manitoubass2 Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 The people of China are aware, change will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted May 31, 2016 Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 Now that's funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifeisfun Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) The people of China are aware, change will happen. And once again you are out to lunch with your explanation of poll like this. But nothing you claim will not surprise me anymore so keep going, it's fun! Edited June 1, 2016 by Lifeisfun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 I didn't say can't either. Wynne doesn't need a plan to jam people into the GTA. The GTA is where the jobs are, people are coming here regardless. When the agenda is to have the population consolidated into one area that happens. Companies get incentives to locate in the GTA so people have no choice but to live there. We had a thread on here a while back asking why people live in such crowded conditions and yes, it was only because thats where the work is. But nobody really liked it. Why else would they move to Barrie and commute for 2 hours every day. What would be the problem with incentives for companies to locate elsewhere. The problem is, it would be against Kathleen McGuintys program Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) When the agenda is to have the population consolidated into one area that happens. Companies get incentives to locate in the GTA so people have no choice but to live there. We had a thread on here a while back asking why people live in such crowded conditions and yes, it was only because thats where the work is. But nobody really liked it. Why else would they move to Barrie and commute for 2 hours every day. What would be the problem with incentives for companies to locate elsewhere. The problem is, it would be against Kathleen McGuintys program I've done both (commuting and now living in the city). Neither is ideal. It will all be irrelevant in twenty years when AI takes most of the jobs and we're all getting a basic personal income from the Gov. Edited June 1, 2016 by Dutch01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 I've done both (commuting and now living in the city). Neither is ideal. It will all be irrelevant in twenty years when AI takes most of the jobs and we're all getting a basic personal income from the Gov. There will be lots of time for fishing anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 You won't hear me complaining if that's the case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bacon Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 When the agenda is to have the population consolidated into one area that happens. Companies get incentives to locate in the GTA so people have no choice but to live there. We had a thread on here a while back asking why people live in such crowded conditions and yes, it was only because thats where the work is. But nobody really liked it. Why else would they move to Barrie and commute for 2 hours every day. What would be the problem with incentives for companies to locate elsewhere. The problem is, it would be against Kathleen McGuintys program Re: "But nobody really liked it." - That's not true. You may not like the city; but there are plenty of people who do. Living in the city give people access to public transportation, lot's of restaurants, night clubs, museums, theaters, etc. all close by. You may prefer to be close to a remote lake, but others prefer to be close to the attractions of a big city. E.g. my co-worker told me that her brother won't live in Toronto because it's too small. He wants to somewhere were there are more people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuro2 Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 And once again you are out to lunch with your explanation of poll like this. But nothing you claim will not surprise me anymore so keep going, it's fun! I have admired the deeply hidden intelligence within your posts for some time now. Call me a fan. Such simplicity of thought, could you say it any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifeisfun Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 I have admired the deeply hidden intelligence within your posts for some time now. Call me a fan. Such simplicity of thought, could you say it any better? You are no fun! I thought you'll post another proof like Leo DiCaprio's terrifying sign of climate change in Calgary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuro2 Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Just for you bud, a graph that shows NOTHING! I'm even throwing a bone to MB2. It's a great graph for the deniers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manitoubass2 Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Did ya like my graph for you on the last page??? ??? I hope you realize Im just having fun and busting your chops? I am not a "denier" lol. But I do believe we need more research, better strategies and moneys from a multitude of areas(and clear cut reports on who what where when and why, when it comes to spending) None of this should come from tax payers dollars. The only contribution we make is usage(and a vast majority of that is forced upon us). So if the corporation of Canada decides to spend, tax and expand the sciences, they should be held responsible for those actions. Not us, the citizen. Hey scuro, how do you stump a geologist? (Just kidding, do not answer that/inside joke) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Ironmaker Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) Re: "But nobody really liked it." - That's not true. You may not like the city; but there are plenty of people who do. Living in the city give people access to public transportation, lot's of restaurants, night clubs, museums, theaters, etc. all close by. You may prefer to be close to a remote lake, but others prefer to be close to the attractions of a big city. E.g. my co-worker told me that her brother won't live in Toronto because it's too small. He wants to somewhere were there are more people. If I had told you I wold be living out my almost Golden years in the tranquility of the country I would have told you were nuts when I was in my 20's and 30's. I tried living in a rural town in 79', Caledonia, and put the house up 5 months after moving in. You will have to drag me away from our lakeside country shack. Who'd a thunk? Edited June 3, 2016 by Old Ironmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuro2 Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Did ya like my graph for you on the last page??? I hope you realize Im just having fun and busting your chops? I am not a "denier" lol. But I do believe we need more research, better strategies and moneys from a multitude of areas(and clear cut reports on who what where when and why, when it comes to spending) None of this should come from tax payers dollars. The only contribution we make is usage(and a vast majority of that is forced upon us). So if the corporation of Canada decides to spend, tax and expand the sciences, they should be held responsible for those actions. Not us, the citizen. Hey scuro, how do you stump a geologist? (Just kidding, do not answer that/inside joke) Yeah busting chops, I get that,...but a denier u r!! :) I'll spell it out for you, if 97% of climate scientists agree on this, it don't matter why, but anyone who disagrees is a denier. Think of your workplace. What could you get 97% of your coworkers to agree too? For the males at your workplace you may not even get 97% agreeing that b00bs are good. Best would be if industry that spewed it paid for it but that aint working. In fact they would rather fund deniers. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ "A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder"... add to that money funneled to American politicians by the likes of Exon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuro2 Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 Yeah busting chops, I get that,...but a denier u r!! :) I'll spell it out for you, if 97% of climate scientists agree on this, it don't matter why, but anyone who disagrees is a denier. Think of your workplace. What could you get 97% of your coworkers to agree too? For the males at your workplace you may not even get 97% agreeing that b00bs are good. Best would be if industry that spewed it paid for it but that aint working. In fact they would rather fund deniers. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ "A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder"... add to that money funneled to American politicians by the likes of Exon. Exon doesn't deny, pinheads like this deny and they are funded big time to say these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manitoubass2 Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 I AM TROLLING YOU I do NOT agree NOR disagree with that number(97% of climate related scientists) But whomever polled these scientist I applaud you! Seems like a daunting tasks if I say so myself... Now, lets see some more graphs. I am partial to the ones in grean and blue, reminds me of the enviroment? Oh and red is good too(indictive of heat) Frig Im just gonna draw some graphs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifeisfun Posted June 4, 2016 Report Share Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) Just for you bud, a graph that shows NOTHING! I'm even throwing a bone to MB2. It's a great graph for the deniers! Here you have part of the 3% club that don't agree with your religion.... http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/ Edited June 4, 2016 by Lifeisfun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuro2 Posted June 4, 2016 Report Share Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) I AM TROLLING YOU I do NOT agree NOR disagree with that number(97% of climate related scientists) But whomever polled these scientist I applaud you! Seems like a daunting tasks if I say so myself... Now, lets see some more graphs. I am partial to the ones in grean and blue, reminds me of the enviroment Oh and red is good too(indictive of heat) Frig Im just gonna draw some graphs Lifeisfun, it is good that you finally got your denier website out of the closet. Nothing subtle about that website, it's so....FLASHY!!!! Troll away MB2, even deniers have to have some fun in their day. But I gotta tell ya I'm going to rub this denial thing up one side of yous and down the other. It's like shooting fish out of a barrel. You guys have the hook soooo deep there is NO SAVING YOU. On the other hand I like that consistency because whatever I show you, no matter how conclusive the evidence, you won't accept it. That is loyality in spades. Just for fun I checked into the stats on the number of Scientists who disagreed with the theory of evolution. Those nutters are called Creationists and they believe that man and dinosaurs existed at the same time!!! The number of scientists who disagree with Creationism is about the same # who deny man made climate change. Are you both Creationists?!??? I'm thinking may be!! If you were Creationists I would apologize and leave you alone. We would part as friends sharing our mutual faith in God. May be we would even fish together some time in the future. Edited June 4, 2016 by scuro2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manitoubass2 Posted June 4, 2016 Report Share Posted June 4, 2016 Wth are you talking about? Lol I like that you have labelled me, makes me feel all tingly inside?. Thinking of getting a "denier" tattoo so I can show people and they have no clue what its referencing,yeah, that would be cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuro2 Posted June 4, 2016 Report Share Posted June 4, 2016 That Tattoo would also work for Evolution, JFK assassination, moon landing, flat earth....it is so you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRIFTER_016 Posted June 4, 2016 Report Share Posted June 4, 2016 My contribution to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manitoubass2 Posted June 4, 2016 Report Share Posted June 4, 2016 That Tattoo would also work for Evolution, JFK assassination, moon landing, flat earth....it is so you! Flat earth??? Yeah you def. Dont know me lol. If you get "i did it for ze science" tattoed on your lower back, im in. Just for fun. Pass the rum drifter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manitoubass2 Posted June 4, 2016 Report Share Posted June 4, 2016 Hey scuro, here is me playing in the mud and denying global warming??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifeisfun Posted June 4, 2016 Report Share Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) Lifeisfun, it is good that you finally got your denier website out of the closet. Nothing subtle about that website, it's so....FLASHY!!!! ...... To read the facts hurts eh? I guess you don't subscribe to evidence based decision making after all I'm surprised you don't throw in some racial slurs to push your point of view, that's what people without arguments usually do, or perhaps question someone else's religion is just first step? You may not agree with people like Einstein, Newton, Hawking and others but there is no reason to question and make fun of what they believe in. Edited June 4, 2016 by Lifeisfun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallacio Posted June 4, 2016 Report Share Posted June 4, 2016 Referring to the International Climate Science Coalition as "evidence based" is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now