US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Strangelove]

First off it's a very simple concept. There are 196 countries on earth that are all economically interconnected and interdependent.

Not that much different than it was just before the Great War really... just saying.

There is demonstrable proof that the earth is warming and it doesn't take a computer model or any deep research to figure out that as human population increases the more we will effect the environment

You're assuming anthropogenic global warming is a major factor in global warming.

(see Griz's posts)

I'm not being chicken little here claiming the sky is falling, but as the seas rise and temperatures rise over time there will be a decrease in arable land, low lying cities and countries along coastlines will need to spend more and more to keep the seas at bay and it's going to take your tax dollars to do something about it. It may not be tomorrow or next year but it is inevitable.

More assumptions on your part.

Many scientists figure global warming eventually triggers an Ice Age (due to changes to the Gulf Stream, etc)

Again: there's also the fact astronomers are saying we are headed for another Maunder Minimum.

So you see, you are in fact "Chicken Little".

We are already seeing it in small doses. Continued drought in California, (BC's source for much of our fruits and vegetables) has seen the price of certain produce skyrocket.
Before you jump in your seat Doc, whether that is due to the drought or unscrupulous wholesalers taking their queue from the oil cartel and raising prices over uncertainty, it amounts to the same effect

... and "uncertainty" is caused by Chicken Littles such as yourself.

I don't have all the answers but Perhaps you cannot even imagine an answer because you believe everyone thinks like you.

Isn't that exactly what assumption-making Chicken Littles are prone to do?

[2Fingers]

Mick - did you just say Putin is the leader of the democratic society?

Didn't you also say North Korea basically is where we are heading because we are democratic society built on making money?

Using iPad so hard to quote you exactly but man if the above is what you think, I would say you suffered too many hits to the head when you played hockey.

[Mickey107]

North Korea? No I never said anything like that, ever!

I did say that in regards to Putin because on the books, at this time, it is true.

[ukcanuck]

First off it's a very simple concept. There are 196 countries on earth that are all economically interconnected and interdependent.

Not that much different than it was just before the Great War really... just saying.

There is demonstrable proof that the earth is warming and it doesn't take a computer model or any deep research to figure out that as human population increases the more we will effect the environment

You're assuming anthropogenic global warming is a major factor in global warming.

(see Griz's posts)

I'm not being chicken little here claiming the sky is falling, but as the seas rise and temperatures rise over time there will be a decrease in arable land, low lying cities and countries along coastlines will need to spend more and more to keep the seas at bay and it's going to take your tax dollars to do something about it. It may not be tomorrow or next year but it is inevitable.

More assumptions on your part.

Many scientists figure global warming eventually triggers an Ice Age (due to changes to the Gulf Stream, etc)

Again: there's also the fact astronomers are saying we are headed for another Maunder Minimum.

So you see, you are in fact "Chicken Little".

We are already seeing it in small doses. Continued drought in California, (BC's source for much of our fruits and vegetables) has seen the price of certain produce skyrocket.
Before you jump in your seat Doc, whether that is due to the drought or unscrupulous wholesalers taking their queue from the oil cartel and raising prices over uncertainty, it amounts to the same effect

... and "uncertainty" is caused by Chicken Littles such as yourself.

I don't have all the answers but Perhaps you cannot even imagine an answer because you believe everyone thinks like you.

Isn't that exactly what assumption-making Chicken Littles are prone to do?

if you read my posts on this matter i have not gone off the deep end proclaiming the end of the world. I'm only pointing out that prudence suggests that we actually be concerned about climate change...something I think you yourself admitted a few pages back -something about climate change not the only factor causing the civil war in Syria?

anyway

you should change your name to Onceler...

and uncertainty is caused by uncertainty

[Mickey107]

By the way; The next Presidential election in Russia is in March, 2018.....

[ukcanuck]

doc you mean this from Griz?

Global warming and climate change is a hoax. I recommend you look into it further. Pollution however is real but that is a separate topic. Damonberryman, we ALL work with little experience or info compared to what there is to experience and know. Rather than being condescending, could you please demonstrate to me how I am mis/dis-informed?

well there is this...

