View Poll Results: What is your opinion on global warming?

Voters
168. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's happening and we're to blame

    85 50.60%
  • It's happening but it's not man made

    20 11.90%
  • It's not even happening, except according to the cycles of nature

    46 27.38%
  • Undecided / No opinion

    17 10.12%
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7131415161718 LastLast
Results 1,601 to 1,700 of 1710

Thread: Still Believe in Global Warming?

  1. #1601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    And climate change agenda scraped by Trump
    4 years of his hot air will get it going again...
    Or not. Poor Canada will carry the load, for show.(sigh..)
    So, should we assume that both of you (build and hello) believe that Trump will make absolutely zero concessions toward the possibility that climate change (global warming) is possible and some sort of action is needed?

    We could possibly add moa and oil to the confirmed sceptics I'd like to see if they believe that Trump will absolutely deny any and all of the global warming science throughout his term.

    Me? I'm not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised if he did a flip.
    Last edited by KC; 20-01-2017 at 08:38 PM.

  2. #1602
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    And climate change agenda scraped by Trump
    4 years of his hot air will get it going again...
    Or not. Poor Canada will carry the load, for show.(sigh..)
    So, should we assume that both of you (build and hello) believe that Trump will make absolutely zero concessions toward the possibility that climate change (global warming) is possible and some sort of action is needed?

    We could possibly add moa and oil to the confirmed sceptics I'd like to see if they believe that Trump will absolutely deny any and all of the global warming science throughout his term.

    Me? I'm not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised if he did a flip.
    He's taken everything down from the whitehouse website to do with CC.The 45th president that is.

  3. #1603
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,459

    Default

    Unfortunately no one, not even Trump, can wish climate change away. It will continue and when all the coastal cities are underwater how foolish Trump and others will look. A climecaust.

  4. #1604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Unfortunately no one, not even Trump, can wish climate change away. It will continue and when all the coastal cities are underwater how foolish Trump and others will look. A climecaust.
    He (and we) will be loong dead before that matters. Plus he'll blame someone else anyway.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  5. #1605
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    Like Trudeau does?. Hells bells, he still blames Harper for pretty much everything that goes wrong in his myopic world.. So Trump is not unlike our snowflake

  6. #1606
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    And climate change agenda scraped by Trump
    4 years of his hot air will get it going again...
    Or not. Poor Canada will carry the load, for show.(sigh..)
    So, should we assume that both of you (build and hello) believe that Trump will make absolutely zero concessions toward the possibility that climate change (global warming) is possible and some sort of action is needed?

    We could possibly add moa and oil to the confirmed sceptics I'd like to see if they believe that Trump will absolutely deny any and all of the global warming science throughout his term.

    Me? I'm not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised if he did a flip.
    He's taken everything down from the whitehouse website to do with CC.The 45th president that is.
    As would any incoming President. Obama's White House site has been archived to ObamaWhiteHouse.gov and the main site has been cleared so the new administration can put their own material in. Not sure why this is something worth mentioning as it will be the same for every new administration.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  7. #1607
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    Not sure why you had to mention what I posted, we can all see it.

  8. #1608
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post

    ^Someone was showing off their mad photoshop skills:


    http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/s...oming-ice-age/

  9. #1609
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/...r-charges.html

    Keep getting sucked in people . With mythical science and outright lies
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  10. #1610
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post

    ^Someone was showing off their mad photoshop skills:


    http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/s...oming-ice-age/
    That maybe photoshoped but Time magazine was pushing the iceage crap in the 70's http://time.com/vault/year/1977/ and dec issue 1979 http://time.com/vault/year/1979/
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  11. #1611
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    The 1977 Time story is solely about that winter, it's a weather story not climate story. The 1979 Time story is also not about climate but about the energy crisis.

    That facts are in 70's the data was still coming in and while most scientists studying the issue were leaning towards warming some thought there would be cooling. The media was reporting both. Given a few pretty cold winters a few cooling scare stories were published. As more and more data came in it became clear the earth was not cooling and the story was left to die in the 70s with disco.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  12. #1612

    Default

    A group of Republican elder statesmen is calling for a tax on carbon emissions to fight climate change.
    The group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, with former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former secretary of the Treasury, says that taxing carbon pollution produced by burning fossil fuels is “a conservative climate solution” based on free-market principles.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/s...-tax.html?_r=0
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  13. #1613
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    The 1977 Time story is solely about that winter, it's a weather story not climate story. The 1979 Time story is also not about climate but about the energy crisis.

    That facts are in 70's the data was still coming in and while most scientists studying the issue were leaning towards warming some thought there would be cooling. The media was reporting both. Given a few pretty cold winters a few cooling scare stories were published. As more and more data came in it became clear the earth was not cooling and the story was left to die in the 70s with disco.
    Listen I am not even going to argue with you I remember the ice age scare quite well in the 70's from science teachers news and elsewhere so keep your cult belief going because MSM tells you . You will be hearing a lot more about the fraud in months ahead. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ice-age-scare/ spare me the BS please free mind here. Climate experts were lying then and now. Amazing how temperatures were dropping for 20 straight years from the 50 70's during the baby boomer years coal burning and industrial era now their charts say we were heating up during then .
    Last edited by buildthemhigh; 08-02-2017 at 11:56 AM.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  14. #1614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post


    B.S.-High DID YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS WAS A REAL TIME MAGAZINE COVER???

    You fell for an obvious hoax, the cover is fake and you fell for it!

    "Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age"
    A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age.
    http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/s...oming-ice-age/


    "From the 1977 cover we can see that apparently a new ice age was supposed to arrive. Only 30 years later, according to the 2006 cover, global warming is supposed to be the problem. But the cover on the left isn’t from 1977. It actually is this Time cover from April 9, 2007:"
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...david-kirtley/
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  15. #1615
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  16. #1616
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    1973 the big freeze ht tp://time.com/vault/year/1973/ and once again for the blind to see https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ice-age-scare/ http://time.com/vault/year/1973/
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  17. #1617
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,067

    Default

    I do know one thing. The Pacific Ocean is not rising....yet. My inlaws front step is one meter above sea level and has been for 40 years and is still the same. When they get a heavy rainfall fish are flopping around in the puddles in front of the house. lol. They live on the bank of the Mekong River 28 km downstream of Can Tho (pop 1.3 m.) close to the South China Sea which is the Pacific. There is talk and fear of their village and the delta being flooded by the rising ocean but I havn't seen it come up yet. If you check Can Tho on Wikipedia it lists the elevation at 0 m. and 0 ft. above sea level. My sonny boy was born there. I'll keep an eye out tho and let you guys know if it comes up. When the fish are swimming into the living room we will be selling commercially. lol
    Last edited by Drumbones; 08-02-2017 at 12:32 PM.

  18. #1618
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    Listen I am not even going to argue with you I remember the ice age scare quite well in the 70's from science teachers news and elsewhere so keep your cult belief going because MSM tells you .
    You've got a terrible memory. There was no widespread scientific consensus that a new Ice Age was coming. If that's your honest recollection of what was going on, it's completely faulty. Or you think that a small handful of magazine articles about one or two studies somehow trump the work of thousands of scientists.

