CanucksCorner.com Forums

Mondi wrote:Correction, I don't agree with obscure far-right advocacy passed off as science.

I am interested in truth. Never mind left or right. The truth appears to be that man-made global warming and climate change is nowhere near what they are claiming it is. And Science proves it.

Strangelove wrote:

The folks at the top of the "hoax" pyramid are making money hand-over-fist.

In this case Al Gore probably tops the list with $500M or so...

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/al- ... view/bing/

So embracing a popular alarminst theory can mean big money for opportunist authors/speakers.

At some point, embracing a popular alarmist theory such as AGW helps some politicians get elected

... They in turn hand out grants to scientists to do research on AGW.

It is therefore in the best interest of these scientists to supply only data which seems to support AGW

... which breeds more lobbyists/politicians who support the AGW hypothesis.

You post a link to a picture of the guy’s house in order to discredit his reliability? So by that logic can you spell Trump Tower??

Anyway, below is a smattering of petroleum, financial services and telecommunications corporations that depend on the burning of fossil fuels and their net worth. All of whom would be highly motivated to persuade the public to believe hoax claims to keep their net worth the same.



Fannie Mae $84 billion
Apple $53.4 billion
Exxonmobil $268 billion
Industrial &commercial Bank of China RMB 262.7 billion
Gazprom RUB 1,224.5 billion
Nestle $37.58 billion
Royal Dutch Shell $31.33 billion
FOMOCO 22.7 billion $22.07 Billion

Take a look at the, dare I say trillions of dollars, this lobby group has at its disposal if it were to buy politicians, judges, scientists and "scientific" papers?

lets tally this up for a moment

A massive conspiracy involving multiple levels of government, in multiple nations, the academic community at large including hundreds of universities and organisations and a handful of Al Gore types cashing in to the tune of hundred of millions collectively


OR

Massive multinational corporations some of whom are under particular suspicion of polluting the environment, operating sweat shops and exploiting child labour in third world countries.
Whose lobby groups run like a well oiled machine ( pun)!
whose net worth is in the trillions globally (http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers ... sector.asp)

All get together with their cronies and right wing crackpots in order to buy off a few scientists and create a climate hoax in order to discredit real scientists and to convince gullible people that the world should go on buying their goods and services because everything is fine

Like climate change, human corruption is a cycle.

So yeah, those at the top are probably mostly in it for the money.

Yes and multinationals have much deeper pockets

Of course another aspect of human nature is in play, the human need for drama.

Easily played upon by the Right wing establishment since the turn of the last century.

(most folks don't care much about "scientific findings" which are *not* alarmist)

Disturbing lack of faith in humanity for a libertarian don't you think?

Throw in yet another aspect of human nature: Human need to feel morally superior.

Describing conservatives quite nicely here, Trump especially

Now we can see how a human corruption cycle comes into full bloom.

(the many on the bottom of the pyramid are the goosestepping stooges)

corruption is endemic to the elite

Remember the "We're running out of landfill space!!" craze?

Remember the "Global Cooling! We're head for an Ice Age!!" craze?

Remember the "Acid Rain!!" craze?

Remember the "Hole in the ozone!!" craze?

Corn and Per dealt with these quite nicely

Well you get the picture…

Yes I do.

Climate change deniers are right wing conservatives who are more concerned about keeping wealth in the elite’s hands and the status quo as long as absolutely possible.

griz wrote:

Per wrote:And for the record, Hillary may not be the most appealing presidential candidate imaginable, but at least she's competent and experienced.

Vomit inducing. Competent and experienced at what exactly? Deceit? Lying? Selling America to the highest bidder? How can you overlook the crap she's done and think she would make a good leader?

Lol lol lol and you think Trump is any better.

griz wrote:

Mondi wrote:Correction, I don't agree with obscure far-right advocacy passed off as science.

I am interested in truth. Never mind left or right. The truth appears to be that man-made global warming and climate change is nowhere near what they are claiming it is. And Science proves it.

Where does science proves it?

There are scientists claiming many things so your statement is far to broad, you just painted every scientist with the same brush. I find people usually do that when they don't have anything to back it up.

Reefer2 wrote:

griz wrote:

Per wrote:And for the record, Hillary may not be the most appealing presidential candidate imaginable, but at least she's competent and experienced.

Vomit inducing. Competent and experienced at what exactly? Deceit? Lying? Selling America to the highest bidder? How can you overlook the crap she's done and think she would make a good leader?

Lol lol lol and you think Trump is any better.

Better than Hillary? Absolutely.

Reefer2 wrote: Where does science proves it?

Watch the videos I presented earlier in the thread. Never mind agendas. Try to determine what is scientifically true.