T.C. Johns Æ J.M. Gregory Æ W.J. Ingram
C.E. Johnson Æ A. Jones Æ J.A. Lowe
J.F.B. Mitchell Æ D.L. Roberts Æ D.M.H. Sexton D.S. Stevenson Æ S.F.B. Tett Æ M.J. Woodage
Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model under updated emissions scenarios

1 Introduction
There is growing expectation that increases in the con- centrations of greenhouse gases arising from human ac- tivity will lead to substantial changes in climate in the twenty first century. Indeed, there is already evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have altered the large-scale patterns of tem- perature over the twentieth century (Santer et al. 1996; Tett et al. 1999; Barnett et al. 1999; Stott et al. 2001; Mitchell et al. 2001), although natural factors, including changes in solar output and episodic volcanic emissions, may also have contributed. Future climate change will probably be dominated by the response to anthropogenic forcing factors. Large uncertainties remain, however, in the expected anthropogenic climate response, partly through model uncertainty in the projected climate sen- sitivity to increasing GHGs and partly as a result of both physical and modelling uncertainties in the amplitude and geographical patterns of non-GHG forcings which modulate this GHG-forced response (particularly from sulfate aerosol indirect cooling effects).
The main motivation for the present study is to provide up-to-date estimates of global climate change suitable for deriving impacts assessments on regional scales with self-consistent scenario assumptions. Even though some of the regional details may be unreliable, this approach at least gives a picture of possible conse- quences of alternative future emissions scenarios, de- rived in a physically consistent way, which can be interpreted for policymakers in the context of negotia- tions to limit emissions so as to prevent ’dangerous’ climate change.

just one of many

but considering your refusal to ever accept anything that might prove you wrong or bruise your ego

I fully expect you to focus on the bathwater of uncertainty in computer models or try the red herring approach about the last .00015 seconds of the geological scale...al a topper

[2Fingers]

By the way; The next Presidential election in Russia is in March, 2018.....

Do you actually believe that the election in Russia is real compared to Canada?

[Per]

By the way; The next Presidential election in Russia is in March, 2018.....

Do you actually believe that the election in Russia is real compared to Canada?

Well, he complained earlier that 90% of mainstream media (in the US, I assume?) was controlled by just six companies.

Imagine if he realized that in Russia 100% of TV channels, 100% of radio stations and more than 90% of printed media is controlled by just one political party, either by being government run or by being owned by a handful of oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.

There is no freedom of press, or even freedom of speech.

So, sure, technically it is a democracy, since they do hold elections, but the opposition doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Plus, whenever a charismatic opposition leader emerges, they tend to have really bad luck, ending up being mugged and beaten up by unknown assailants, or end up in court over tax evation charges, or whatever.

[Per]

Why would it be such a bad thing if the U.S. and Russia became friends?

Normally I would be all for it, but not Russia under Putin.

This is a man who has stated that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union.
He has already attacked and invaded parts of two neighbouring countries (Georgia and Ukraine) that used to be part of the Evil Empire.

If Trump wants to dismantle NATO, what is to stop Putin from gobbling up the Baltic states Stalin style?
His talk of "countries previously being a part of the Soviet Union or the Russian empire" is considered a direct threat by the Finns. He doesn't just want to recreate the Soviet Union, he wants Finland as well.

In Putin's Russia young women who sing songs about the government and church leadership being in bed together get long prison sentences. It's a scary place.

I don't think it's fair to compare Trump to Hitler, but Putin? I have no problem with that.
I usually compare him to Stalin, but he has traits of ole Adolf as well.

Crimea = Sudetenland

( no PER capita nonsense please )

Right. So if 3 people get to share one pizza, and 14 share another one, you are upset that the one split in 14 is slightly larger than the one split in 3, so those sharing that one must be gorging themselves!

[Mickey107]

Why would it be such a bad thing if the U.S. and Russia became friends?

Normally I would be all for it, but not Russia under Putin.