    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

    However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
    Climate science was very much in it's infancy, in the 70's, given the relatively small number of studies mentioned above. But even then, global warming was the consensus.

    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.

  19. #1619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I do know one thing. The Pacific Ocean is not rising....yet. My inlaws front step is one meter above sea level and has been for 40 years and is still the same. When they get a heavy rainfall fish are flopping around in the puddles in front of the house. lol. They live on the bank of the Mekong River 28 km downstream of Can Tho (pop 1.3 m.) close to the South China Sea which is the Pacific. There is talk and fear of their village and the delta being flooded by the rising ocean but I havn't seen it come up yet. If you check Can Tho on Wikipedia it lists the elevation at 0 m. and 0 ft. above sea level. My sonny boy was born there. I'll keep an eye out tho and let you guys know if it comes up. When the fish are swimming into the living room we will be selling commercially. lol
    Hurricanes have been decreasing as well, the exact opposite of what the brilliant "climate" scientists predicted would happen. The climate is getting more stable in terms of storms, not less. Seems if there is warming, its a good thing.

  20. #1620
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones
    I do know one thing. The Pacific Ocean is not rising....yet. My inlaws front step is one meter above sea level and has been for 40 years and is still the same. When they get a heavy rainfall fish are flopping around in the puddles in front of the house. lol. They live on the bank of the Mekong River 28 km downstream of Can Tho (pop 1.3 m.) close to the South China Sea which is the Pacific. There is talk and fear of their village and the delta being flooded by the rising ocean but I havn't seen it come up yet. If you check Can Tho on Wikipedia it lists the elevation at 0 m. and 0 ft. above sea level. My sonny boy was born there. I'll keep an eye out tho and let you guys know if it comes up. When the fish are swimming into the living room we will be selling commercially. lol


    Sea levels do not rise at the same rate in different locations. It's actually incredibly complex, because it's dependent on everything from local tides and currents, to the rotation of the Earth, to variations in the Earth's density and gravity field, and so on. As far as that specific location is concerned, from what I see in a quick search problems are already developing with salt water intrusion on agricultural land, brackish water existing far further up the Mekong river than in the past, etc. Although a lot of that is hard to tease apart from the impacts of damming the Mekong, as well. But the effects are starting now. Even if the rise is only one or two millimeters a year, that's a foot or two in a century. There's huge inertia to sea levels, as well. Once they start rising quickly, they'll keep doing so for decades and centuries.

  21. #1621
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,067

    Default

    Last year at this time there was evidence of some brack as we noticed slight saltiness when drinking the tap water which is drawn from the river. This year it seems ok. It comes and goes depending on the amount of outflow, rains and snowmelt in the mountains, and other factors.

  22. #1622

    Default

    Lawrence Solomon: Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out

    http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp...e-to-speak-out

  23. #1623
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    Listen I am not even going to argue with you I remember the ice age scare quite well in the 70's from science teachers news and elsewhere so keep your cult belief going because MSM tells you .
    You've got a terrible memory. There was no widespread scientific consensus that a new Ice Age was coming. If that's your honest recollection of what was going on, it's completely faulty. Or you think that a small handful of magazine articles about one or two studies somehow trump the work of thousands of scientists.

    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

    However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
    Climate science was very much in it's infancy, in the 70's, given the relatively small number of studies mentioned above. But even then, global warming was the consensus.

    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  24. #1624
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones
    I do know one thing. The Pacific Ocean is not rising....yet. My inlaws front step is one meter above sea level and has been for 40 years and is still the same. When they get a heavy rainfall fish are flopping around in the puddles in front of the house. lol. They live on the bank of the Mekong River 28 km downstream of Can Tho (pop 1.3 m.) close to the South China Sea which is the Pacific. There is talk and fear of their village and the delta being flooded by the rising ocean but I havn't seen it come up yet. If you check Can Tho on Wikipedia it lists the elevation at 0 m. and 0 ft. above sea level. My sonny boy was born there. I'll keep an eye out tho and let you guys know if it comes up. When the fish are swimming into the living room we will be selling commercially. lol


    Sea levels do not rise at the same rate in different locations. It's actually incredibly complex, because it's dependent on everything from local tides and currents, to the rotation of the Earth, to variations in the Earth's density and gravity field, and so on. As far as that specific location is concerned, from what I see in a quick search problems are already developing with salt water intrusion on agricultural land, brackish water existing far further up the Mekong river than in the past, etc. Although a lot of that is hard to tease apart from the impacts of damming the Mekong, as well. But the effects are starting now. Even if the rise is only one or two millimeters a year, that's a foot or two in a century. There's huge inertia to sea levels, as well. Once they start rising quickly, they'll keep doing so for decades and centuries.
    No matter how much bs you try and peddle as reality does not change it from bs , no matter how complex you try and say the bs is.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  25. #1625
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.
    This statement gets my vote for Connect2Edmonton's best case of psychological projection in 2017.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  26. #1626
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoyleStreetBoy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.
    This statement gets my vote for Connect2Edmonton's best case of psychological projection in 2017.
    [IMG][/IMG]
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  27. #1627
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.


    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    No matter how much bs you try and peddle as reality does not change it from bs , no matter how complex you try and say the bs is.
    The irony of your posts is so thick, it's impressive! As I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin
    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.


    Keep on keepin' on, buildthemhigh.

  28. #1628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    Listen I am not even going to argue with you I remember the ice age scare quite well in the 70's from science teachers news and elsewhere so keep your cult belief going because MSM tells you .
    You've got a terrible memory. There was no widespread scientific consensus that a new Ice Age was coming. If that's your honest recollection of what was going on, it's completely faulty. Or you think that a small handful of magazine articles about one or two studies somehow trump the work of thousands of scientists.

    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

    However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
    Climate science was very much in it's infancy, in the 70's, given the relatively small number of studies mentioned above. But even then, global warming was the consensus.

    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.
    Why stop there? Why didn't you list political parties and traditional religions with followers like Christians, etc?

  29. #1629
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Lawrence Solomon: Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out

    http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp...e-to-speak-out
    That article is full of an astonishing amount of BS. This whole NOAA "controversy" was over and done with the day it came out, which was weeks ago. Yet Solomon continues to prattle on about it, like it actually means something. Heck, even Bates himself who is the supposed "whistleblower" said “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”. (source: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-...ation-at-noaa/)

    Another link that discusses the "controversy" here: http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...limate-records

    Again, this all happened two weeks before Solomon's article above. I can't say I'm surprised he ignored the true facts of the matter. After all, he also spends some time ranting on about "Climategate", which was another tempest in a tea pot that resulted in zero findings of any misconduct or manipulation by numerous independent inquiries. It just goes on and on in that article. He's actually quite shameless in ignoring the true facts of just about everything he mentions in that article. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. After all, the guy wrote an entire book about how climate change is a fraud, based it on quotes and discussions with climatologists who profoundly disagree with him, and misrepresented their actual views: https://www.desmogblog.com/the-denie...global-warming
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 21-02-2017 at 12:17 PM.