Reefer2 wrote:There are scientists claiming many things so your statement is far to broad, you just painted every scientist with the same brush. I find people usually do that when they don't have anything to back it up.

I referred to Science not Scientists.

Funny how the global warming alarmists paint 97% of Scientists in the way you describe ... but that's just fine?

Many of you are attacking sources, each other, underlining bias ... but let's put that aside for a bit and see if we can determine what is true. Detach from outcome, from politics and from agendas.

How much of an effect is man having on global warming and/or climate change?

griz wrote: I referred to Science not Scientists.

Funny how the global warming alarmists paint 97% of Scientists in the way you describe ... but that's just fine?

Many of you are attacking sources, each other, underlining bias ... but let's put that aside for a bit and see if we can determine what is true. Detach from outcome, from politics and from agendas.

How much of an effect is man having on global warming and/or climate change?

I pointed out molyneux' deception in his critique of Cook's paper in the first 5 minutes of his video...

Anything more from him is suspect to say the least

You didn't want to know anything from the rebuttal to that lord with the bug eyes either.

You also posted some intelligent design video as well.


Conclusion? Griz isn't all that interested in science.

Reefer2 wrote:

griz wrote:

Mondi wrote:Correction, I don't agree with obscure far-right advocacy passed off as science.

I am interested in truth. Never mind left or right. The truth appears to be that man-made global warming and climate change is nowhere near what they are claiming it is. And Science proves it.

Where does science proves it?

There are scientists claiming many things so your statement is far to broad, you just painted every scientist with the same brush. I find people usually do that when they don't have anything to back it up.

.... but you don't believe scientists.

Strangelove wrote:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-f ... -about-it/


Fact Check Politics Politicians
Hillary Clinton Freed Child Rapist
Hillary Clinton's role in a 40-year-old rape case became the focal point of a viral meme in 2016, but the claims made about it were mostly inaccurate.

WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.

WHAT'S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant.

[Prosecuting attorney Mahlon Gibson] called me to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a twelve-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer. [Prosecutor Mahlon] Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me. I told Mahlon I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.

“She was vigorously advocating for her client. What she did was appropriate,” said Andrew Schepard, director of Hofstra Law School’s Center for Children, Families and the Law. “He was lucky to have her as a lawyer ... In terms of what’s good for the little girl? It would have been hell on the victim. But that wasn’t Hillary’s problem.”

As for the claim that Hillary Clinton "knew the defendant was guilty," she couldn't possibly have known that unless she were present when the incident in question occurred. It's also largely irrelevant given that under Hillary Clinton's handling of the case, the defendant pled guilty rather than going to trial and asserting his innocence.

As Newsday observed, the case was a "hopelessly convoluted" one in which the facts were far from straightforward and in which another person (a juvenile) was also charged:

The case, [Hillary] quickly learned, was hopelessly convoluted, hinging on the accounts of three people — Taylor, the girl and a 15-year-old boy — who all had reasons to withhold details.

Finding out precisely what happened in the pre-dawn hours of May 10, 1975, is difficult three decades later, particularly since Taylor died in 1992 of a heart ailment. But a basic outline can be reconstructed from interviews, court documents, witnesses’ statements and the Washington County sheriff’s original case file, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Sometime around midnight, the girl was sleeping over at a friend’s house in Springdale when Taylor and his 20-year-old cousin walked in, asking if anyone wanted to take a drive. The sixth-grader, who says she was bored and wanted to buy a soda, jumped into Taylor’s beat-up red 1963 Chevrolet pickup truck.

Soon after, they picked up the 15-year-old boy and drove to a liquor store, where Taylor bought a pint of Old Grand-Dad whiskey, which he mixed for the girl in a cup of Coca-Cola, according to the boy, now a 48-year-old Army veteran. (Newsday is withholding the boy’s name because he was charged in the case as a juvenile offender.)

After a few hours at a local bowling alley, the foursome crammed into Taylor’s truck and drove to a weedy ravine off a busy two-lane highway connecting the sister cities of Fayetteville and Springdale, according the sheriff’s department account.

Taylor and the older man went off for a walk, leaving the 12-year-old and the teenager alone in the cab. In a statement to police, the 15-year-old said he removed his pants and admitted to having sex, revealing the encounter only after being pressed by investigators.

Moments later, he said he left and Taylor approached the truck, climbing on top of the girl. The girl let out a scream, according to the police report, and he claims to have seen Taylor hitching up his pants.

The victim, the boy reported, turned to both of them and yelled, “You all planned this, didn’t you?”

At 4:50 a.m., the girl walked into a local emergency room, badly shaken. The doctor’s report noted that she had injuries consistent with rape.

Taylor was a tight-lipped client, never wavering from his claim that he’d driven all the passengers home that night without stopping in the ravine, according to Dale Gibson. (Taylor was less guarded around his 15-year-old companion, who recalls the older man whispering “Let’s keep our stories straight” when the two met in county jail.)