This is a man who has stated that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union.
He has already attacked and invaded parts of two neighbouring countries (Georgia and Ukraine) that used to be part of the Evil Empire.

If Trump wants to dismantle NATO, what is to stop Putin from gobbling up the Baltic states Stalin style?
His talk of "countries previously being a part of the Soviet Union or the Russian empire" is considered a direct threat by the Finns. He doesn't just want to recreate the Soviet Union, he wants Finland as well.

In Putin's Russia young women who sing songs about the government and church leadership being in bed together get long prison sentences. It's a scary place.

I don't think it's fair to compare Trump to Hitler, but Putin? I have no problem with that.
I usually compare him to Stalin, but he has traits of ole Adolf as well.

Crimea = Sudetenland

( no PER capita nonsense please )

Right. So if 3 people get to share one pizza, and 14 share another one, you are upset that the one split in 14 is slightly larger than the one split in 3, so those sharing that one must be gorging themselves!

You are missing the whole point. (such an alarmist)
You paint this picture of Russia as though the citizens are with ball and chain.
It isn't quite that bad and they do have social media and there really isn't anything Putin can do about that.
The point is if the U.S and Russia become friendlier, the people will here about it and their next election will be just that.
And you also seem to have missed the point that a better relationship between those two would keep communist three more accountable...

[Strangelove]

if you read my posts on this matter i have not gone off the deep end proclaiming the end of the world. I'm only pointing out that prudence suggests that we actually be concerned about climate change...something I think you yourself admitted a few pages back -something about climate change not the only factor causing the civil war in Syria?

Hmmm... Topper was right about your reading comprehension issues.

http://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/vie ... 35#p263535

Actually I ridiculed Per for saying:

“the current turmoil in Iraq/Syria at least in part is due to climate change”

And then I provided A LINKED ARTICLE that basically said:

“Even if you take climate change seriously it’s RIDICULOUS to think it had anything to do with Iraq/Syria”

(paraphrased)

Lol you and Todd, the blind leading the blind...

[Strangelove]

There is demonstrable proof that the earth is warming and it doesn't take a computer model or any deep research to figure out that as human population increases the more we will effect the environment

You're assuming anthropogenic global warming is a major factor in global warming.

(see Griz's posts)

doc you mean this from Griz? (gives random Griz quote followed by random scientific quote)

Why on God's green Earth did you give a random Griz quote followed by a random scientific quote?

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

I clearly called you out on your assumption that global warming is man-made and referred you to Griz.

See, Griz was the only one in this here thread to address that "97% of scientists BULLSHIT"

(and hey it shut Per up)

Easy to find, by golly I do believe the only time I've ever given the man a thumbs-up was here:

Anyway, most scientists see a link between the industrial revolution, the use of fossil fuels and the current warming of the earth, but it's only like 99% of them, so there is still some dissent from those who think it could all be part of a natural cycle.

Anyway, A hoax? So you think some 99% of scientists and at least 90% of governments around the earth, whether left wing or right wing, have all some how ganged up to conspire to somehow screw the US?

The fact that there is consensus doesn't make anything true. However, when you look deeper you find that there is only a 0.3% consensus among scientists that humans are responsible for at least 50% of global warming.

Stefan Molyneux : The 97% Consensus? Global Warming Unmasked!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU

Stefan Molyneux : Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

Professor Bob Carter : The Faux "97% Consensus"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NinRn5faU4

You should watch every second of those videos.

The last two are the best and they're only 12 minutes and 16 minutes.

I guarantee that if you watch (and understand) those you will forever cease your lame-assumptions.

(at least when it comes to climate change)

but considering your refusal to ever accept anything that might prove you wrong or bruise your ego

Lol that's pretty funny coming from you...

I fully expect you to focus on the bathwater of uncertainty in computer models or try the red herring approach about the last .00015 seconds of the geological scale...al a topper

Well now that you mention it...

Computers are only as good as the data/facts you give them!

Garbage in, garbage out.

"red herring" ... stick to ESL buddy!

