[Newsbot]

Title: NDP demands removal of Wildrose critic over climate change row | Alberta | News
Category: Environmental
Posted By: Alta_redneck
Date: 2017-01-04 09:50:50
Canadian

[Alta_redneck]

Now they think you should lose your job if you don't believe their bull shit. Check out the poll at the bottom of the front page of the Calgary Sun.

Is the science on climate change settled? At the moment 83% say no.

What to do with all those people now. Oh but it's the Sun, these polls don't count.

[DrCaleb]

Luckily, science doesn't care about opinion polls.

[BartSimpson]

Just more proof that AGW Alarmism is a religious belief and not anything based in science.

Actual scientists accept challenges to their theories as part of the scientific process.

It's only cult members and religious nutjobs who persecute people for heresy when they dare to question the official dogma.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Luckily, science doesn't care about opinion polls.

It's also not supposed to care about skeptics.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Luckily, science doesn't care about opinion polls.

It's also not supposed to care about skeptics.

Big difference between a skeptic and a denier. One has data backing them up, the other has opinion polls.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Just more proof that AGW Alarmism is a religious belief and not anything based in science.

Actual scientists accept challenges to their theories as part of the scientific process.

It's only cult members and religious nutjobs who persecute people for heresy when they dare to question the official dogma.

Exactly. Which is why the Wildrose critic is unable to do their job and should be replaced.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Just more proof that AGW Alarmism is a religious belief and not anything based in science.

Actual scientists accept challenges to their theories as part of the scientific process.

It's only cult members and religious nutjobs who persecute people for heresy when they dare to question the official dogma.

Exactly. Which is why the Wildrose critic is unable to do their job and should be replaced.

Not at all. No one has produced a single shred of evidence that these tax policies are doing or will do anything at all, other than to remove more money from the pockets of taxpayers. BC has a carbon tax, their emissions are still increasing.

But hey, at least Alberta's plan makes more sense than Ontario's, which seems to be a policy of "a wing and a prayer".

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Big difference between a skeptic and a denier. One has data backing them up, the other has opinion polls.

A skeptic is questioning data. They don't have to prove that AGW is not impacting the climate as much as the True Believers do, it's the job of the True Believers to prove their case. So far, they haven't.

Case in point the computer model discussion.

The computer models of the year 2000 were all supposedly based on data yet none of them predicted the stable/cooling trend that took place over the past decade.

If the models are not flawed then the data must be flawed. One or the other.

Case in point on alarmism is two years ago the National Geographic was pronouncing the possibility that the drought in California that started in 2013 would persist for as much as 200 years!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... o-climate/

Yet I can assure you that where we're now dumping water from our reservoirs to make room for spring runoff the drought is over. It lasted four years. Most California droughts last seven to ten years so this one wasn't even one for the record books.

But yeah, based on their data these people were saying things like...

$1:

"There will be cataclysmic impacts."

Yet there haven't been 'cataclysmic impacts'. To the contrary, the 2014 wine harvest and the 2015 wine harvest had the unexpected benefit of some of the best quality wines because the reduced water meant less water in the juice. The result is that a lot of vineyards are moving to 'dry' farming to try to reproduce this effect in wet years.

The lawns in the upscale neighborhoods in Los Angeles are still green. No one had to ration water for bathing or etc.

But, yeah, the data indicated it was going to be an apocalyptic multicentury drought!



A few miles from here there's two meters of drought that fell overnight.

And maybe even this year we'll be worried about floods.

Oh, wait...that's happening right now.

https://weather.com/forecast/regional/n ... st-jan2017

California Pummeled by Multiple Atmospheric Rivers Bringing Flooding Rain, Feet of Sierra Snow Into Next Week

$1:

The multi-day siege of flooding rain and Sierra snow has begun in California, which may eventually prove to be too much of a good thing for residents still thirsting for relief from a five-year drought.

Several landslides were reported in parts of northern California Tuesday night and early Wednesday, particularly in Santa Cruz County. Up to 2 feet of water was reported near downtown Yountville, and two right lanes of the 101 freeway in downtown San Francisco were flooded by a couple feet of water.

