Kathleen Wynne deals major blow to Tim Hortons
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I wrote a short story once...
It was about a Sargent named Jack Baker. During the War he leads 12 pastry chefs into battle.
The title?
Baker's Dozen
It was about a Sargent named Jack Baker. During the War he leads 12 pastry chefs into battle.
The title?
Baker's Dozen
Um, it's not really a prediction when you have previous climate shifts to draw from. Nor does that prove in anyway, shape or form that humans are the driving cause.
You see, your faith in computer models is disturbing because it assumes you assume that we know everything about how our planet works re: climate.
For example, we know that continental drift and mountain growth and erosion have direct impacts on the climate. And yes I know, those things change by mere millimeters a year but here's the thing. Mountains are huge and continents are massive. We have absolutely no way of measuring how much of an impact, if any, those three things have had over the last 300-500 years.
And no matter how you try and slice it, volcanic activity is responsible for more than 6.5x the CO2 production as human activity. The math supports it.
So other than merely putting off the inevitable, what exactly are we supposed to accomplish with all this ridiculous CO2 mitigation along with the associated carbon/pricing/taxes/fees? Especially since the primary power generation replacement appears to be methane.
Now, I don't know about you but, if my true aim was to reduce GHG emissions, I sure as hell wouldn't be replacing CO2 with something 25x more potent. But that's just the science-y sounding bullshit denier in me talking.
All this fear and loathing from Trumptards over 20 more cents for a sandwich.
Tim Hortons raises prices on some breakfast items following minimum wage dispute - Business - CBC News
Tim Hortons raises prices on some breakfast items following minimum wage dispute - Business - CBC News
I'll stop you there.
If there were any scientific evidence that climate change was incorrect the 5 major oil companies being sued for it would use it as a defense.
You cannot use it in a court of law because it has been conclusively proven and is supported by every expert in every field that has studied it.
The oil companies cannot claim it is false because they have already admitted it is true and have themselves corroborated the findings with their own research.
Enjoy being among the last humans on Earth to come to a proper understanding of climate change. I remember talking to your grand father who thought that lead in gasoline was harmless. YOu are every bit as smart as him.
Uh huh. Just like all the experts who said tobacco was harmless. Just like all the experts telling us that Monsanto's DNA level manipulation of our food sources is completely harmless.
Oh, and uh by the way. Attempting to use Trumpisms like "every expert in every related field" is pathetic because we know that ain't the case. 32% dipwad. THAT is your consensus and it has not gone up. In fact, the numbers have gone down recently.
Once again the math CLEARLY supports the fact that volcanoes generate about 6.5x the CO2 that humans produce on an annual basis. Your argument isn't with me, the oil companies or anyone else. You argument is with math. And being you're so obviously a leftard, I can safely assume math ain't exactly one of your strong suits.
The flawed methodology they used to determine volcanic output is glaringly obvious as well. It's a wee bit disingenuous to ONLY measure the output of the volcanoes you can see and NOT extrapolate the data like they do for their climate models, for those volcanoes and related structures they can't see.
The "science is settled" argument is a non-starter because rarely if ever in the history of science has anything ever been "settled". Inaccurate computer climate models do not prove jack shit either. They are only as relevant as the data you have available. Meaning if you're missing a mechanism that you're unaware of, your models are going to be flawed. As every single one of them has been to date. It also means when you acquire data through flawed methodology, you're models are going to be flawed. As every single one of them has been to date.
And you're about as sharp as a bag of marshmallows.
they've modified the food to have pesticides in it. Then we eat it. pesticides and all.
in other cases, they modify the food to be resistant to pesticides so they can crop dust the fields. ultimately it is the same result, we end up eating the pesticides.
I like where they splice DNA from other species into a crop, like frog DNA into tomatoes or some such. Makes you wonder where all this is leading us.
Traditional methods of genetic manipulation, no problem. Where I have a problem is when they start splicing man-made chemicals in the DNA of our food sources. But don't worry. Every single scientist involved in this says it's perfectly safe and since a bunch of scientists who know who's buttering their bread said it's safe, it must be true.
After all, a scientist would never, ever lie just to make some serious cash.