Watch the videos, if you do they will change you forever (in a good way!)

[Topper]

Instead of resenting the fact I am correct, you should just accept it and be content.

It is truly laughable how little UK understands and yet believes he comprehends the world around him. I'm guessing a pshyc major with a history minor because science was too difficult, then discovered there were no employment options and returned for a chalkboard.

[ukcanuck]

It’s been a while since I've bothered to dissect a post,

There is demonstrable proof that the earth is warming and it doesn't take a computer model or any deep research to figure out that as human population increases the more we will effect the environment

You're assuming anthropogenic global warming is a major factor in global warming.

(see Griz's posts)

Nice passive aggressiveness but in fact you're the one making assumptions. I didn't say once that anthropogenic global warming is a MAJOR factor in global warming. In fact I've been careful to avoid such extreme language for two reasons.
-one, I understand quite well that there are also natural forces at work vis a vie Toppers deflecting analogy of of the geological record over millions of years.

-two, I'm not going to intentionally step into your conservative fall back trap of insulting the person in order to smear the argument.

(at this point, I am laughing to myself because instead of finding where I said the sky is falling you just make it up anyway. I suppose if one throws enough shit on the wall some of it will stick- amiright?)

You are so predictable in this tactic Doc it is kind of funny...actually it is funny, seriously, many a time I have laughed out loud reading your posts where you destroy posters who take this much more seriously than I do- you definitely are one of my favourite posters. I mean that as a compliment.

Anyway,

doc you mean this from Griz? (gives random Griz quote followed by random scientific quote)


Why on God's green Earth did you give a random Griz quote followed by a random scientific quote?

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

I clearly called you out on your assumption that global warming is man-made and referred you to Griz.

See, Griz was the only one in this here thread to address that "97% of scientists BULLSHIT"

(and hey it shut Per up)

Easy to find, by golly I do believe the only time I've ever given the man a thumbs-up was here:

I notice that you don't actually refer to the link but instead refer to it as my “random scientific link,”

once again the passive aggressive tactic, but it doesn't wash with me, I knew even as I pressed send there was no way in hell you would comment directly on a study dealing with anthropogenic global warming which fairly gives attention to the uncertainty with said assumption.

which I guess begs the question,
Why did I bother?


I am not the only asking that question-
I think thats actually what I read from Per which is probably why he has gone silent on the matter more than anything.

See, Griz was the only one in this here thread to address that "97% of scientists BULLSHIT"

This one, the milk nearly came out of my nose while eating my cornflakes….

Im just going to let that one hang out there for a moment…

97% of scientists BULLSHIT”

Almost makes me want to scramble for my bible

Personally I hate quoting statistics in debates as it’s exceedingly hard to tell whose ass they came out of. However, I always thought that consensus is how science arrives at its conclusions, you know, preponderance of evidence and all that?

Anyway in the interest of being fair I will watch those links you suggest

I did watch one the other day about polar bears, something about there being more bears now than when all this debate started?

He didn't mention however, the increase in human presence in the north and the benefits for garbage bears and their proliferation in places such as Churchill Manitoba.

Speaking of garbage

Well now that you mention it...

Computers are only as good as the data/facts you give them!

Garbage in, garbage out.

"red herring" ... stick to ESL buddy!

I guess from now on we are restricted to superstition, religion and magic as “garbage in garbage out” is a two edged sword

we are forever doomed to "your stuff is shit and my shit is stuff…"

[ukcanuck]

Erik Karlsson lead the league in TOI last season with 2375 minutes. Please comment on his season, career to date and projected career having only data from the last 6 seconds of that season.

Oh, and you have only seen the final 0.000015 minutes of that season.

Nice analogy, especially appropriate for this here hockey talk site...

I've heard this all before and I agree one hundred percent that life on earth has survived multiple mass extinctions, ice ages and hot periods but it falls down as an argument because it is precisely the 0.000015 minutes that concerns humanity.

whether or not this current period of warming is an isolated incident or is caused either directly or indirectly by human activity is the question.

Do you have an analogy for that?