Government kills independent science body

[mentalfloss]

hockey stick stuff

The mann graph was already vindicated well before the climategate nonsense deniers still begrudgingly cling to.

And you know the rest of the story.

Not all privately funded research organizations are for-profit. Some are supported by donations.

Then they work in the interest of their donators. If they're public, the interest is the taxpayer - or Canada.

 

[DurkaDurka]

What would Vik Toews do?

 

[captain morgan]

I didn't think of bring up climategate, but thanks all the same.

I'll bet that it had much to do with the reality that so many nations have swept the eco-agenda aside

What would Vik Toews do?

Go for drinks with Shelia

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Stern had nothing to do with the "Hockey Stick graph." That was from a study done by Mann and Bradley. It has also been replicated scores of times. It also related to the temperature regime over the past 1000 years. Only a McIntyre who makes nice financial gains from his fraudulent "disagreements" can try to claim that the graph is invalid. Only the dumb. blind and mentally challenged believe him.

Hundreds of scientists have found the same pattern for scores of related measures.

In fact, if I had the time - and the knowledge about computers to post images and the rest, I could give you hundreds of "Hockey Stick" graphs. They hold true for every aspect of climate change, temperature; correlation to CO2: every puddle and pond that has been looked at.

The shape is absolutely incontrovertible in a rapidly changing environment.

 

[mentalfloss]

Macleans is pushing the carbon tax now, rofl

The carbon tax: history’s greatest monster

Without amendment or correction, John Baird’s warning that a carbon tax would kill your family is now preserved for eternity in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is making government more accountable, living within our means and focusing on the priorities which is what Canadians elected us to do. We are keeping taxes low. We are increasing funds to hospitals, health care and education. These are the priorities that Canadians have identified. Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something which the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected? That is a message the Liberal Party just will not accept. It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government to no discussion of a carbon tax that would kill and hurt Canadian families.
​

Families in Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia, Colorado, California, Maryland, South Africa, India, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland perhaps receive this warning too late.

The carbon tax: history’s greatest monster - Beyond The Commons, Capital Read - Macleans.ca

 

[DurkaDurka]

I didn't think of bring up climategate, but thanks all the same.

I'll bet that it had much to do with the reality that so many nations have swept the eco-agenda aside




Go for drinks with Shelia

Or bang the babysitter. haha. He blinded her with science.

 

[Machjo]

Then they work in the interest of their donators. If they're public, the interest is the taxpayer - or Canada.

Not necessarily. Just read some of the works of Louis-Jean Calvet (which I believe are available in English translation) and Robert Phillipson, and you'll see that often government organizations are looking out for the short-term best interests of the country at the expense of other countries. Interestingly enough, both of these scholars, though neither is Canadian, do make reference to Canadian Heritage and especially CIDA engaging in such activities.

While it does not conflict with what you say that they look out for the interests of the nation, there is still no guarantee that they are making recommendations based on the principle of justice, but rather bottom line what benefits the nation regardless of the consequence for others, which thus still makes their conclusions questionable. From that standpoint, you'd want advise from an international organization to supplement it too to ensure even more fairness.

 

[captain morgan]

Or bang the babysitter. haha. He blinded her with science.

I can just imagine the lines he could use:

Ya gotta keep rubbing it 'til the swelling goes down... That's not me talkin, that's science

Stern had nothing to do with the "Hockey Stick graph." That was from a study done by Mann and Bradley.

Mann, Stern, Bradley or Suzuki: whatever

 

[DurkaDurka]

I can just imagine the lines he could use:

Ya gotta keep rubbing it 'til the swelling goes down... That's not me talkin, that's science

bahaha, too funny. poor Vik

 

[mentalfloss]

I can just imagine the lines he could use:

Ya gotta keep rubbing it 'til the swelling goes down... That's not me talkin, that's science

:lol:

Not necessarily. Just read some of the works of Louis-Jean Calvet (which I believe are available in English translation) and Robert Phillipson, and you'll see that often government organizations are looking out for the short-term best interests of the country at the expense of other countries. Interestingly enough, both of these scholars, though neither is Canadian, do make reference to Canadian Heritage and especially CIDA engaging in such activities.

While it does not conflict with what you say that they look out for the interests of the nation, there is still no guarantee that they are making recommendations based on the principle of justice, but rather bottom line what benefits the nation regardless of the consequence for others, which thus still makes their conclusions questionable. From that standpoint, you'd want advise from an international organization to supplement it too to ensure even more fairness.

It's still more likely that for transparency practices (and science for that matter), publicly funded entities are typically more credible.

 

[petros]

Can a climate scientist measure the water vapour content an ice cube floating in my mason jar of iced tea if I put the seal and ring on?

 

[Machjo]

:lol:



It's still more likely that for transparency practices (and science for that matter), publicly funded entities are typically more credible.

Well, if that's the goal, then how about an internationally funded public entity to avoid the beggar-my-neighbour practices which some scholars accuse CIDA and Heritage Canada of abroad. And besides, what the heck is Heritage Canada doing funding English-language learning in China via Lingo-Media?

 

[mentalfloss]

Well, if that's the goal, then how about an internationally funded public entity to avoid the beggar-my-neighbour practices which some scholars accuse CIDA and Heritage Canada of abroad. And besides, what the heck is Heritage Canada doing funding English-language learning in China via Lingo-Media?

*yawn*

I really don't know...

Can a climate scientist measure the water vapour content an ice cube floating in my mason jar of iced tea if I put the seal and ring on?

Yes, but the stone cutter's fee still applies.

 

[petros]

Unions?

Jesus was the founder.

 

[Walter]

Actually, there is a valid scientific argument for some kind of carbon tax,

Never heard of one yet.

Stern had nothing to do with the "Hockey Stick graph." That was from a study done by Mann and Bradley. It has also been replicated scores of times. It also related to the temperature regime over the past 1000 years. Only a McIntyre who makes nice financial gains from his fraudulent "disagreements" can try to claim that the graph is invalid. Only the dumb. blind and mentally challenged believe him.

Hundreds of scientists have found the same pattern for scores of related measures.

In fact, if I had the time - and the knowledge about computers to post images and the rest, I could give you hundreds of "Hockey Stick" graphs. They hold true for every aspect of climate change, temperature; correlation to CO2: every puddle and pond that has been looked at.

The shape is absolutely incontrovertible in a rapidly changing environment.

Too funny.

 

[Tonington]

Never heard of one yet.

Carbon dioxide emissions are driving up the acidity of the world's oceans, with demonstrable, deleterious effects. There's one.

 

[Walter]

Carbon dioxide emissions are driving up the acidity of the world's oceans, with demonstrable, deleterious effects. There's one.

Nothing current, eh. And how would a tax reduce the acidity?

 

[Tonington]

Nothing current, eh.

Happening now isn't current enough for you? If you hadn't heard about this and it's not current news... than maybe you should get with the times Walt.

 

[Walter]

Happening now isn't current enough for you? If you hadn't heard about this and it's not current news... than maybe you should get with the times Walt.

Science (this information is current as of September 3, 2008 ):

 

[Tonington]

Science (this information is current as of September 3, 2008 ):

And emissions have stopped since then? Are you really going to play like you're that obtuse?

ocean acidification - Google Scholar

Have a read then, 1,680 google scholar results for "ocean acidification" since 2012.