  30. #1630
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    Word of advice to you stay away from scientology moonies mormons and hippie farms you're their number one target. You are a follower not a leader. Weak minds easily brainwashed.


    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh
    No matter how much bs you try and peddle as reality does not change it from bs , no matter how complex you try and say the bs is.
    The irony of your posts is so thick, it's impressive! As I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin
    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.


    Keep on keepin' on, buildthemhigh.
    When I read your posts this is the image I get . Someone who is told anything from the government or science believes it came from god.[IMG]v[/IMG]
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  31. #1631
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    The wind blows omg it's climate change it rains omg it's climate change . It snows omg it's climate change . You fart omg you're destroying the oz layer. Scientists can't get funding now if they ? climate change. Then you have these climate change defenders going to war on phony charts out right lies . Like I keep repeating the most gullible generation to date. And in 80 years when they are long dead from their stupidity the ocean levels will be the same there will still be winter and summer and this generation will be laughed at as the biggest suckers ever.
    Last edited by buildthemhigh; 21-02-2017 at 04:11 PM.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  32. #1632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.
    You're getting responses by someone who speaks almost exclusively in image macros yet doesn't possess the ability to actually correctly link an image on the forums without needless, duplicated tags showing up.

    Don't sweat it.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  33. #1633

  34. #1634
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I look forward to being told I'm wrong, with absolutely zero factual basis.
    You're getting responses by someone who speaks almost exclusively in image macros yet doesn't possess the ability to actually correctly link an image on the forums without needless, duplicated tags showing up.

    Don't sweat it.
    Well at least I think thru critical thinking unlike you who needs someone to think for you , and self admit you're an imbecile and has to take the words of others who have a agenda for truth. Maybe if I made up phony graphs with lines you would be more convinced , because someone shows you one of those you're convinced god himself etched it in stone . Bravo Your intelligence is amazing I bet you have a graph for that two lol. Also It's a good thing you were not around in the 40's when they were giving people lobotomies because you do know the science world was convincing families it was a good thing. A practice used until the 1980's
    Last edited by buildthemhigh; 21-02-2017 at 04:25 PM.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  35. #1635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Well at least I think thru critical thinking unlike you who needs someone to think for you , and self admit you're an imbecile and has to take the words of others who have a agenda for truth. Maybe if I made up phony graphs with lines you would be more convinced , because someone shows you one of those you're convinced god himself etched it in stone . Bravo Your intelligence is amazing I bet you have a graph for that two lol.
    You seem incapable of any sort of critical thinking & at no point have you ever managed to actually form a cogent & coherent rebuttal to anything anyone has said that's disagreed with you, instead choosing to respond in image memes & macros that you can't even manage to post correctly. You're an illiberal, regressive, mindless drone & the fact that you firmly believe that you're the intelligent & well-rounded individual in these discussions is the height of hilarity.

    Since you're so fond of memes, I'll sum up in one for you.

    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  36. #1636

  37. #1637
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Lol fool on people I know more about the workings of government and deceit then you will ever know. So stay ignorant stop using your eyes ears and senses and listen to your overlords. Fait accompli !
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  38. #1638

    Default

    Just because you say you do, doesn't mean you do.

  39. #1639
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Just because you say you do, doesn't mean you do.
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  40. #1640

    Default

    That goes well to show your credibility around here...

  41. #1641
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    That goes well to show your credibility around here...
    I know my credibility , just read Stantec thread and who 1st said it would be 200 + meters and who 1st hinted it would be tallest in western Canada. Now let's see yours ? Lol and as far as government goes you will figure it out eventually .
    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  42. #1642
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    That goes well to show your credibility around here...
    I know my credibility , just read Stantec thread and who 1st said it would be 200 + meters and who 1st hinted it would be tallest in western Canada. Now let's see yours ? Lol and as far as government goes you will figure it out eventually .
    Wow! You are like The Amazing Kreskin and Nostradamus rolled into one.





    Now if you could just master the proper use of punctuation...
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  43. #1643
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Edmonton of course
    Posts
    1,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoyleStreetBoy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by buildthemhigh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    That goes well to show your credibility around here...
    I know my credibility , just read Stantec thread and who 1st said it would be 200 + meters and who 1st hinted it would be tallest in western Canada. Now let's see yours ? Lol and as far as government goes you will figure it out eventually .
    Wow! You are like The Amazing Kreskin and Nostradamus rolled into one.





    Now if you could just master the proper use of punctuation...
    Attacks Grammar !






    Then proceeds to space sentences incorrectly .


    live for happiness because without it everything seems ho hum

  44. #1644

    Default

    Most wood energy schemes are a 'disaster' for climate change - BBC News
    Excerpt:
    "This report confirms once again that cutting down trees and burning them as wood pellets in power plants is a disaster for climate policy, not a solution," said David Carr, General Counsel of the Southern Environmental Law Centre in the US.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39053678
    Last edited by KC; 24-02-2017 at 03:07 AM.

  45. #1645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Not frightened? OK, Boyle-street-boy, you're not a coward. But you're no thinker, either.

    Fertility rate by itself means nothing.

    Are you going to complain that Mr. and Mrs. Smith have only two children while Mr. and Mrs. Jones have three, if Jane Jones married John Smith and Jenny Smith married Gord Jones?

    As I said before, if the only difference between "us" and "them" is that they breed more, there's no real difference, since their many children and our few are pretty well the same and will without a doubt interbreed.

    Come up with a difference that means something.
    Fertility rate means nothing? That's what this part of the thread is about isn't it? Higher populations either through higher immigration or higher fertility rates will increase the production of global warming gases unless that higher population manages to somehow produce lower levels of such gases. That's not so easy. Moreover, some immigration, given their heritage, religion, wealth, whatever, will include people with a desire to produce more children than the 'average' person here does. If that is offset by immigrants desiring few or no children then it's a wash, but their own presence still counts as a consumer and so, an emitter of global warming gases. Now if the indigenous population isn't at replacement levels, then the immigrant may be maintaining the population, but anything more seems to necessarily create more emissions.

    If we could take in immigration that would create lower levels of greenhouse gasses than where they came from, that would be a good thing in terms of global warming (but not in terms of our other environmental issues impacted here, such as water consumption, urban sprawl, local resource consumption, etc.) Then consider our northern climate and the need for heating, lighting etc. Residing here may use up more resources than immigrants would have used had they stayed wherever they came from. Say a Londoner (England) comes here. Similar latitude but milder climate so the person likely used less natural gas for heating than they will here.

    I think this makes sense doesn't it?

    Then my position (until shown otherwise) is that immigrants want a life here much like everyone else here has and sees, say Alberta, as resource rich and primed for further resource development, ever larger cities and whatever justification is required so that they can build a good life here. Coming from larger cities, like Toronto, New York or wherever, immigrants see, say Edmonton, as a small city that could easily grow much larger, due to them having a much larger city as a point of reference.