Finally, Hillary didn't "free" the defendant in the case. Instead, the prosecuting attorney agreed to a plea deal involving a lesser charge that carried a five-year sentence, of which the judge suspended four years and allowed two months credit of time already served towards the remaining year:

In 2005, while working in a laundry, the victim stole several hundred dollars worth of checks from her boss to buy drugs. She is now living in a halfway house and looking for work.

Despite these problems, she bears Hillary Rodham Clinton no ill will and was eager to read “Living History” — at least pages 72 and 73, which contain her case.

funny how the video inaccurately makes it sound like the guy got off with only two months in jail...

ukcanuck wrote:

griz wrote:

Reefer2 wrote:

griz wrote:

Per wrote:And for the record, Hillary may not be the most appealing presidential candidate imaginable, but at least she's competent and experienced.

Vomit inducing. Competent and experienced at what exactly? Deceit? Lying? Selling America to the highest bidder? How can you overlook the crap she's done and think she would make a good leader?

Lol lol lol and you think Trump is any better.

Better than Hillary? Absolutely.

Reefer2 wrote: Where does science proves it?

Watch the videos I presented earlier in the thread. Never mind agendas. Try to determine what is scientifically true.

Reefer2 wrote:There are scientists claiming many things so your statement is far to broad, you just painted every scientist with the same brush. I find people usually do that when they don't have anything to back it up.

I referred to Science not Scientists.

Funny how the global warming alarmists paint 97% of Scientists in the way you describe ... but that's just fine?

Many of you are attacking sources, each other, underlining bias ... but let's put that aside for a bit and see if we can determine what is true. Detach from outcome, from politics and from agendas.

How much of an effect is man having on global warming and/or climate change?

I pointed out molyneux' deception in his critique of Cook's paper in the first 5 minutes of his video...

Anything more from him is suspect to say the least

You didn't want to know anything from the rebuttal to that lord with the bug eyes either.

You also posted some intelligent design video as well.


Conclusion? Griz isn't all that interested in science.

Why wouldn't I want to know more about the rebuttal from Monckton? I'm all ears.

I am interested in Science. Why wouldn't I be?

ukcanuck wrote: You post a link to a picture of the guy’s house in order to discredit his reliability? So by that logic can you spell Trump Tower??

Yeah well we were talking about "folks who are cashing in on climate change" (you putz!)

As stated, Al Gore alone made $500M

... then we discussed politician$/lobbyist$/scientist$/goosesteppers as part of the cycle.

ukcanuck wrote:

Strangelove wrote: (most folks don't care much about "scientific findings" which are *not* alarmist)

Disturbing lack of faith in humanity for a libertarian don't you think?

Only in your disturbing fantasies am I a "libertarian".... or a "Zionist".

ukcanuck wrote:

Strangelove wrote: Remember the "We're running out of landfill space!!" craze?

Remember the "Global Cooling! We're head for an Ice Age!!" craze?

Remember the "Acid Rain!!" craze?

Remember the "Hole in the ozone!!" craze?

Corn and Per dealt with these quite nicely

More of your fantasies:

http://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/vie ... 78#p263878

ukcanuck wrote: Climate change deniers are right wing conservatives who are more concerned about keeping wealth in the elite’s hands and the status quo as long as absolutely possible.

As I said, you constantly interchange GW and AGW.

Assuming you were staying on topic (you don't often so who knows) and meant AGW

... then we have more evidence of the fantasy world in which you and your brainwashed brethren dwell.

For example I'm an AGW-denier and I'm not a "right wing conservative".

(but hey you can refer to me as "elite" if you like)

(unless by "elites" you are referring to the Jews again... cuz yeah I'm not Jewish either)

ukcanuck wrote: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-f ... -about-it/

It's a long article, thanks for cluttering the board with half of it.

(the half which seems to make the pedophile and Hillary out to not be the monsters they are)

(the half which seems to "blame the victim"... a 12-year old girl!)

Not surprised to see you spring to the aid of a PEDOPHILE yet again...

ukcanuck wrote: funny how the video inaccurately makes it sound like the guy got off with only two months in jail...

This PEDOPHILE served only 12 months (including time served) for RAPING A CHILD thanks to Hillary

What is it with you and pedophiles?

The fact is most people with an education are going to vote for Hillary. Another interesting point Americans may start asking themselves is who does Assange work for and why? The next one is a beaut. Why does Russia appear to want Donald to win? If we listen to Griz and Mickey it is because then we can all be friends and hold hands. After all, what is wrong with democratic Russia? (overlooking the fact it is not democratic)

This outlook on politics regarding any country including the U,S. and Canada does rather leave history and reality out of the picture. All governments are out for themselves. No one is in the charity business. Russia is just the same as the rest of us. NO ONE currently lives in a real democracy. Instead, families, industries and other special interests form policy.

