Canadian Politics Today

THREAD DRIFT 

It's like I said before: say "climate change" 3 times, and TimG and Waldo will appear.

 -k

It's like I said before: say "climate change" 3 times, and TimG and Waldo will appear.

**** off! The denier-in-chief gets no free passes to spew his bull-shyte... carry on!

Try responding to the point I made instead of making crap up and cluttering the forum with irrelevant GIFs.

I mean, his graphs are pretty relevant to what you said about renewable power in Germany.

 -k

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/julie-payette-climate-divine-intervention-analysis-wherry-1.4383734

We didn't talk about this.  A few points:

The CBC article originally said something about 'overstepping' or 'commenting outside the bounds of tradition'... or something.  Then they edited that.  Hmmmmmmm.....

I think that it was a bad precedent for her to do this, as hers is a unifying role and we need unity more than anything.  These were prepared comments.  She *could* have made comments about climate change, thereby clearly stating that CC is a fact, indisputable, in need of attention.  But she instead made comments implying people who are religious are worthy of ridicule. 

I am taking these things as a 'unity moment' in that they are an easy way for me to bring liberals and conservatives together in my feed by arguing across political lines.

Thoughts ?

I don't get what was so terrible about her remark on creationism: 
"We are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process,"

This is an accurate statement, is it not?

And I, personally, support leaders who make science and what it can teach us a priority over religion.  It's unfortunate that there is a segment of our population who continues to believe in some kind of divine being and somehow expect the rest of us - and our leaders - to coddle them by avoiding saying anything critical at all.  What is that but the "PC" they are so adamant not be practiced? 

Yes, she is GG and represents Canada.   Canada is a country that separates Church and State and that relies on science and not religion to chart a course into the future.  She represents Canada and so putting science ahead of religion accurately represents Canada.

I mean, his graphs are pretty relevant to what you said about renewable power in Germany.

What I said is Germany had "hit the limit" when it comes to renewable power - meaning I acknowledged that they had increased it but they are the point of a diminishing returns. More importantly, they have to rely on coal for the foreseeable future to provide base load because they closed their nuclear stations. The graphs are completely irrelevant when you consider my point (waldo always does this - when he can't refute the point I make, he piles on with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense and hopes to overwhelm people with detail. In your case his deception appears to have worked).

Another, less important point, is graphs like the one waldo provided are deceptive because they include "biomass" (e.g. burning trees) as a renewable. I don't consider this sustainable because our power needs vastly exceed the number of trees that can be grown if countries like China and India jumped on the bandwagon.

TimG said:
Well we have no way to know for sure. If you follow the scientific method you must start with the assumption that life is a natural process.
 
Yet the assumption wss that life was created; it was people using science that gradually called that assumption into question and eventually demonstrated that divine intervention was not the only answer and that the sciemce argued against it. 

Framing it in the way the GG did was wrong given her position.

I disagree.  Framing it in the way she did accurately represents Canada's reliance on science over religion. 

I don't get what was so terrible about her remark on creationism: 
"We are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process,"

This is an accurate statement, is it not?

It was the tone she used, a mocking tone clearly meant to ridicule creationists. Now I'm not a creationist, nor particularly religious, but I don't think the GG should be deliberately offending millions of Canadians like that.

And science, btw, has still not explained to my satisfaction how the universe was created. If there was a big bang, then what was here before that, and what caused THAT to be here?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/julie-payette-climate-divine-intervention-analysis-wherry-1.4383734

But she instead made comments implying people who are religious are worthy of ridicule.

Looking through the article, it seems like she's not saying all people who are religious are worthy of ridicule, but only those who believe in things like creationism.

From the article: "We are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process," Payette said.
 

I am taking these things as a 'unity moment' in that they are an easy way for me to bring liberals and conservatives together in my feed by arguing across political lines.

I guess  it depends on how much attention you think should be given to those with silly, non-scientific beliefs. Should she have included (for example) flat earthers? Moon hoax conspiracy theorists? Yeah, you want to be open minded, but not so open minded that your brains leak out.

For the record, I tend to vote conservative, but I am often embarrassed by many of the conservative politicians and their scientific backgrounds and/or beliefs.