    A long article but interesting. Not unbiased but instead arguing a point of view:


    The Critique – Why Progressives Should Support Reducing Immigration Into The United States


    ...
    Environmental Impacts: More Pollution and Less Open Space
    ...
    The bottom line is that if we want to stop sprawl, we must change the population policies that cause it, in addition to reforming misguided transportation, tax, and zoning policies. We will not stop sprawl if we simply accept population increase as inevitable, when the best research shows that it accounts for much of the problem. Nor are we likely to solve our other important environmental problems without stabilizing or reducing our population. The impacts of population growth are just too powerful.

    ...
    Efficiency Isn’t Enough

    In the early days of the environmental movement, back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, there was a popular slogan that went: “Any cause is a lost cause, without population control.” Subsequent events have borne out its truth. For a variety of reasons, in recent decades environmentalists in the U.S. have grown afraid to discuss population matters (discomfort with talking about immigration has certainly played a role).[xxiii] Instead, we have focused almost exclusively on efficiency improvements: in land use, water use, energy use, and other areas. The upshot of this narrowing has been that the efficiency improvements we have achieved have mostly been plowed back into supporting increased growth, with little real environmental improvement. If environmentalists are ever going to win our important battles, rather than just find ways to lose them more slowly, we need to recognize the way efficiency improvements tend to be swallowed up by growth, leaving environmentalists empty-handed and other species simply out of luck.

    http://www.thecritique.com/articles/...-united-state/
    Last edited by KC; 24-02-2017 at 03:50 AM.

  46. #1646

    Default

    Great to see that climate hero, Obama, who turned down Keystone XL, now living a responsible, non carbon intensive life... typical Liberal elite - do as I say, not as I do.



    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7687986.html

    Last edited by moahunter; 25-04-2017 at 02:27 PM.

  47. #1647
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  48. #1648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Its only a logical fallacy if referring to the past actions. So for to apply, you are basically saying, "Obama is not a hypocrite, because he once believed climate change matters, but he doesn't now". The sad reality is that ***** like him preach about the environment, but end up consuming more carbon just on his vacations, than any of us on C2E will in our entire lifetimes.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-04-2017 at 02:34 PM.

  49. #1649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Its only a logical fallacy if referring to the past actions. So for to apply, you are basically saying, "Obama is not a hypocrite, because he once believed climate change matters, but he doesn't now".
    No, I'm saying whether or not he acts in accordance with his beliefs is irrelevant when discussing the logic of said beliefs.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  50. #1650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Its only a logical fallacy if referring to the past actions. So for to apply, you are basically saying, "Obama is not a hypocrite, because he once believed climate change matters, but he doesn't now".
    No, I'm saying whether or not he acts in accordance with his beliefs is irrelevant when discussing the logic of said beliefs.
    I didn't say this made his beliefs invalid (that's a claim you are making). I just pointed out the truth that he is a typical liberal hypocrite who preaches about the importance of climate change and carbon consumption, but lives a lifestyle totally in opposition to that. He is every bit as morally corrupt as a church pastor who preaches celibacy, while banging half the congregation. Its easy to preach something totally unrealistic, when you think it doesn't apply to you anyway.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-04-2017 at 02:40 PM.

  51. #1651
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,768

    Default

    After Mr Obama left the Oval Office, he tweeted: “Michelle and I are off on a quick vacation, then we’ll get back to work.”
    Ms Obama wrote: “After an extraordinary 8 years, I'll be taking a little break. Will be back before you know it to work with you on the issues we care about.”




    Yes.

    Top_Dawg imagines they will be rushing right back to do some community organizing.

  52. #1652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Top_Dawg imagines they will be rushing right back to do some community organizing.

    Welllllll......

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/u...cago.html?_r=0

    Mr. Obama spoke with the young people onstage here about civic engagement, community organizing and the importance of not withdrawing from the challenges facing society. For more than an hour, he served as talk show host, asking the questions.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  53. #1653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    After Mr Obama left the Oval Office, he tweeted: “Michelle and I are off on a quick vacation, then we’ll get back to work.”
    Ms Obama wrote: “After an extraordinary 8 years, I'll be taking a little break. Will be back before you know it to work with you on the issues we care about.”




    Yes.

    Top_Dawg imagines they will be rushing right back to do some community organizing.
    I'm sure the plight of poor Washington (where they will stay living) suburbs was first and foremost on their minds while taking that photo on the deck of that yacht. Give it ten years, they will have 100m plus from speech's, will have set up a charitable foundation that their daughters earn seven figure dollars earning from. Trudeau has his up and running and raking in the money, the Clintons set the liberal path on this. Talk the "good" environmental talk (while you personally disregard any thought of living environmentally responsibly), screw the economy by imposing this crap while in power, and set up a "charitable" enrichment fund / job for life for your family members.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-04-2017 at 04:00 PM.

  54. #1654

    Default

    The fact that politicans become multimillioniares from their job should have everyone concerned.

    After all, what are they selling that's worth that much?

  55. #1655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    After Mr Obama left the Oval Office, he tweeted: “Michelle and I are off on a quick vacation, then we’ll get back to work.”
    Ms Obama wrote: “After an extraordinary 8 years, I'll be taking a little break. Will be back before you know it to work with you on the issues we care about.”




    Yes.

    Top_Dawg imagines they will be rushing right back to do some community organizing.
    I'm sure the plight of poor Washington (where they will stay living) suburbs was first and foremost on their minds while taking that photo on the deck of that yacht. Give it ten years, they will have 100m plus from speech's, will have set up a charitable foundation that their daughters earn seven figure dollars earning from. Trudeau has his up and running and raking in the money, the Clintons set the liberal path on this. Talk the "good" environmental talk (while you personally disregard any thought of living environmentally responsibly), screw the economy by imposing this crap while in power, and set up a "charitable" enrichment fund / job for life for your family members.
    And now another Trump fund. Ivanka gets her name slapped on the latest World Bank fund. Great boost to her image and brand using other people's money.

    Canada gas already apparently committed money to it!!! Now $100 million from Saudi Arabia and UAE very coincidentally during Donald Trump's trip.
    Last edited by KC; 22-05-2017 at 07:58 AM.

  56. #1656

    Default

    The risk of a megadrought is nothing new, just rarely ever discussed.

    Study Shows Carbon Emissions Could Increase Risk of Megadroughts
    Excerpt:
    “Natural droughts like the 1930s Dust Bowl and the current drought in the Southwest have historically lasted maybe a decade or a little less,” said Ben Cook, climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York City, and lead author of the study. “What these results are saying is we’re going to get a drought similar to those events, but it is probably going to last at least 30 to 35 years.”

    https://scitechdaily.com/study-shows...-megadroughts/

  57. #1657
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,547

    Default

    In related news the City of Edmonton, has just completed its EV strategy survey. Our office worked on this survey. I'm not sure if there is any transparency here. I'm hoping the coe will share the results of this survey.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  58. #1658

    Default

    Serious about stopping climate change? Have one less child, UBC study says | National Post

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...6-cd261abea049

    Excerpt:

    "For one person to have any real impact on climate change, it would take some major sacrifices: give up the car, stop eating meat, avoid transatlantic flights and, most importantly, have one fewer child than you had planned, according to a new study by a researcher at the University of British Columbia.

