to figure out the real costs. 

On 7/5/2019 at 10:00 AM, bcsapper said:

Always nice to see the Kingdom getting hammered.

Real people live there; they're the ones who'll get hammered.