This is all perfectly normal. Some years we get drought, other years we get floods. Nothing new under the sun.

But the National Geographic said we were going to have two hundred years of drought! SWEET JESUS!!!

Maybe we should prosecute all those people talking about flooding and blizzards and the end of the drought for daring to deny the FACT! that the AGW alarmists said we were going to have cataclysmic impacts from the drought.

* * *

See, it's all shit like this which is why I cannot invest so much faith in the AGW alarmism. The AGW hucksters anymore are just as bad as used car salesmen screaming out their wares and daring anyone to find a better deal anywhere!

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Just more proof that AGW Alarmism is a religious belief and not anything based in science.

Actual scientists accept challenges to their theories as part of the scientific process.

It's only cult members and religious nutjobs who persecute people for heresy when they dare to question the official dogma.

Exactly. Which is why the Wildrose critic is unable to do their job and should be replaced.

Not at all. No one has produced a single shred of evidence that these tax policies are doing or will do anything at all, other than to remove more money from the pockets of taxpayers. BC has a carbon tax, their emissions are still increasing.

But hey, at least Alberta's plan makes more sense than Ontario's, which seems to be a policy of "a wing and a prayer".

Norway implemented a price of $44USD per ton of carbon in 1991, and it reduced their average emissions 16% since.

But the Wildrose critic is still unable to do his job as critic if he can't get past the simple concept that the Earth is warming and people are the cause. He is caught in the Cult of Denial, from the party of religious nutjobs.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Norway implemented a price of $44USD per ton of carbon in 1991, and it reduced their average emissions 16% since.

But the Wildrose critic is still unable to do his job as critic if he can't get past the simple concept that the Earth is warming and people are the cause. He is caught in the Cult of Denial, from the party of religious nutjobs.

And how much has the standard of living dropped since the government started stealing money ?

Let the voters decide what happens to Wildrose, and they can select who they like
for a critic.
And Canada is not the problem, even if your theories are true.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Big difference between a skeptic and a denier. One has data backing them up, the other has opinion polls.

A skeptic is questioning data. They don't have to prove that AGW is not impacting the climate as much as the True Believers do, it's the job of the True Believers to prove their case. So far, they haven't.

A skeptic still does not use opinion polls to question the data. And the number of recent monthly record high recorded temperatures, for month after month after year pretty much goes to show that the Earth is warming and it's now statistically impossible for us not to be the cause.

I don't know if you are familiar with the way we do Provincial level government, so at the risk of 'mansplaining', here's the tldr version: Every Government Ministry has an Opposition Critic. The Critic gets all the information the Ministry has, and makes sure everything is on the up-and-up. If this critic can't get past the simple concept the we are putting the Earth in a bad place, then he needs to be replaced with someone that has the basic knowledge to do the job.

And Global Warming is only a question to some people. The rest of us, people that believe in all the other things Science has brought to our society, have accepted reality and moved on.

We've identified the problem, and are now working on the solutions.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Norway implemented a price of $44USD per ton of carbon in 1991, and it reduced their average emissions 16% since.

But the Wildrose critic is still unable to do his job as critic if he can't get past the simple concept that the Earth is warming and people are the cause. He is caught in the Cult of Denial, from the party of religious nutjobs.

And how much has the standard of living dropped since the government started stealing money ?

Let the voters decide what happens to Wildrose, and they can select who they like
for a critic.
And Canada is not the problem, even if your theories are true.

You mean, Norway, the country ranked best place to live on planet Earth? How are they doing?

And it's the Party Leader who chooses critics, not the voters.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

A skeptic still does not use opinion polls to question the data.

But that won't stop the AGW Alarmists from citing their 'consensus' as if it means anything.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

A skeptic still does not use opinion polls to question the data.

But that won't stop the AGW Alarmists from citing their 'consensus' as if it means anything.

You keep confusing the nutters with the scientists. If you took some time to read the IPCC reports, they don't deal with opinion polls. In fact, the things you attribute to the 'alarmists' aren't in there either.