    So why then, the study asks, do Canadian high school textbooks still tell students to do their part by merely hanging their laundry and recycling? Especially since recycling, upgrading light bulbs and hanging laundry doesn’t cut greenhouse gas half as much as skipping out on a single transatlantic flight."

  59. #1659
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    931

    Default

    Because those things are easy to do and make you feel good. The other things are hard to do and negitively effect your quality of life.

  60. #1660
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    It really is pretty funny to see the lock on people's faces when they're lecturing you about the horrible climate impact of some minor personal choice you made, you point out that they have two kids while you have none, and you explain how that decision swamps basically everything else an individual can do to reduce their impact on the planet. Same goes with having a dog. I'm not saying I'm against either having kids or dogs, but at least have some self awareness of the impact your choices will have on the planet.

    Population control is HUGE, not just for climate change, but for basically everything as it relates to the environment. This plastic production/consumption article is absolutely mind blowing, for example: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/hu...stic-1.4210279

    "Of the 8.3 billion metric tonnes of virgin plastics ever made, half was made just in the last 13 years," Geyer said. "Between 2004 and 2015 we made as much plastic as we made between 1950 and 2004."

  61. #1661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    It really is pretty funny to see the lock on people's faces when they're lecturing you about the horrible climate impact of some minor personal choice you made, you point out that they have two kids while you have none, and you explain how that decision swamps basically everything else an individual can do to reduce their impact on the planet. Same goes with having a dog. I'm not saying I'm against either having kids or dogs, but at least have some self awareness of the impact your choices will have on the planet.

    Population control is HUGE, not just for climate change, but for basically everything as it relates to the environment. This plastic production/consumption article is absolutely mind blowing, for example: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/hu...stic-1.4210279

    "Of the 8.3 billion metric tonnes of virgin plastics ever made, half was made just in the last 13 years," Geyer said. "Between 2004 and 2015 we made as much plastic as we made between 1950 and 2004."
    Note the view in this article:

    New Study: Most Effective Way to Fight Global Warming? Don’t Have Kids - Jerry Newcombe

    https://m.townhall.com/columnists/je...itled-n2357195

  62. #1662
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Lawrence Solomon: Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out

    http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp...e-to-speak-out
    That article is full of an astonishing amount of BS. This whole NOAA "controversy" was over and done with the day it came out, which was weeks ago. Yet Solomon continues to prattle on about it, like it actually means something. Heck, even Bates himself who is the supposed "whistleblower" said “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”. (source: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-...ation-at-noaa/)

    Another link that discusses the "controversy" here: http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...limate-records

    Again, this all happened two weeks before Solomon's article above. I can't say I'm surprised he ignored the true facts of the matter. After all, he also spends some time ranting on about "Climategate", which was another tempest in a tea pot that resulted in zero findings of any misconduct or manipulation by numerous independent inquiries. It just goes on and on in that article. He's actually quite shameless in ignoring the true facts of just about everything he mentions in that article. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. After all, the guy wrote an entire book about how climate change is a fraud, based it on quotes and discussions with climatologists who profoundly disagree with him, and misrepresented their actual views: https://www.desmogblog.com/the-denie...global-warming
    The Daily Mail has been forced to apologize by a press standards organization for how misleading their article on this was: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/c...te-change.html

  63. #1663

    Default Rex Murphy: All global warming predictions are infallible... until they're not

    One global warming scientist made a point everybody should pay attention to:

    “Did the IPCC get it wrong? Just let me leave that question hanging for a while… While you ponder that question, it is worth noting that the authors of this paper developed the idea of carbon budgets, are the world leading experts on carbon budgets, and derived the carbon budgets in the IPCC process…” (my emphasis).

    Can these things be? Could even a smidgen of the skepticism some have been urging, some of the warnings that science and politics are a terrible blend, be justified? If those who design the models find the models have “overstated” matters, that the models “were too hot,” could we not find room to pause awhile before we redesign industrial civilization according to the imperatives of Al “The science is settled” Gore?

    It isn’t settled. The science is emergent. The conclusions are at best tentative. I leave you with this consolation: All global warming predictions are infallible, but some global warming predictions are less infallible than others.”
    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-...til-theyre-not

  64. #1664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Lawrence Solomon: Finally it’s safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out

    http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp...e-to-speak-out
    That article is full of an astonishing amount of BS. This whole NOAA "controversy" was over and done with the day it came out, which was weeks ago. Yet Solomon continues to prattle on about it, like it actually means something. Heck, even Bates himself who is the supposed "whistleblower" said “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”. (source: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-...ation-at-noaa/)

    Another link that discusses the "controversy" here: http://www.popsci.com/regardless-hou...limate-records

    Again, this all happened two weeks before Solomon's article above. I can't say I'm surprised he ignored the true facts of the matter. After all, he also spends some time ranting on about "Climategate", which was another tempest in a tea pot that resulted in zero findings of any misconduct or manipulation by numerous independent inquiries. It just goes on and on in that article. He's actually quite shameless in ignoring the true facts of just about everything he mentions in that article. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. After all, the guy wrote an entire book about how climate change is a fraud, based it on quotes and discussions with climatologists who profoundly disagree with him, and misrepresented their actual views: https://www.desmogblog.com/the-denie...global-warming
    The Daily Mail has been forced to apologize by a press standards organization for how misleading their article on this was: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/c...te-change.html
    Good follow up. Thanks.


    Still, I don’t put it past anyone including scientists to having either deliberate or unconscious bias in their findings and promotion thereof. Plus hostility towards science and studies that challenge their own beliefs and vested interests.


    A lesson here that’s broadly applicable:


    Chairman's Letter - 1989 - Berkshire Hathaway- Warren Buffett

    http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1989.html

    “My most surprising discovery: the overwhelming importance in business of an unseen force that we might call "the institutional imperative." In business school, I was given no hint of the imperative's existence and I did not intuitively understand it when I entered the business world. I thought then that decent, intelligent, and experienced managers would automatically make rational business decisions. But I learned over time that isn't so. Instead, rationality frequently wilts when the institutional imperative comes into play. For example: (1) As if governed by Newton's First Law of Motion, an institution will resist any change in its current direction; (2) Just as work expands to fill available time, corporate projects or acquisitions will materialize to soak up available funds; (3) Any business craving of the leader, however foolish, will be quickly supported by detailed rate-of-return and strategic studies prepared by his troops; and (4) The behavior of peer companies, whether they are expanding, acquiring, setting executive compensation or whatever, will be mindlessly imitated. Institutional dynamics, not venality or stupidity, set businesses on these courses, which are too often misguided. After making some expensive mistakes because I ignored the power of the imperative, I have tried to organize and manage Berkshire in ways that minimize its influence. Furthermore, Charlie and I have attempted to concentrate our investments in companies that appear alert to the problem.”
    Last edited by KC; 22-09-2017 at 12:15 PM.

  65. #1665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    One global warming scientist made a point everybody should pay attention to:

    “Did the IPCC get it wrong? Just let me leave that question hanging for a while… While you ponder that question, it is worth noting that the authors of this paper developed the idea of carbon budgets, are the world leading experts on carbon budgets, and derived the carbon budgets in the IPCC process…” (my emphasis).

