Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Smeelious

Members
  • Content Count

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Smeelious

  1. and that it would further limit the possibility of re-election..
  2. I suspect they would, and I suspect the government will ask for another extension...
  3. I think that the next 4 years will suck for JT.
  4. To be fair...The assumptions they make are that nothing much will change in how the world works compared to how it has worked in the last 50 years. Probably a reasonable assumption. (They do apply their own estimations to other people's assumptions based on their own assumptions.) Though reading that paper gave me a headache.
  5. The biggest problem with public funding (as it was anyway) was that it gave the advantage to the party with the most seats. Still, it's better than privately funded elections. ..but is it in their interest to leave the union job? Regardless, unions need to re-evaluate what their purpose is somewhat. Also, I think it's a shame that when unions are needed the most (economic downturns) they are also the most derided.
  6. Belief in magical fairy tails is the way the leaders of ISIS control or temp to reward. Means to an end. I don't believe for a second that the leaders of ISIS put more stock in fairy tails than you do.
  7. Well, my statement was more of an emotional response to a logical statement. In the end I wasn't the one who suggest that a country would be 'lost' I was responding to such a post. Your statement is a deliberate exaggeration the effects of "management of climate change", which you can't know. Just as I can't know that the results of climate change will result in the loss of...well anything.
  8. I almost didn't put that line in tbh. But something about the statement; Rubbed me the wrong way. After deleting and readding it a few times over I left it in. *shrug* We all have our swords to die on. That's why we need a global strategy, in which Canada has its own part to play. We can't just ignore international commitments on climate change just because global warming may benefit Canada (at the expense of others...and that would be my assumption, based on expert opinions of which I've read) I'll go ahead and die on this sword too...It's a shame this kind of hyperbole colours
  9. Gains in Canada would be offset by losses in more equatorial countries. And yeah, it's apparently OK for a country to be wiped off the map so Canada can have a longer growing season...Oh my bad, it's just in the loss column on the excel sheet. No big. anyway; http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/climate/future-outlook/impact-of-climate-change-on-canadian-agriculture/?id=1329321987305
  10. I assume you mean the IPCC's 2007 calculations. Current Calculations are hedging more on 3m (though that is the high end). http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/sea-levels-map.php
  11. I would assume in the end that it'll continue eventually. Jt already has too much on his plate to make this a priority
  12. Is there a better / older thread for this? I feel like I'm missing half the discussion, and I completely lost what I was actually going to say about the Paris talks. That they coincide underscores that they aren't linked?
  13. Where do you think the ideological split would be?
  14. What is your null hypothesis in this case? The only evidence for God is historically anecdotal. I do see your point, however. Still, I'd argue that the majority of evidence supports the non-exsistance of God, Just as the majority of evidence shows that man made climate change being significant is a real thing. What am I even arguing at this point? I have no idea. Actually I don't want it to look like:
  15. I'm not sure in this case which would be "less simple". Against consensus might be better in this case. Frankly, the less popular position does need more proof, since you have a lot more people to convince. Less simple...I'm just not liking it, being less simple means it is harder to prove, not that it needs more proof. After pondering for a bit I'd say proving climate change is man made and significant is the less simple proposition, but then it also has the majority of evidence. The result of which is that "showing that it is not" requires more evidence. A strawman. I never cla
  16. I was on board with this paper, until figure 23. Suddenly I have to go back and read everything a little more closely. Until I do that generally everything seems reasonable, but that figure is a giant red flag. But really blaming climate change for Sandy was always a reach to begin with, and I don't think anyone is directly blaming it. Most papers I have read argue that climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of abnormal weather events like Sandy, not causing them. The burden of proof lies with the opinion that is more outlandish. In this case: That human created clima
  17. Source? Both claims are rather outrageous, and contrary to common thought.
  18. ... Sigh, I'm getting punked aren't I. Oh well, it was worth trying once.
  19. More that its' a single premise party with more people in a specific region considering that premise as being of greater value than in other regions. Specifically with other parties not giving enough lip service to that premise. Nobody really respects the Green party on issues other than the environment (even if their platform is more or less valid through most topics)
  20. Honestly at this point I've tried about 6 times to respond to this post. Each time I end up hitting tab, or back, or something...but here goes again. This tells me that your version of truth is so far removed from the (well) truth that it has no truthiness. I'm not sure why I'm continuing this tbh, other than sheer curiosity. First: I think you need to explain what you mean by "Images of truth", in plain english. Next: As for your "ways to reason" Meditation - This can only lead to personal truth. Especially since Science is #5. You have to meditate on actual information to arrive
  21. I suppose he could have appointed non-partisan experts in fields that are relevant.
  22. ...What about income splitting? That seems missing from the article. (outside of seniors, which is the part that isn't changing anyway?)
×
×
  • Create New...