She cried for Jasper burning, now starts a campaign to remove carbon emission caps

[Five of swords]

57 minutes ago, cougar said:

I was waiting for you to wade into this debate and start shining 😁

Excellent logic!    Let's get rid of oxygen and leave only CO2 to prevent fires from spreading.

You, blackbird and taxme have some awesome ideas that will make any politician envious.  🤣

Whose idea was that? It is just a fact that the higher the oxygen content the more likely fire is. If the air was 30% oxygen then we couldn't survive.

[CdnFox]

On 10/15/2024 at 10:16 PM, cougar said:

Typical of politicians, Alberta premiere Danielle Smith does not know her ins from outs.

Yesterday crying for losing Jasper, AB ; today starting a campaign to remove provincial emission caps so the oil and gas industry can continue to pollute the atmosphere, waters and soils further changing the planet's climate.

It is in line with Trumps assertion that rising ocean levels would only create more beachfront property.

Politicians elected are always the dumbest of the dumb, but with big mouths that can swallow an elephant alive.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-oil-and-gas-emissions-cap-danielle-smith-1.7352333

We had the caps and Jasper still burnt. The federal government didn't have the money to do proper maintenance on the woods.

Seriously how thick would it be to continue to do the same thing we've done for the last 8 years or 9 years which clearly hasn't worked and to continue it as if it was a valuable tool get rid of it and start thinking about how to adapt

[Venandi]

13 hours ago, herbie said:

I even like the "lightning started it, so how can you blame the weather" bit.

I would have thought those who consider global warming causal to be the biggest proponents of good forestry management practices. Acknowledging a heightened threat from an clearly identifiable source whilst failing to take reasonable (and obvious) mitigation efforts seems worse than denying the threats existence in the first place. 

Throw in the combined effects of prevailing winds, valley orientation, fuel loading, average (predictable) annual weather patterns and common sense and you'd think climate change deniers and climate change activists would be singing from the same mitigation hymnbook. Workable threat assessments are grounded in reality, and reality doesn't care which of the cults you belong to.  

 

Edited October 17, 2024 by Venandi

[Five of swords]

This whole thread just looks like climate change derangement syndrome. People trust 'experts' way too much and when the 'experts' use fear mongering rhetoric over some politicized issue, it actually screws up the normie brain and they enter a state of panic where calm rational approaches to an issue are no longer possible.

 

Ultimately there is a cost benefit analysis to be made here. If you say 'we must do x to prevent y' then it is logical to look at the cost of x and y and determine which is worse. Either way there is a cost.

And even if we assume all the scientists are correct about their predictions...which is an absurd assumption because scientists are usually wrong even about issues that are not political...but even if we grant that. The scientists are not actually predicting that climate change will be an existential threat to all humanity. In fact, if you are worried about the extinction of the human race, you should be far more worried about asteroids than climate change. So logically you should be obsessed with space travel and colonizing planets like elon musk. But this is a totally neglected endeavor and nobody blocks highway traffic over it.

 

Why? Because humans are stupid and deserve to go extinct.

[myata]

There's that sad idea that once intelligence advances beyond a certain level it can be easier to make oneself believe in pleasant unreality than to act accordingly to unpleasant reality. That is, substitute the reality with a nice mental picture and hope it'll all fix itself somehow in the meanwhile.

Next of course, there will be all kind of smart folk who would figure out how to use this trait for a nice and cozy benefit, not to mention the common goodness how else. The two play in lockstep. You figure out what comes next.

[Venandi]

52 minutes ago, myata said:

Next of course, there will be all kind of smart folk who would figure out how to use this trait for a nice and cozy benefit

Yes, but it only fools people who aren't out on the land.

Like many endeavours, having eyes to see, ears to hear, average intelligence plus the time and inclination to get er done is all that you need. Do it and in short order you'll have questions; mostly prefixed with"wait a minute now." Don't do it and you'll be just another expert commentator with lots of answers, and we already have enough of those folks. 

 

Edited October 17, 2024 by Venandi

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

This whole thread just looks like climate change derangement syndrome. People trust 'experts' way too much a....

 

.....

 

Why? Because humans are stupid and deserve to go extinct.