    Can these things be? Could even a smidgen of the skepticism some have been urging, some of the warnings that science and politics are a terrible blend, be justified? If those who design the models find the models have “overstated” matters, that the models “were too hot,” could we not find room to pause awhile before we redesign industrial civilization according to the imperatives of Al “The science is settled” Gore?

    It isn’t settled. The science is emergent. The conclusions are at best tentative. I leave you with this consolation: All global warming predictions are infallible, but some global warming predictions are less infallible than others.”
    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-...til-theyre-not

    I’ve always been curious why people can’t seem to see global warming risks like they see military risks. Often the same people who are in favour of massive tax and spend to support a strong military can’t support tax and spend to prevent, delay or mitigate against global warming risks or ameliorate the effects should they come to pass.

    What are the models saying about the probability that Canada, the US, etc are going to be attacked and so billions must be spent on defence? Where’s the debating on those models? We have a very low hurdle when it comes to justifying some expenditures while others with some actual statistical and scientific support get ignored and the issue is seen as black or white rather than a risk warranting some degree of expenditure just in case.

    Long ago, when the science was far from its current more advanced state, people should willingly have supported considerable anti-warming expenditures, research and regulation for simple common sense risk reduction.

    In their own personal lives does not near everyone buy some kind of insurance for some kind of poorly quantifiable risk?


    Oh, more from Warren Buffett:

    “Predicting rain doesn’t count. Building arks does.”
    Last edited by KC; 22-09-2017 at 12:35 PM.

  66. #1666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    That's a pretty selective portion of the entire chart - it doesn't look quite so convincing if you take a longer time period:


  67. #1667
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,394

    Default

    ^So compress the scale so it becomes difficult to see how much larger the rate of modern warming is compared to the rate of past climate changes? The fact that past interglacials may have been 2-3°C warmer than it is now doesn't mean that 2°C of warming in a century isn't a problem.

  68. #1668
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Would someone please take Murphy's thesaurus away? His prattle (that's one of his favorites!) is pretty much unreadable, as he's too busy linguistically pleasuring himself. In any case, one study does not suddenly upend all of the rest of climate science. It will be picked apart and pored over, and likely be corrected or revised itself. Even if it's 100% accurate, it doesn't really change much: it just means that keeping warming to 1.5C went from totally impossible to damn near impossible. That's the honest truth. Ask the study authors themselves. And no one ever said that climate science was "infallible", as Murphy did. All of the predictions in the IPCC come with incredibly carefully calibrated probabilities and error bars. Science is never definitive, no matter the area of study, outside of pure mathematics.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 22-09-2017 at 03:17 PM.

  69. #1669
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Heh, it's actually kind of funny, he even says "None of this, however, has cooled the troposphere". Thanks for showing us your ignorance Rex! The troposphere is indeed cooling, and that's a simple prediction of the greenhouse effect. The stronger the "insulation", the cooler the troposphere gets. Think of it this way: if you have two houses side by side and are looking at them with an IR camera, which house will appear warmer from the outside? The one with worse insulation. It's the opposite of what you'd expect if you only think about it briefly. But it's right in line with scientific prediction.

    edit: whoops, the above is incorrect on my part. It is the stratosphere that is cooling, not the troposphere. My bad!

    Here's the study's author himself: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41319885

    Myles Allen added: "For a two in three chance of keeping temperatures within 1.5C, we'd have to reduce emissions in a straight line to zero from where we are now over the next 40 years.

    "It's possible, but extremely challenging. So if people are saying: can we now relax? That's not the right message to take at all."
    Strange the Murphy didn't provide that quote, isn't it? What say you, moahunter?
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 22-09-2017 at 03:29 PM.

  70. #1670
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    I’ve always been curious why people can’t seem to see global warming risks like they see military risks. Often the same people who are in favour of massive tax and spend to support a strong military can’t support tax and spend to prevent, delay or mitigate against global warming risks or ameliorate the effects should they come to pass.


    Funny you should mention the military. Guess who's preparing for climate change as much as anybody? The Pentagon. They don't care about politics and BS. And they know that if predictions hold true and significant action is not taken, things are going to get ugly in the second half of this century.

  71. #1671

    Default Trudeau stubbornly keeps Canada standing with Paris as everyone else bails

    We are one the few countries stupid enough to try and keep implementing Paris:

    While Trudeau’s Canada is shunning coal to live up to Paris, the rest of the world is embracing it: for every coal plant retired in 2015 and 2016, five others are being built. Three-dozen countries that were applauded in Paris for taking the anti-carbon pledge are now upping their construction of coal plants. While growth in renewables development tumbles, coal soars, with capacity slated to increase by 43 per cent.

    Trudeau now stands almost alone in sincere support of Paris. The populist backlash — a revulsion at top-down governments laden with jet-setting politicians landing in posh places to preach restraint to the masses — has swept America with Trump’s election, Great Britain with Brexit, much of Europe, and Australia. In the process, global warming enthusiasts are being swept out. Canada is an outlier, to date immune to this populist wave. To date, oblivious to the lessons learned elsewhere.
    http://business.financialpost.com/op...one-else-bails

  72. #1672

    Default

    I’d like to know more about blackouts. They aren’t new to renewables.

    Also coal plant construction was planned for a lot of countries so has there been a sea-change like this guy implies or is he spinning facts agreed upon at the time of the accord’s signing.

    Lastly, coal plants are being decommissioned early in some places because of the cheapness of natural gas and I believe cheaper gas turbines, tech advances, etc. so if Canada changed its policy, would anything actually change from the current course if the business economics are already driving us away from coal?



    Trump declares end to 'war on coal,' but utilities aren't listening

    Excerpt:
    The utilities gave many reasons, mainly economic: Natural gas - coal’s top competitor - is cheap and abundant; solar and wind power costs are falling; state environmental laws remain in place; and Trump’s regulatory rollback may not survive legal challenges.

    Meanwhile, big investors aligned with the global push to fight climate change – such as the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund – have been pressuring U.S. utilities in which they own stakes to cut coal use.

    “I’m not going to build new coal plants in today’s environment,” said Ben Fowke, CEO of Xcel Energy, which operates in eight states and uses coal for about 36 percent of its electricity production. “And if I’m not going to build new ones, eventually there won’t be any.”


