CdnFox Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, eyeball said: No one has ever placed greater emphasis on government promises than yourself. I don't play synthesis on government promises at all. Once again you have to lie about what other people do in order to justify your own bad choices 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: Until we get closer to the day right wing governments are actually poised to rule that is and then it's but but but...Trudeau/Biden lefties and the Deepstate. Sure... things that the conservatives haven't even done yet are responsible for your bad actions. You've had 10 years of completely unfettered freedom to deal with climate change and you did NOTHING. You introduced a tax that filled liberal pockets but didn't do anything for the environment. And now you want to blame the conservatives for climate change? or pretend they're the ones ignoring it? If the conservatives do absolutely nothing about climate change, they'll still have done more than you. Quote
eyeball Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 9 minutes ago, CdnFox said: I mean hell you thought the carbon tax would solve everybody's problems. No I didn't. I simply agree with economists who say it could help if we stick to it. 12 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Sounds like you spent seven years occasionally bringing the subject up and then demanding that all polluters wear body cameras 24/7 and wandered off to do something else. No I worked at it for about 1200 hours a year. It was nearly a full time job at times but in case the floor fell out I also started a business. Governments patently do not want the public being privy to its machinations. You apparently believe this is a good thing which puts you in some very very good company btw. 21 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Who demand you actually present the science you claim exists which you and every other leftie on this board have refused to do despite multiple people asking? That anthropogenic climate change is real?🤣 22 minutes ago, CdnFox said: How annoying it must be for you to actually have to prove your assertions have validity. Hell the feds didn't even put in a target for what reductions there'd be with the carbon tax and didn't establish any way to monitor it and you were just fine with it. Of course there was no way to monitor it...why do you think I keep referring to cameras? The ongoing defense of Ottawa's obsession with secrecy is what's annoying. Something that apparently gets you off. 30 minutes ago, CdnFox said: IF the big thing that tripped you up is you couldn't prove your claims.... well the problem MIGHT not have been the people asking for the proof. The problem is you people denying the proof, or more to the point not coming clean and simply declaring you just don't give anymore of a shit than you did decades ago. 33 minutes ago, User said: I know. Better get back to worrying about the sun! Why? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
User Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: Why? LOL, are you not aware of the science here? Quote
eyeball Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 9 minutes ago, User said: LOL, are you not aware of the science here? No according to you, so feel free to explain it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
User Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 1 minute ago, eyeball said: No according to you, so feel free to explain it. Did you miss the Red Giant comment earlier or did you just not understand what that is? Quote
eyeball Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 42 minutes ago, User said: Did you miss the Red Giant comment earlier or did you just not understand what that is? No I didn't miss it, given it was me who made the comment. Did you miss where I also said there's lots we can do to make things uninhabitable ourselves a lot sooner? I'm sure you did and you do understand why I said but you just don't give a shit. Everyone gets that too. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
User Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 1 minute ago, eyeball said: No I didn't miss it, given it was me who made the comment. Did you miss where I also said there's lots we can do to make things uninhabitable ourselves a lot sooner? I'm sure you did and you do understand why I said but you just don't give a shit. Everyone gets that too. So, your position is that it is too late to change anything, but we can still do stuff to prevent the inevitable end from happening for a bit longer. OK, so what are these timelines? When is the end for us at this moment? Quote
eyeball Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 9 minutes ago, User said: So, your position is that it is too late to change anything, but we can still do stuff to prevent the inevitable end from happening for a bit longer. OK, so what are these timelines? Go ask the IPCC. It's too late if we think we can grow our way out of this with the resources we have at hand. So....I propose something I call the Pie In The Sky Plan to pay for everything. We mortgage the asteroid called Psyche that's worth somewhere between $10 quintillion and $100,000 quadrillion. We could do a lot of adapting with that kind of cheddar don't you think? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
User Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 2 minutes ago, eyeball said: Go ask the IPCC. You are the one here making these arguments. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 1 hour ago, eyeball said: No I didn't. I simply agree with economists who say it could help if we stick to it. Yes you did, and continued to do so even after the economists admitted they were wrong. Quote No I worked at it for about 1200 hours a year. It was nearly a full time job at times but in case the floor fell out I also started a business. Bullshit. It's pretty obvious you don't care about any of this. Your frequent lack of knowledge also suggests you're not being honest. To you this is a game. Quote Governments patently do not want the public being privy to its machinations. You apparently believe this is a good thing which puts you in some very very good company btw. Ahhh yes, once again you have to lie and pretend i said something i didn't. Again if you have to lie to make a point it's probably not a very good point. Quote That anthropogenic climate change is real?🤣 That it's a crisis. Climate change is real, but what is more of a question is whether it's a genuine crisis. You claim you believe it is...then you back a carbon tax you KNOW is doing nothing, the feds don't take any meaningful action on it, around the world we've got the same activists who are saying we have to stop using fossil fuels wanting to ban nuclear power, and none of the world's govts seem overly concerned about it, they just virtue signal. And people here keep asking for the scientific evidence that it's a crisis. ANd nobody ever produces any. Quote Of course there was no way to monitor it...why do you think I keep referring to cameras? You're going to monitor the effectiveness of the carbon tax.... with cameras. You have lost your teeny tiny little socialist mind. Quote The problem is you people denying the proof we can't deny that which you refuse to provide. If you actually had proof of any sort we could consider whether to deny it or not. Quote Why? Because it's a crisis! Trust me!! No no, don't think, don't worry about the truth, just trust me! It's a crisis. (the science says so probably!!!) 2 Quote
eyeball Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 17 minutes ago, User said: You are the one here making these arguments. That anthropogenic global warming is real? That argument was settled decades ago, where have you been? I'm merely pointing out it was right. But don't take my word for it just look at the wildfire in LA and more specifically the inability to prevent, mitigate or adapt to the conditions that made it worse. There's definitely a political environment here too that needs some remedial restorative work. We used the top-down-approach when we planned a watershed restoration. No point starting at the bottom when there's mud and silt and wood debris from above threatening to undo the job you're trying to do. So you start at the top... It's just common sense right? I suggest the same approach when working on our governance. You have to start at the top to deal with the threat of more shit and corruption cascading down on everything you're attempting to fix. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 38 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Yes you did, and continued to do so even after the economists admitted they were wrong. Economists haven't admitted that at all. Carbon pricing, especially where it's revenue neutral, is the most effective measure against further AGW we've come up with. Go as Scott Moe if you don't believe me. 38 minutes ago, CdnFox said: It's pretty obvious you don't care about any of this. Sure, just like it's obvious to you that I voted for Trudeau. You need to keep saying this to yourself because ad hominins are your only recourse and go to. 38 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Ahhh yes, once again you have to lie and pretend i said something i didn't. Again if you have to lie to make a point it's probably not a very good point. As you've said yourself several times politicians never say what they're going to do because they're all afraid of doing so. They certainly don't change those spots once they've been elected to power. 38 minutes ago, CdnFox said: That it's a crisis. Climate change is real, but what is more of a question is whether it's a genuine crisis. You claim you believe it is... Because the vast VAST majority of experts do too. The best argument they're right is actually the quality of the denial that's as heavily weighted with ad hominins and all the other nonsense you try to stick on it. 38 minutes ago, CdnFox said: we've got the same activists who are saying we have to stop using fossil fuels wanting to ban nuclear power, I support nuclear power but not until we have our issues with secrecy around the governments agencies and departments charged with oversight and regulation of the industry straightened out. I know a check mark on a ballot every 4-5 years works for you people but that's you. 38 minutes ago, CdnFox said: And people here keep asking for the scientific evidence that it's a crisis. ANd nobody ever produces any. It's been on the news for several days now, haven't you been watching? 38 minutes ago, CdnFox said: You're going to monitor the effectiveness of the carbon tax.... with cameras. You have lost your teeny tiny little socialist mind. No, I'd monitor the government to ensure shit like the Green Slush Fund can be prevented. Nothing undermines concern for the environment or the effectiveness of action faster than that. Trudeau and the Liberals are as good at steering the world towards the cliff as anyone. Hence the reason I stopped voting for them 45 years ago. Sure kid. There, I saved you the trouble. 38 minutes ago, CdnFox said: we can't deny that which you refuse to provide. If you actually had proof of any sort we could consider whether to deny it or not. Well then you're quite effectively fùcked aren't you? But of course now that the world is swinging hard towards the right and common sense in reaction to all the lies it's be a snap to correct everything and we'll all be farting in silk in cooler well adapted climes in no time at all. I can't wait. I may even vote for Poilievre myself. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CdnFox Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 49 minutes ago, eyeball said: Economists haven't admitted that at all. They absolutely have. And explain why. It turns out the original models which were used to determine whether or not it would be effective overestimated the elasticity (as they put it) of discretionary energy spending. The model works based on the principle that if it costs more to buy energy people will buy less energy, and will reorganize their lives to achieve that. But it's far less possible than originally believed. People still need to heat their homes when it's cold etc and the ability to reduce that is far more minimal than originally thought. There's only so many sweaters you can wear, etc. The only ones still promoting it work for the libs. 53 minutes ago, eyeball said: Sure, just like it's obvious to you that I voted for Trudeau. You need to keep saying this to yourself because ad hominins are your only recourse and go to. I didn't bring up you voting for Trudeau at all. In fact I don't see how you could seeing as he will be supposedly stepping down before the next election. But it is interesting to note you couldn't refute what I said so you tried to distract. The evidence is overwhelming that you don't really care about this. If you did you'd be more honest . 55 minutes ago, eyeball said: As you've said yourself several times politicians never say what they're going to do because they're all afraid of doing so. They certainly don't change those spots once they've been elected to power. Which has nothing to do with what you pretended I said but never actually did 55 minutes ago, eyeball said: It's been on the news for several days now, haven't you been watching? I must have missed it, point me to the news show it was on. They're all online now so shouldn't be a problem. 56 minutes ago, eyeball said: No, I'd monitor the government to ensure shit like the Green Slush Fund can be prevented. We knew about the green slush fund. We know about it now. We know that the liberals have been following money into their own pockets since shortly after Trudeau was first elected 9 years ago. And you still didn't do anything other than try to blame harper for it So what you're doing is lying. And it still has absolutely nothing to do with the point that was being made. If you didn't have dishonesty you would have no honesty 58 minutes ago, eyeball said: I support nuclear power but not until we have our issues with secrecy around the governments agencies and departments charged with oversight and regulation of the industry straightened out. So in other words you don't support it but you want to pretend like maybe you do. " I SUPPORT IT AS LONG AS WE DON"T DO IT!" lol! Considering that you keep voting for and supporting corrupt governments obviously we will never do it if your criteria has to be met 59 minutes ago, eyeball said: Well then you're quite effectively fùcked aren't you? Not at all. The fact that you can't provide proof of the claim that it's a crisis despite claiming you dealt with this heavily for years professionally is actually very freeing. It lets us know there probably isn't a crisis and adaptation is a more reasonable solution and we can vote in gov'ts to axe the tax etc. Quote
User Posted January 12 Report Posted January 12 3 hours ago, eyeball said: That anthropogenic global warming is real? That argument was settled decades ago, where have you been? Why are you asking yourself a question, answering it, and pretending like you are engaging with me? I asked you to define these timelines you are arguing exist here. Apparently you can't, because you are just making up crap. So you play these dumb games with asking yourself a question instead. 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/california-wildfires-climate-change-water-storage-land-management-gavin-newsom-democrats-bd78d49a So weird. I can't tell the difference in rain based on when I bought an SUV. Can you? I mean, the graph goes back way before the internal combustion engine was popular. How is that possible? I thought climate change threw everything out of whack and that's why we had these fires? 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 2 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Hodad Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said: Maybe find something from a credible source. The one above has posted lie after lie after lie about these fires--and thousands of others. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 1 minute ago, Hodad said: Maybe find something from a credible source. The one above has posted lie after lie after lie about these fires--and thousands of others. If it is a lie, prove it wrong. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Hodad Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: If it is a lie, prove it wrong. I can't prove the negative any more than anyone else, but there is no evidence of funds being diverted from the fire department to illegal immigrants. And available evidence contradicts the basic premise. The fire department According to the LA Times, after the 2024-25 budget was passed, the city council approved $53m in pay raises for firefighters and $58m for new kit, such as firetrucks. Once that funding is taken into account, the fire department's operating budget technically grew this year, according to the newspaper. The LAFD has an overall budget of approaching $1bn, and it isn't the only department responding to the fires. But again, why you you simply believe some random unsourced, unsupported claim from social media--let alone one from a known pathological liar. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 9 hours ago, Hodad said: I can't prove the negative any more than anyone else, but there is no evidence of funds being diverted from the fire department to illegal immigrants. And available evidence contradicts the basic premise. The fire department According to the LA Times, after the 2024-25 budget was passed, the city council approved $53m in pay raises for firefighters and $58m for new kit, such as firetrucks. Once that funding is taken into account, the fire department's operating budget technically grew this year, according to the newspaper. The LAFD has an overall budget of approaching $1bn, and it isn't the only department responding to the fires. But again, why you you simply believe some random unsourced, unsupported claim from social media--let alone one from a known pathological liar. I don't believe some random unsourced, unsupported claim. That's what libs do when it involves Trump. I believe the fire chief: Quote Before wildfires broke out across Los Angeles, the city's fire chief said that budget cuts were hampering the department's ability to respond to emergencies, a department memo shows. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-wildfires-los-angeles-fire-chief-budget-cuts/ Who do you think we should believe? A reporter or the fire chief? Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Venandi Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 (edited) 11 hours ago, Hodad said: Maybe find something from a credible source. The one above has posted lie after lie after lie about these fires--and thousands of others. Why not just follow events instead of expecting others to do your homework for you? These things take time to figure out, it has to be done systematically, one piece of the puzzle at a time without jumping to conclusions precipitously at every stage of the evolution. Here's an article from MSN but maybe they turned racist 18 hours ago: https://www.msn.com/en-us/public-safety-and-emergencies/fire-and-rescue/illegal-immigrant-arrested-near-la-fire-with-blowtorch-is-a-convicted-felon-with-history-of-violence/ar-BB1rse3R I would hasten to add that this is in no way governing... being thwarted in an arson attempt isn't causal and anyone assuming that all of this is the exclusive domain of illegals is jumping to conclusions in the same manner you are but in reverse... each of those actions is a bad as the other in terms of achieving credible results IMO. I'm really starting to sympathize with the militaries recruiting issues now. There are tests for attitudes like this and the number of applicants being rejected for cause is off the charts suddenly. If you can't take an overall snapshot of a situation, form a credible threat assessment based on what's in plain view, chart a course to counter the threat while making corrections and adjustments along the way and be able to do that in a reasonable (not expert) fashion, then we collectively will get exactly what we seem to have now. You make things better by doing thorough investigations after the fact and adjusting contingency planning based on the results. It clearly doesn't work well in a narrative charged environment and some of these threads are proof of the potential difficulties in doing that. Edited January 15 by Venandi Quote
Hodad Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said: I don't believe some random unsourced, unsupported claim. That's what libs do when it involves Trump. I believe the fire chief: Who do you think we should believe? A reporter or the fire chief? That's easy. A reporter. An impartial third party who is actually looking at the budget documents. Which are public, btw. The fire chief is likely not looking at the budget and is heavily incentivized to blame someone else--doubly so if it gets the department more money I'm the next budget. Quote
Nationalist Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 To experience a fire and immediately blame the Climate Change boogyman is such a simple minded thing to do. It's a deflection from California's lack of concern and preparation. Most reasonable people can see and admit the climate has altered some. Most of them can even accept that man has helped this change along. This is not in dispute Libbies. So do yourselves a favor and stop claiming such. The arguments against are a rational disagreement with your methods to mitigate. The planet is not burning up and Florida is still there, much to your chagrin. We are not all gonna die. I would ask you all to calm down, think before you panic, and stop making excuses for fools who speak the words the public want to hear, but do the opposite. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 5 minutes ago, Hodad said: That's easy. A reporter. An impartial third party who is actually looking at the budget documents. Which are public, btw. The fire chief is likely not looking at the budget and is heavily incentivized to blame someone else--doubly so if it gets the department more money I'm the next budget. That memo was a full month before the fires. Nice try though. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
ironstone Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 On 1/8/2025 at 4:36 PM, Hodad said: There's a reason James Woods is typecast as a smarmy arsehole. He's a toxic fark. But I still I don't take any joy in his loss. Here is your 'toxic fark'. Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.