And if we don't trust the experts, whp do we trust? Facebook? Fox News, or even worse, you?? LOL

[Five of swords]

22 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

And if we don't trust the experts, whp do we trust? Facebook? Fox News, or even worse, you?? LOL

You have to apply some logic and common sense to what you are being told. When someone is telling you a lie, it always reveals itself with internal contradictions and ridiculous epicycles. You can often extract a lot of the truth from observing such contradictions and what they really mean. How do the elite benefit from this narrative? Why did they pick this particular narrative? Who is being harmed by it? Why? Etc

 

 But I get the feeling you didn't read my post...cause I pointed out that even if we do trust you experts, then your own hysteria is still absurd. So you can go ahead and trust them...I don't care...just be rational about the conclusions

 

Like...if this is such a life and death issue...have you even read ipcc reports? Do you know what the scientists actually predict? I have. And whether the ipcc can be considered credible or not I can state quite confidently that it does not predict an existential threat to humanity. 

Edited October 17, 2024 by Five of swords

[myata]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

Yes, but it only fools people who aren't out on the land.

But we are not there anymore. It's the law of the numbers. If 70% want to believe a fairy tale you've got yourself a fairy tale in place of the reality.

[cougar]

12 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Whose idea was that? It is just a fact that the higher the oxygen content the more likely fire is. If the air was 30% oxygen then we couldn't survive.

This has to be put right on the flag of the Conservative party!  "CO2 prevents forest fires!  If air is over 30% oxygen, we can't survive!"     😄  The oil and gas industry will love it!

[Five of swords]

5 minutes ago, cougar said:

This has to be put right on the flag of the Conservative party!  "CO2 prevents forest fires!  If air is over 30% oxygen, we can't survive!"     😄  The oil and gas industry will love it!

Dude...this is 'accepted fact' among your trusted scientists. If the oxygen content is 25%, as it has been once before in earth's natural history, the result is constant and rampant forest fires. You can look this stuff up. You are just low info.

[cougar]

3 hours ago, Five of swords said:

1. People trust 'experts' way too much........

2.  Ultimately there is a cost benefit analysis to be made here. If you say 'we must do x to prevent y' then it is logical to look at the cost of x and y and determine which is worse. Either way there is a cost.

3.   And even if we assume all the scientists are correct about their predictions...which is an absurd assumption because scientists are usually wrong e..............

4.  Why? Because humans are stupid and deserve to go extinct.

1.  They can't trust the experts and their own two eyes even if their own house burnt down or was washed out?  So who should they trust?  You? 

2. "Cost" is not what you or an economist can calculate.   The actual value of life is outside their equation.  In fact even the value in dollars they may give you is totally misleading and meaningless within our economy.

3.  Yeah, only you and the likes of you on the Canadian Political forum are in the know of what is "correct".

4.   Can't argue with that - you, taxme, blackbird and the billions of replicas of you will drag us all down.

Edited October 17, 2024 by cougar

[cougar]

2 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Dude...this is 'accepted fact' among your trusted scientists. If the oxygen content is 25%, as it has been once before in earth's natural history, the result is constant and rampant forest fires. You can look this stuff up. You are just low info.

You think I disagree with your point?  Not al all!  All I am saying is the Conservatives will not say 50% or more CO2 in the air will kill you, but they will happily tell you that 30% or more oxygen will do that.

[Five of swords]

1 minute ago, cougar said:

You think I disagree with your point?  Not al all!  All I am saying is the Conservatives will not say 50% or more CO2 in the air will kill you, but they will happily tell you that 30% or more oxygen will do that.

Conservatives won't say anything about atmospheric science, actually. They don't care. They correctly recognize that only weirdos even give a crap about such stuff and candidates do not get elected on it. In that respect they are more clever than you are, lol

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Conservatives won't say anything about atmospheric science, actually. They don't care.  

Except for Bush, Mulroney, Thatcher and the recent Conservative candidates who had Carbon Credit proposals...

[Five of swords]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Except for Bush, Mulroney, Thatcher and the recent Conservative candidates who had Carbon Credit proposals...

Really? If those people actually discussed scientific theory on the subject I would love to see a citation. It certainly is not part of popular culture. In popular culture i only know 'drill baby drill'. They will call climate change a scam, but won't delve into the nuts and bolts of how it is. That is my general impression.

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, myata said:

But we are not there anymore. It's the law of the numbers. If 70% want to believe a fairy tale you've got yourself a fairy tale in place of the reality.

Well, you may be right about that. The secular religious aspect of this and the polarization it produces is on full display here and it creates an impenetrable barrier to getting things done.

Then again, a simple thing like an afternoon's outing by horseback is what tends to generate questions instead of pronouncements, and most of those questions start with "wait a minute now..."

Maybe we need more questions and less pronouncements... I'll even go first: " with regard to the fire in Jasper, the long lead up to it, and the (I say criminal) lack of management, wtf did you think was going to happen?"

Risk can only be mitigated with things that are under your control (like forestry management), the rest is a diversion, or more accurately perhaps an excuse for inaction. Action costs, it might be in money, blood, sweat, time or what ever but it costs... and the return (at least in this case) is measured in something that didn't happen. 

A tough sell I think, fairy tales are easier. 

Put another way, Canada's contribution to global emissions is about 1.4%. We could shutdown everything (and I mean everything), shiver in the dark, starve and produce zero emissions; what effect would that have had on the Jasper fire in the absence of forestry management? 

The answer is nothing. Not a thing.   

 

Edited October 17, 2024 by Venandi

[Five of swords]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

1.  They can't trust the experts and their own two eyes even if their own house burnt down or was washed out?  So who should they trust?  You? 

2. "Cost" is not what you or an economist can calculate.   The actual value of life is outside their equation.  In fact even the value in dollars they may give you is totally misleading and meaningless within our economy.

3.  Yeah, only you and the likes of you on the Canadian Political forum are in the know of what is "correct".

4.   Can't argue with that - you, taxme, blackbird and the billions of replicas of you will drag us all down.

I'm just a guy informing you that you are failing at the basic logic level. Climate change is not the only possible cause of a fire...and climate change does not imply that every city is going to burn down.

 

Based on those two very simple and painfully obvious observations, your op has nothing. You have departed the realm of rudimentary logical thinking. Without basic logic, information is useless...if you even have any information...which I doubt.

[herbie]

16 hours ago, Five of swords said:

No, it won't. Do you think this politician thinks it would?

Duh. When the whole world is trying to reduce emissions she calls for a removal of caps? Calls for increasing oil production?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Except for Bush, Mulroney, Thatcher and the recent Conservative candidates who had Carbon Credit proposals...

Even harper's emissions went down more than corrections or she does did

[Five of swords]

25 minutes ago, herbie said:

Duh. When the whole world is trying to reduce emissions she calls for a removal of caps? Calls for increasing oil production?

This post just fails on so many levels lol. Where to start lol. First of all...the whole world is not trying to reduce emissions. Okay? Lol.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

what effect would that have had on the Jasper fire in the absence of forestry management? 

This is a near-perfect example of the "fairy tale reality" problem. Is there a promise that any problem, especially those where precarious balance is involved with a possibility of a precipitous change if/when tipped be solved by "mitigation" (that usually means controlling a part of the effect and hoping that the rest would fix itself, anyhow). Who gave us that promise, though?

Next is the argument, someone should do it but not us. Clearly it hinges on the presumption "I can pick my own excuses but at the same time endowed with a privilege (given by who, from where) to judge others for their". I am special but Joe is not. Would it work? How likely?

So other than finding a way to contribute to the solution of a common problem in a meaningful way, we're down to "mitigation" with everyone free to interpret it however it suits them down to communal prayers. How much chance that serious, planet-scale problem can be solved that way?

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

the whole world is not trying to reduce emissions. Okay?

No, it is. It's just YOU that isn't trying. And obviously Smith and her anti-environment pseuso-conservative cronies.

[cougar]

2 hours ago, Five of swords said:

1.  I'm just a guy informing you that you are failing at the basic logic level. Climate change is not the only possible cause of a fire...and climate change does not imply that every city is going to burn down.

 

2.  Based on those two very simple and painfully obvious observations, your op has nothing. You have departed the realm of rudimentary logical thinking.

 

3  Without basic logic, information is useless...if you even have any information...which I doubt.

1.  A crooked ruler is informing the line that it is not straight ????  😅

2.  Painful?  Are you in pain?  I am not

3. Now you bring up logic.   Your logic is that having multiple cities burn in the past 5 years across Alberta, BC, other provinces and states, and around the World - something the World has admitted has not been seen before - has nothing to do with oil and gas production but rather with poor forestry management.    The hurricanes that hit the southern States that people say have not seen this bad in centuries have also nothing to do with it and neither are the massive floods in Canada, the States and again around the World.

How messed up one can be to deny all facts, evidence, events and call his position the only logical one?

Seems to me you need to be institutionalized but as long as you remain harmless you will not show on the radar.😁

[Nefarious Banana]

31 minutes ago, herbie said:

No, it is. It's just YOU that isn't trying. And obviously Smith and her anti-environment pseuso-conservative cronies.

Are you and cougar immigrants from sh!thole middle Europe?  Ever thought of leaving Canada if it makes you so unhappy?