    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN1770D8


    West’s utilities abandon coal because it costs too much - San Juan Citizens Alliance

    “It’s all about the economics,” the expert said. “Technologies have improved to make other forms of energy less expensive than coal.”
    One might figure sure, that’s some tree-hugging environmentalist arguing for solar and wind energy. But in fact, that’s the largest utility in the state of New Mexico, PNM, putting the dagger into the heart of inflexible and expensive coal generation. In April, PNM announced plans to shut the coal-fired San Juan Generating Stationoutside Farmington decades ahead of schedule.
    And it’s not the only one. PNM’s neighboring utility in Arizona, Salt River Project, plans to pull the plug on the West’s largest coal-fired power plant, Navajo Generating Station, for the same fundamental reason – coal costs too much. One of the largest customers of Navajo’s coal-fired electricity is the Central Arizona Project, which powers massive pumps to move water hundreds of miles from the Colorado River to Phoenix. The utility figured it could have saved $38.5 million last year buying power on the open market rather than expensive electricity generated by coal from Navajo Generating Station.
    We are surrounded by utilities abandoning coal faster than rats escaping the Titanic. In Colorado, Xcel Energy has dropped its coal portfolio by half in the last decade. In Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, all the big utilities are fleeing coal.
    There are many arguments against coal – including the climate-change impacts of burning coal and how the local economy could benefit from renewable energy generated right here at home. But for these utilities, it is a bottom-line, dollar-and-cents question – coal has rapidly become the most expensive source of electricity. ...”

    http://www.sanjuancitizens.org/coal/...al-costs-much/

    And something not often mentioned is the downside of making the mercury’s content in some coal airborne and the health issues / costs associated with this, beyond the oft mentioned regular coal production issues.



    Cleaner Power Plants | Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) | US EPA

    ...
    There are about 1,400 coal- and oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs) at 600 power plants covered by these standards. They emit harmful pollutants, including mercury, non-mercury metallic toxics, acid gases, and organic air toxics such as dioxin.

    Power plants are currently the dominant emitters of mercury (50 percent), acid gases (over 75 percent) and many toxic metals (20-60 percent) in the United States (see graphic at right).

    While newer, and a significant percentage of older power plants already control their emissions of mercury, heavy metals, and acid gases, approximately 40 percent of the current EGUs still do not have advanced pollution control equipment.

    https://www.epa.gov/mats/cleaner-power-plants
    Last edited by KC; 20-10-2017 at 05:06 PM.

  73. #1673
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,444

    Default

    Despite acknowledging the need to take action to address climate change, I've long thought the doomsday scenarios peddled by some do a disservice.

    Glad I'm not the only one. Refreshing to read this article on the CBC website today:

    A recent warning to humanity endorsed by thousands of scientists around the world includes "scaremongering" and "overheated" claims while ignoring much of the progress made in recent decades, some experts say."It concerns me that the message from science is this doom-and-gloom scenario that just turns off about 75 per cent of people," said Erle Ellis, an associate professor of geography and environmental systems at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

    "There's a small percentage that loves the crisis narrative, and they just repeat it over and over to each other."​

    Ellis said he's "somewhat embarrassed" for his scientific colleagues who have rallied behind this warning, arguing that it mostly talks about negative trends and ignores the increasing wealth, health and well-being of human populations globally.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/wa...ring-1.4403246

  74. #1674
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,547

    Default

    I like this statement: "There's a small percentage that loves the crisis narrative, and they just repeat it over and over to each other."

    It seems to me the whole issue of global warming begins with humanity, and this in my mind has some basis in truth. Planet earth has over 8 billion people all competing for the same resources. This is not sustainable. ​
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  75. #1675
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,768

    Default



    Yeah, Top_Dawg laughs at these hyperbolic global warming alarmists.

    Has anybody felt all that global warming out there these last couple of weeks ?

  76. #1676
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    931

    Default

    ^I think someone might not understand the basic concept of global warming.

  77. #1677
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,547

    Default

    Because (to play devils advocate here) there are conflicting terms going on. On one hand we have "Global Warming" on the other we have "Climate change," so which is what?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  78. #1678

    Default

    The overall temperature of the globe is warming & this is causing the climate to change.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  79. #1679
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,768

    Default

    Well exackly.

    The chicken littles couldn't definitively prove global warming.

    Sho they began throwing out the moronic moniker climate change.

    Well climate can change two or three times a day every day all over the world.

    Big whoop.

  80. #1680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Well climate can change two or three times a day every day all over the world.
    That's weather, not climate. You're conflating two things.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  81. #1681

    Default

    ^ Yeah it’s been a very deliberate change in wording and I don’t understand why. Maybe to encompass all the other ‘horrors’ (floods, storms, droughts, etc)?

    Plus to silence all the snowed in Russians and Canadians cheering for global warming.

  82. #1682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Well climate can change two or three times a day every day all over the world.
    That's weather, not climate. You're conflating two things.
    Weather is not climate? Are you saying weather doesn’t ‘identify’ as climate?

  83. #1683
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,547

    Default

    The point of global warming (and I'm no expert) that the alarmists want to draw attention to is that "global warming" is caused by mankind using fossil fuels, to heat up the planet. When in fact there are natural forces at work that do this, for example lava coming out from beneath the ocean floor, which heat up the oceans. Also, volcanic activity can cause C02 emissions into the atmosphere, etc.etc. So the global warming alarmists and their scientists are looking at g7 nations like Canada as the principle culprits of global warming when in reality its countries like India, Pakistan & China. Canada has a population of roughly the size of Poland.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  84. #1684
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Because (to play devils advocate here) there are conflicting terms going on. On one hand we have "Global Warming" on the other we have "Climate change," so which is what?
    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    ^ Yeah it’s been a very deliberate change in wording and I don’t understand why. Maybe to encompass all the other ‘horrors’ (floods, storms, droughts, etc)?
    Global warming has fallen out of use because it implies that all parts of the planet will warm. That's not necessarily the case, as although the average global temperature will be going up for a long time, localized climates could potentially cool. And there's things like how the slackening of the jetstream due to the decrease in the temperature differential between the arctic and sub-arctic is causing weather patterns to get "stuck", possibly causing record breaking cold snaps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg
    The chicken littles couldn't definitively prove global warming.


    No, it's been proven quite definitively. Over and over again. We're talking dozens of different independent lines of evidence and climate proxies dating back hundreds of thousands and millions of years. The climate is warming, we're causing it, and it's doing so at a rate that is several orders of magnitude faster than past natural climate cycles caused by changes in the Earth's orbit/rotation/tilt (excepting of course cataclysmic volcanic or asteroid events, but last I checked, we haven't been hit by any significant asteroids lately and there aren't hundreds of volcanoes erupting at the same time). See here for a listing of proxies:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)

    As far as "alarmism" goes, I actually agree to a certain extent. However, it's a misnomer to say that the warning letter was even primarily about climate change. It was about all aspects of our impact on the environment, which includes climate change but also things like the decline of forests, other forms of air/ground/water pollution, and so on.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 16-11-2017 at 02:05 PM.

  85. #1685
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    Weather is not climate? Are you saying weather doesn’t ‘identify’ as climate?


    See here:
    https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

  86. #1686
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,547

    Default

    I agree in part that mankind is to blame for Global Warming, only because of our population. As i sd above, 8billion is not sustainable.

    Canada's energy consumption is 66% renewables (wind turbines/solar panels) that type of thing.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  87. #1687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Because (to play devils advocate here) there are conflicting terms going on. On one hand we have "Global Warming" on the other we have "Climate change," so which is what?
    Climate can include things other than just temperature. CO2 and yes, global warming can affect things like cloud cover, precipitation, ocean currents, lots of secondary effects. They're all part of climate, but they're not specifically warming.