Most democracies are made of an overwhelming percent of lawyers, who write laws at the behest of their masters. However, as someone pointed out, IF the climate science is correct we could be on our way to being greatly diminished or out completely. Say the climate scientists have a one in one hundred chance of being right. Should we ignore it and call it a fake? If so, why? Could those special interests be involved? Are people making trillions out of a fake climate scare? Besides Al Gore with his alleged 500 million profit from scaring us all. Why would we not attempt to put into practice some of the green solutions to the extent of being able to see their effect? Just to cover the one in one hundred chance 97% of the world's best minds are right. Saying you do not believe in scientists should be a constant in the life of who said this. Someone did but I cannot be bothered to look for the author.

If you do not believe in scientists, refuse vaccines for your kids. Do not take antibiotics for infections. Do not get operated on and if you, god forbid, get cancer ask Doc for help.

Do planes fly? Scientists made that possible. Are we living almost twice as long as we used to? Scientists again. How about the moon landing? All medicines. Cars, subways, buses, tunnels, bridges and on and on. Someone came up with the idea and they were put together on the whole using scientific observation. It goes like this. Does the bridge work better this way or that way? Does this disease jump species? Will this vaccine work? Can we save this person?

As to the name calling. I think most of us do it to some extent. I do but I do not use it in almost every post I write. Something is wrong with you Doc. There is an ego problem that demands attention and you will always be right in your own mind. i suspect you are very unhappy and have a limited life as seen by your deep investment in this thread. I was not aware of your christian beliefs before now and am happy you have a place you can get comfort.

Seriously Doc. throttle it down a bit. You are knowledgeable at hockey and obviously have a good mind. Find some kind of balance in what you are putting out on these pages as you are revealing too much of your defects. We all got them Dude. it is not an insult. Just try not to call everyone names all the time and you will come across as more balanced. it is ironic how you constantly tell people they have proven how stupid they are on these pages while you are the one who is wearing no clothes.

Try to not respond with your usual venom and need to be right all the time. You do not need to use BOLD and colours to show how smart you are. None of us are always right. No one. Chill a bit. Being wrong at times is simply a chance to learn and also a chance to feel more comfortable as a person.

Let me give you an example of how I have learned from you. I realize my more threatening posts are a big part of my defects. As a result I have tried to let them be and it feels better to listen to others telling me it is too much or inappropriate. None of us will win this conversation but we can lose by distancing from others. A problem I have had many times.

I am not looking to hurt you or any of the others on this thread. i just realized how much more important manners are. They keep us listening to each other and that is how to learn.

damonberryman wrote: If we listen to Griz and Mickey it is because then we can all be friends and hold hands. After all, what is wrong with democratic Russia? (overlooking the fact it is not democratic)

...

...

NO ONE currently lives in a real democracy... Russia is just the same as the rest of us.

Wait... WHY do you not want to be friends with Russia?

damonberryman wrote: This outlook on politics regarding any country including the U,S. and Canada does rather leave history and reality out of the picture. All governments are out for themselves.

Wait... so now you agree with Micky?

What's next, are you going to stop pissing all over the Armed Forces of Canada/USA?

damonberryman wrote: Why would we not attempt to put into practice some of the green solutions to the extent of being able to see their effect? Just to cover the one in one hundred chance 97% of the world's best minds are right.

http://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/vie ... 37#p263537

If you haven't "learned" by now that this is a political issue, there's something wrong with you.

damonberryman wrote: Saying you do not believe in scientists should be a constant in the life of who said this. Someone did but I cannot be bothered to look for the author.

Yeah, that was your green comrade Reefer.

(so hey thanks for the rant!)

damonberryman wrote: Something is wrong with you Doc.

Coming from you I take that as a compliment!

A lesser person might have accused you of a long-winded ad hominen attack.

A lesser person might suggest you should offer rebuttals to points made or STFO...

A Foundation Player

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... on-scandal

Follow the money.

It is so like you to focus on the points of contention rather than pay attention to my reaching out. You lose on these exchanges by this behaviour. It sits on top of what at times are intelligent arguments and instead turn it into something unhealthy when measured over a time of weeks. This is just a fucking hockey thread Doc. Get over yourself. None of us are going to solve problems or deeply change the world. Different points of view make the world go round. Hop on rather than being so cynical. I do not often offer to drop a fight. It is only your condition that brings me to it. it is starting to feel like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyone of us during times in our lives act out of character. I hope that is what you are doing. You are smart. You do argue with conviction. You take no shit from anyone. That should be enough Doc.