    Climate Change is a broader term that covers the secondary effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
    There can only be one.

  88. #1688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    I agree in part that mankind is to blame for Global Warming, only because of our population. As i sd above, 8billion is not sustainable.

    Canada's energy consumption is 66% renewables (wind turbines/solar panels) that type of thing.
    Maybe our electricity only, thanks to big Hydro in BC, Manitoba and Quebec. Definitely not our total energy consumption.
    There can only be one.

  89. #1689
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,547

    Default

    off to work, so I'll respond later.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  90. #1690
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post

    As far as "alarmism" goes, I actually agree to a certain extent. However, it's a misnomer to say that the warning letter was even primarily about climate change. It was about all aspects of our impact on the environment, which includes climate change but also things like the decline of forests, other forms of air/ground/water pollution, and so on.
    Well the following excerpt from the scientists' warning letter strikes me as being a bit on the alarmist side.

    On the twenty-fifth anniversary of their call, we look back at their warning and evaluate the human response by exploring available time-series data. Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse (figure 1, file S1).

    Especially troubling is the current
    trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels (Hansen et al. 2013), deforestation (Keenan et al. 2015), and agricultural productionparticularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption (Ripple et al. 2014). Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to
    extinction by the end of the century
    It's a pretty selective list. There have been other positive achievements that the warning letter fails to mention including a reforestation efforts, expansion of protected wilderness areas, improvements in agricultural production and farming methods, reduction in many types of air pollutants besides ozone, improvements in sanitation and life expectancy, and bending the human population expansion curve through sexual health education and economic development.

  91. #1691
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,547

    Default

    At one time we were going to test the carbon capture technique. I think I heard another country/jurisdiction was going to attempt to model carbon capture.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  92. #1692

    Default

    It’s really interesting that many global warming believers bash efforts at carbon capture and almost seem like they don’t want to hear of such efforts.

  93. #1693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post

    As far as "alarmism" goes, I actually agree to a certain extent. However, it's a misnomer to say that the warning letter was even primarily about climate change. It was about all aspects of our impact on the environment, which includes climate change but also things like the decline of forests, other forms of air/ground/water pollution, and so on.
    Well the following excerpt from the scientists' warning letter strikes me as being a bit on the alarmist side.

    On the twenty-fifth anniversary of their call, we look back at their warning and evaluate the human response by exploring available time-series data. Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse (figure 1, file S1).

    Especially troubling is the current
    trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels (Hansen et al. 2013), deforestation (Keenan et al. 2015), and agricultural productionparticularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption (Ripple et al. 2014). Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to
    extinction by the end of the century
    It's a pretty selective list. There have been other positive achievements that the warning letter fails to mention including a reforestation efforts, expansion of protected wilderness areas, improvements in agricultural production and farming methods, reduction in many types of air pollutants besides ozone, improvements in sanitation and life expectancy, and bending the human population expansion curve through sexual health education and economic development.
    On your last points I say that that like praising a cancer patient, about to go terminal, for loosing some weight, getting more exercise, cutting out some junk foods, etc, while that patient rejects a doctor’s prescription for chemotherapy.

  94. #1694
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    It’s really interesting that many global warming believers bash efforts at carbon capture and almost seem like they don’t want to hear of such efforts.
    Because they want the crisis narrative to continue. CC is not as sexy as "we're all going to die if we keep on with this life style." Some of these hypocritical voices I can put a name to like; David Suzuki, Al Gore and to some extent Mike Hudema, all suggest we live Spartan lifestyles while they live in the luxury homes etc. I'd love to see these guys practice what they preach. I imagine Greenpeace pays Mike Hudema well.

    If anyone makes a contribution to Greenpeace Canada, you wont get a tax receipt for income tax purposes. Thanks to Jean Chrétien
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  95. #1695
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    On your last points I say that that like praising a cancer patient, about to go terminal, for loosing some weight, getting more exercise, cutting out some junk foods, etc, while that patient rejects a doctor’s prescription for chemotherapy.
    That's not a bad analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    It’s really interesting that many global warming believers bash efforts at carbon capture and almost seem like they don’t want to hear of such efforts.


    I don't get that at all. It's becoming well accepted in the scientific community that simply reducing emissions is probably not going to be enough to prevent catastrophic warming, especially with the US dragging it's feet. So there's going to need to be some sort of technological/engineering aspect to humanity's response as well. If there was some opposition to CCS, it was that proponents of coal were using it as an excuse to continue using coal long in to the future. "Oh we can keep burning coal like crazy, don't worry, at some point in the future we'll figure out how to capture and store the carbon economically. We swear!" Further, a lot of the current carbon capture is being used for "enhanced recovery" in depleted oil fields. So yeah sure, you're capturing some carbon, but you're just using it to generate even more carbon.

    To this point, CCS projects have been extremely expensive and behind schedule. You're better off just shutting down coal generation and switching to natural gas.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/carbon-capture-power-prices-1.3641066

    https://globalnews.ca/news/3847529/s...age-saskpower/

  96. #1696
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,547

    Default

    Geothermal here in Canada is way behind the curve. We're in no mans land, while other countries have some success with geothermal. Its our future.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  97. #1697
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,547

    Default

    Even though geothermal is expensive i think its our best alternative going forward.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  98. #1698
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    On your last points I say that that like praising a cancer patient, about to go terminal, for loosing some weight, getting more exercise, cutting out some junk foods, etc, while that patient rejects a doctor’s prescription for chemotherapy.
    Comparing planet earth to an about to go terminal cancer patient is exactly the type of alarmism that turns off many people who might otherwise support actions to address climate change. Especially in countries like Canada where steady progress is being made in almost all areas of environmental concern.

    Do environmental efforts including reducing GHGs need to be accelerated? Yes, but these efforts also have to be rooted in reality, rather than in the fantasies of academics like Kevin Taft who advocates the complete phase-out of Alberta oil and gas by 2050. Not going to happen.

  99. #1699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    On your last points I say that that like praising a cancer patient, about to go terminal, for loosing some weight, getting more exercise, cutting out some junk foods, etc, while that patient rejects a doctor’s prescription for chemotherapy.
    Comparing planet earth to an about to go terminal cancer patient is exactly the type of alarmism that turns off many people who might otherwise support actions to address climate change. Especially in countries like Canada where steady progress is being made in almost all areas of environmental concern.

    Do environmental efforts including reducing GHGs need to be accelerated? Yes, but these efforts also have to be rooted in reality, rather than in the fantasies of academics like Kevin Taft who advocates the complete phase-out of Alberta oil and gas by 2050. Not going to happen.
    Hmm. I rather liked my comparison. Not at all “alarmist” in my mind. Most people and countries aren’t very concerned about global warming anyway. I guess I could have used flu and vaccine and praise for putting on a sweater.

  100. #1700
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,067

    Default

    It's tough to take it seriously when you know a single city in China spews out more pollution than all of Canada and there are hundreds of such cities in China, India, and elsewhere. Even if we in Canada were to reduce our pollution to zero we would still be barking up a dead dogs arse.

Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7131415161718 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •