# Common Sense From Canada



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 30, 2011)

I'm surprised this isn't getting moar media attention.  Not sure if it's because it's Canada (therefore, no one cares), or because it may threaten the overall climate change agenda.  Either way, it's a step in the *right*
direction.  It' so ironic that, as the rest of the developed world is starting to wake up and reject leftist ideas (e.g. climate change, multiculturalism, open borders, cradle-to-grave entitlements, etc.), we're pushing them even harder in the US&A.n  Perhaps it's true that you have to hit rock-bottom before any real recovery can begin.

http://http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/To...south-africa-slimate-conference-setup-111127/


----------



## DOMS (Nov 30, 2011)




----------



## LAM (Nov 30, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> It' so ironic that, as the rest of the developed world is starting to wake up and reject leftist ideas (e.g. climate change, multiculturalism, open borders, cradle-to-grave entitlements, etc.), we're pushing them even harder in the US&A.n



you really should try reading more, the open borders and NAFTA all started with Reagan it was part of his vision.  It's surprising just how little you know about the right in this country.  Reagan talked about open borders in the 50's when he was a spokesman for GE.


----------



## vancouver (Nov 30, 2011)

Well I can't say I'm too proud of my Country. I'm not much of a tree hugger, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming. I do see where they are coming from though, if China, Brazil and India won't jump on board, what difference is it really going to make, except to damage us economically. That said, Canada has been a roll model for many different issues in our short history.

Anyone who is not a believer in climate change should watch the documentary, How to Boil a Frog...

I think I'll go throw a tire on the fire now...

How to Boil A Frog - The Movie's Official Website


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 30, 2011)

LAM said:


> you really should try reading more, the open borders and NAFTA all started with Reagan it was part of his vision. It's surprising just how little you know about the right in this country. Reagan talked about open borders in the 50's when he was a spokesman for GE.


 
  More apples/oranges.  I'm actually surprised that you didn't find a way to bring up labor unions in that response.  When I used the term open borders, I wasn't referring to free trade agreements that have enjoyed bipartisan support for 20+ years now.  I was referring to the liberal belief that people have an inherent right to live in any country they wish.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Nov 30, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Well I can't say I'm too proud of my Country. I'm not much of a tree hugger, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming. I do see where they are coming from though, if China, Brazil and India won't jump on board, what difference is it really going to make, except to damage us economically. That said, Canada has been a roll model for many different issues in our short history.
> 
> Anyone who is not a believer in climate change should watch the documentary, How to Boil a Frog...
> 
> ...


 
Throw one one the fire for me.  Make it a SUV tire whilst you're at it.  I can't promise that I'll watch the doccumentary.  But, they do have frog hot pot over here, so I already have experience with boiling frogs.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 2, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> More apples/oranges. I'm actually surprised that you didn't find a way to bring up labor unions in that response. When I used the term open borders, I wasn't referring to free trade agreements that have enjoyed bipartisan support for 20+ years now. I was referring to the liberal belief that people have an inherent right to live in any country they wish.


 
Damn, I forgot about the union issue. It could be that all the hot air coming from unions is heating up the earth. If we get rid of all the unions, maybe we can save the planet.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 2, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Throw one one the fire for me. Make it a SUV tire whilst you're at it. I can't promise that I'll watch the doccumentary. But, they do have frog hot pot over here, so I already have experience with boiling frogs.


 

It's a great movie; the guy who produced it doesn't live too far from me. His premise was to bring up facts about over consumption and how it's contributing to the planets destruction. It's not really a movie that puts down the oil and gas business; in fact, cows produce as much pollution as cars...

I watched a slide show at National Geographic???s website about the creation of the planet and all of prehistoric time. I did not realize the globe heated up 5 times previously which caused mass extinction. At the current rate the planet is heating up, by 2100, parts of the planet could be uninhabitable...beyond that it's kind of scary. There are so many things we could do to reduce emissions that would not impact the global economy. Cattle ranching makes up less than 1% of our National GDP; if it disappeared...there would be very little impact globally. Cows are the number one methane gas emitters; it's projected we will have 60% more cows on the planet by 2030. If we replaced 60% of the world???s car fleet with electric, it would make no different to greenhouse gas...

Perhaps replacing cows with a different livestock could make a bigger impact that reducing oil and gas emissions...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 2, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Perhaps replacing cows with a different livestock could make a bigger impact that reducing oil and gas emissions...



Nothing mankind can do will stop the planet from warming up.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 2, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Nothing mankind can do will stop the planet from warming up.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 2, 2011)

vancouver said:


>


Uhhh...mixed messages? Here you go.

So, you really think that the warming of the Earth can be stopped? 

Do tell?


----------



## vancouver (Dec 2, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Uhhh...mixed messages?
> 
> So, you really think that the warming of the Earth can be stopped?
> 
> Do tell?


 
We can slow human induced warming. The planet might very well heat up otherwise, but not nearly as fast...

From Wiki (not that wiki is the authority on the subject matter, but the info is referenced and it's a place to start). There isn't a single scientific body that disagrees humans are responsible for speeding up the heating of the earth; only a retard would agure this point. You can read the rest yourself or visit National Geographic.


_Climate model__ projections are summarized in the 2007 __Fourth Assessment Report__ (AR4) by the __Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change__ (IPCC). They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for their lowest __emissions scenario__ and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for their highest.[8] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing __sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations__.[9_


_Human activity since the __Industrial Revolution__ has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, __CFCs__ and __nitrous oxide__. The __concentrations__ of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[46] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from __ice cores__.[47][48][49][50] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.[51] __Fossil fuel__ burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly __deforestation_


_*Global warming controversy*_

_The *global warming controversy* refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the __popular media__ than in the scientific literature,[139][140] regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased __global average air temperature__, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether __humankind has contributed significantly to it__, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of __climate sensitivity__, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be._
_In the scientific literature, there is a __strong consensus__ that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing __disagrees with this view__,[141][142] though a few organisations hold __non-committal positions__._
_From 1990-1997 in the United States, __conservative__ think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good._


----------



## DOMS (Dec 2, 2011)

vancouver said:


> We can slow human induced warming. The planet might very well heat up otherwise, but not nearly as fast...



My point stands, global warming isn't going to stop for a long, long time. All the "horrors" show by the pro-global warming disciples is doing to happen. By "horrors", I mean change.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 2, 2011)

DOMS said:


> My point stands, global warming isn't going to stop for a long, long time. All the "horrors" show by the pro-global warming disciples is doing to happen. By "horrors", I mean change.


 
You missed the point, that's why 

A 10 year old could tell you the planet is heating naturally. Thanks for the wisdom...


----------



## Dark Geared God (Dec 2, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You missed the point, that's why
> 
> A 10 year old could tell you the planet is heating naturally. Thanks for the wisdom...


 a planet does that after an Ice Age..


----------



## DOMS (Dec 2, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You missed the point, that's why
> 
> A 10 year old could tell you the planet is heating naturally. Thanks for the wisdom...



Healing naturally. 

Human are having little effect on the mean temperature. The lion's share of the heating is natural. You know, it started at the end of the last ice age. Of which there have been 5 major occurrences and will be more.

On delusional morons think that nature is static.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 2, 2011)

Dark Geared God said:


> a planet does that after an Ice Age..



Global warming disciples don't like to talk about ice ages and the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature. 

They just like to talk about how the temperature should never change more than a few degrees.

Because so sayeth the Global Warming Prophet, Al Gore.


----------



## GFR (Dec 2, 2011)

Humans are doomed, nothing can stop that now. Like always humans will rise up at the last possible minute to try and fix all the destruction they have inflicted on the earth, but by then it will be decades too late.

The good news is the earth will heal in a few centuries and life will go on. Can't say it's a shame the humans wont be around to see it.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 2, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Global warming disciples don't like to talk about ice ages and the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature.
> 
> They just like to talk about how the temperature should never change more than a few degrees.
> 
> Because so sayeth the Global Warming Prophet, Al Gore.


 
You would argue that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

You've already proven that you are a fucking idiot and pull theories out of your ass. It wasn't long ago that you tried to convince me that LA has 10X the area of NYC, even though it's really only 1.5X larger. Then you went on to say you meant LA county and that the LAPD patrols the whole county. To bad you never heard of the LA County Sherrif's Dept which is larger than the LAPD and patrols its own turf (excluding LA)...

You're such a dumb fuck, it's hilarious  

What is so confusing about the fact that absolutly no scientific body disagrees that humans are contributing to global warming. Wipe the drool from your chin before you answer...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 2, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You've already proven that you are a fucking idiot and pull theories out of your ass. It wasn't long ago that you tried to convince me that LA has 10X the area of NYC, even though it's really only 1.5X larger. Then you went on to say you meant LA county and that the LAPD patrols the whole county. To bad you never heard of the LA County Sherrif's Dept which is larger than the LAPD and patrols its own turf (excluding LA)...



I already covered the fact that you don't know how to read and that my original premise was correct.

But I'm sure you mother believes you. 



vancouver said:


> What is so confusing about the fact that absolutly no scientific body disagrees that humans are contributing to global warming. Wipe the drool from your chin before you answer...



Keep talk out your ass, moron.


----------



## Vibrant (Dec 2, 2011)

yet again vancover picks a fight against DOMS


----------



## DOMS (Dec 2, 2011)

Vibrant said:


> yet again vancover picks a fight against DOMS



And he'll get his ass handed to him again. He can't argue for shit.


----------



## Vibrant (Dec 2, 2011)

DOMS said:


> And he'll get his ass handed to him again. He can't argue for shit.



thats why Im getting the popcorn out. last time was hilarious because he couldnt even see he was getting his ass handed to him.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 2, 2011)

You guys aren't buttfuck buddies are you???


----------



## vancouver (Dec 2, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I already covered the fact that you don't know how to read and that my original premise was correct.
> 
> But I'm sure you mother believes you.
> 
> ...


----------



## vancouver (Dec 2, 2011)

DOMS said:


> And he'll get his ass handed to him again. He can't argue for shit.


 
You couldn't win an argument with Sarah Palin


----------



## Dark Geared God (Dec 2, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Global warming disciples don't like to talk about ice ages and the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature.
> 
> They just like to talk about how the temperature should never change more than a few degrees.
> 
> Because so sayeth the Global Warming Prophet, Al Gore.


 
So thats why they renamed it climate change was more fitting to the cause


----------



## DOMS (Dec 2, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You guys aren't buttfuck buddies are you???





vancouver said:


>





vancouver said:


> You couldn't win an argument with Sarah Palin


 
All the fact-free, non-argument, I've come to expect from you.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 2, 2011)

Dark Geared God said:


> So thats why they renamed it climate change was more fitting to the cause


They changed it a few years back when the mean temperature actually went down. At the same time, the Sun's activity went down.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 2, 2011)

DOMS said:


> All the fact-free, non-argument, I've come to expect from you.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Dec 2, 2011)




----------



## maniclion (Dec 2, 2011)

Who gives a shit about global warming or climate change, throw it out and we still have to take responsibility for pollution and the harm it does to the ecosystem (garbage in=garbage out) and then there is the need to reduce energy usage to preserve what little non renewable resources we have while we transition to sustainable sources. So what's the point of arguing for or against global warming?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 3, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Nothing mankind can do will stop the planet from warming up.



This is what I don't get wrt you DOMS.  95% of climate scientists believe global warming is real and we are significantly contributing to it.  82% of all scientists in every discipline who have ever written a scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal believe the same.  What data do you have that they don't?  Not a single person on this planet would say that the Earth isn't warming on it's on, so who cares about that argument?  The real argument is are we willing to pay for reducing our impact, which is significant.  You do know that the Koch Brothers, the ones that run the tea party, recently paid a scientist to go over all of the data from climate-gate basically to punch holes in it and the scientist came to the conclusion that the climate science data is in fact correct and if anything it's worse than what they say.

For me, it comes down to simple logic.  If all of the scientists and I are wrong, we spend a lot of money (something our gov prints up every day) getting a clean planet.  If we are right and don't act we accelerate the destruction of the planet or at the very least make it uninhabitable to us.  Is that really something you want to be wrong about?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 3, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> This is what I don't get wrt you DOMS.  95% of climate scientists believe global warming is real and we are significantly contributing to it.  82% of all scientists in every discipline who have ever written a scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal believe the same.  What data do you have that they don't?  Not a single person on this planet would say that the Earth isn't warming on it's on, so who cares about that argument?



I've been around since the early days of the global warming scare. Back when it was the simple idea that the Earth was warming up, because that's what its being doing since the last ice age. At first, no one mentioned any credible evidence that it was man's fault. They blamed pollution and ignored the cyclical nature of the Earth's climate. Then they "found" the proof. Never mind that several scientists said that the proof wasn't there. Which brings me to...

I was also paying attention when "save the environment" / Green Peace people tacked their agenda onto global warming. I watched the global warming agenda become part of their religion. I watched dissenting scientists get silenced. Often though the loss of grant money. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that the said that humans aren't having an effect on global warming, they were just saying the data wasn't definitive.

I also watched them constantly move the goal posts, too. The temperature rise wasn't scary enough, so they kept bumping it up. The effects weren't scary enough, so they started overstating it or, even if anthropomorphic global warming is real, they started blaming all effects of global warming on mankind. "Oh, look how small the polar cap is getting. Blame mankind!" Completely ignoring the fact that the polar cap used to extended down into what is modern day Wisconsin.

Add to that the issue of the doctored data of the global warming scientists.

The topper is that if I bring up the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature, the APGW say that the rate of change is "unnatural." I point out that the rate of change is clearly in line with the graph of the warming trend, they fall back to, "The scientists must be right!"

AGW is nothing more than socio-political-based "science." The problem is that they can muddy the waters because global warming is real, it's just a natural phenomenon.



Dale Mabry said:


> The real argument is are we willing to pay for reducing our impact, which is significant.  You do know that the Koch Brothers, the ones that run the tea party, recently paid a scientist to go over all of the data from climate-gate basically to punch holes in it and the scientist came to the conclusion that the climate science data is in fact correct and if anything it's worse than what they say.



And silencing dissenting scientists is okay? Is manipulating the numbers okay? Is it also okay that the Prophet of Global warming is set to make money if he can get his laws passed? How about if the main backers (Japan and Russia) of the number 1 GW treaty are in it because they stand to benefit monetarily?



Dale Mabry said:


> For me, it comes down to simple logic.  If all of the scientists and I are wrong, we spend a lot of money (something our gov prints up every day) getting a clean planet.  If we are right and don't act we accelerate the destruction of the planet or at the very least make it uninhabitable to us.  Is that really something you want to be wrong about?



You'd think so, but it's not. We end up blowing trillions to stop something that isn't real. You get shit like carbon credits. Hell, even one of the main proponent of AGW said that the measures are a waste, and that, for the amount spent, we'd be better off providing clean water to every man, woman, and child on the planet. The Kyoto Protocol doesn't even address biggest polluters: China and most of the rest of the third-world.

We're better off identifying real problems and solving them, rather than chasing bogeymen.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 4, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I've been around since the early days of the global warming scare. Back when it was the simple idea that the Earth was warming up, because that's what its being doing since the last ice age. At first, no one mentioned any credible evidence that it was man's fault. They blamed pollution and ignored the cyclical nature of the Earth's climate. Then they "found" the proof. Never mind that several scientists said that the proof wasn't there. Which brings me to...
> 
> I was also paying attention when "save the environment" / Green Peace people tacked their agenda onto global warming. I watched the global warming agenda become part of their religion. I watched dissenting scientists get silenced. Often though the loss of grant money. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that the said that humans aren't having an effect on global warming, they were just saying the data wasn't definitive.
> 
> ...


 
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!! Definitive proof that 
Your dissenting scientists have been changing their tune one by one as the science has become more clear. Today there is absolutely no scientific body which dissagrees humans are contributing to climate change, though there are a few that have other theories, they are in the same camp until new evidence says otherwise...

You should read about the subject matter before making yourself look like an idiot or at least read shit that wasn't published prior to 1990...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 4, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!! Definitive proof that
> Your dissenting scientists have been changing their tune one by one as the science has become more clear. Today there is absolutely no scientific body which dissagrees humans are contributing to climate change, though there are a few that have other theories, they are in the same camp until new evidence says otherwise...
> 
> You should read about the subject matter before making yourself look like an idiot or at least read shit that wasn't published prior to 1990...


Keep quite, boy. The adults are talking.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 4, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I've been around since the early days of the global warming scare. Back when it was the simple idea that the Earth was warming up, because that's what its being doing since the last ice age. At first, no one mentioned any credible evidence that it was man's fault. They blamed pollution and ignored the cyclical nature of the Earth's climate. Then they "found" the proof. Never mind that several scientists said that the proof wasn't there. Which brings me to...
> 
> I was also paying attention when "save the environment" / Green Peace people tacked their agenda onto global warming. I watched the global warming agenda become part of their religion. I watched dissenting scientists get silenced. Often though the loss of grant money. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that the said that humans aren't having an effect on global warming, they were just saying the data wasn't definitive.
> 
> ...



None of that explains how you can look at a sample of people who are considered smarter than most of the people on the plant and side with 18% of them over 82% of them.  There is no hidden agenda for a Physicist or biologist, or engineer, or astronomer, or "enter random science discipline here" to state that climate change is influenced by man.  I understand there would be a hidden agenda for a climate scientist, but why everyone else?  In fact, there really doesn't seem to be any debate outside of our political system and those guys are morons.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 4, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> None of that explains how you can look at a sample of people who are considered smarter than most of the people on the plant and side with 18% of them over 82% of them.  There is no hidden agenda for a Physicist or biologist, or engineer, or astronomer, or "enter random science discipline here" to state that climate change is influenced by man.  I understand there would be a hidden agenda for a climate scientist, but why everyone else?  In fact, there really doesn't seem to be any debate outside of our political system and those guys are morons.



You don't think scientists have agendas? Really?

But that's not even what I was talking about, and it shows you didn't really read my post.

I'm talking about politicians and special interest groups applying pressure on scientists. This article touches on it a bit. Scientists names are put on documents they didn't have part of and having funding taken away because they questioned AGW. 

It's often the very people you call morons, among others, that are manipulating the science of global warming.


----------



## squigader (Dec 4, 2011)

DOMS said:


> You don't think scientists have agendas? Really?
> 
> But that's not even what I was talking about, and it shows you didn't really read my post.
> 
> ...



A lot of them don't. Researchers at a university won't be raking in millions for supporting the fact that climate change is happening, but they will get something thrown their way for denying it.

In any case, even if they are false, isn't cleaner air and a better environment a good thing?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 4, 2011)

squigader said:


> A lot of them don't. Researchers at a university won't be raking in millions for supporting the fact that climate change is happening, but they will get something thrown their way for denying it.



This only further proves my point about the science surrounding AGW.



squigader said:


> In any case, even if they are false, isn't cleaner air and a better environment a good thing?



It is, if we're not wasting money titanic sums of money on the wrong things. Which is what shit like the Kyoto Protocal is doing. The good thing is that, as the original article in this thread shows, people are waking up to it.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 4, 2011)

DOMS said:


> This only further proves my point about the science surrounding AGW.
> 
> 
> 
> It is, if we're not wasting money titanic sums of money on the wrong things. Which is what shit like the Kyoto Protocal is doing. The good thing is that, as the original article in this thread shows, people are waking up to it.



So you basically think Climate Change is some giant conspiracy?  You are joking, right?  I worked in clinical research for 6 years and had to write grants.  I could see a few isolated incidents causing some alarm, but to have all of the climate scientists at every University in on the thing.  That also doesn't explain how a researcher funded by 2 oil tycoons (The Koch Brothers) came to the same conclusions that the conspirators are coming to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071


----------



## DOMS (Dec 4, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> So you basically think Climate Change is some giant conspiracy?  You are joking, right?  I worked in clinical research for 6 years and had to write grants.  I could see a few isolated incidents causing some alarm, but to have all of the climate scientists at every University in on the thing.  That also doesn't explain how a researcher funded by 2 oil tycoons (The Koch Brothers) came to the same conclusions that the conspirators are coming to.
> 
> BBC News - Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study



I don't often subscribe to conspiracies. I've made that clear before. But I do on this. I've seen this shit rise up. I know if for the near religious movement that it is. I've seen enough to make me doubt it. I've seen enough to make me believe that the global warming (the real stuff) is natural.

But okay, so you believe in AGW. You've bought into hook, line, and sinker. So...

Do you drive?
Do you fly?
Do you live in a manufactured shelter?
Do you buy mass produced clothing?
Do you buy food grown on industrial farms?

In short, do you walk the walk? Or is it just, "Mankind is ruining things, but I'm going to drive to the store to get some food?"

Yeah, I know this isn't central to the debate of global warming (Al Gore has show that), but I'd like to know.


----------



## LAM (Dec 4, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> This is what I don't get wrt you DOMS.  95% of climate scientists believe global warming is real and we are significantly contributing to it.



deforestation is reducing the earth's natural scrubbing system, I would think this would pretty much be accepted as common sense.  it may not be so much as to what we are adding but the combination of what we are adding and taking away.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 5, 2011)

LAM said:


> deforestation is reducing the earth's natural scrubbing system, I would think this would pretty much be accepted as common sense. it may not be so much as to what we are adding but the combination of what we are adding and taking away.


 
It's all a conspiracy. We don't really need trees.

Doms is right, we need more warming. Since it's a natural occurance, we should all do our best to speed it along...

Doms


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

vancouver said:


> It's all a conspiracy. We don't really need trees.
> 
> Doms is right, we need more warming. Since it's a natural occurance, we should all do our best to speed it along...
> 
> Doms


Once again, proving you know shit about anything. In the US, there are now twice as many trees as when the Pilgrims arrived.

Do the Internet a favor and shut off your PC. And then do the world a favor and jump off a cliff.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 5, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Once again, proving you know shit about anything. In the US, there are now twice as many trees as when the Pilgrims arrived.
> 
> Do the Internet a favor and shut off your PC. And then do the world a favor and jump off a cliff.


 
 I forgot, the U.S. is the only country in the world.

DOMS


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I forgot, the U.S. is the only country in the world.
> 
> DOMS


It's not the only one, just the most important.


----------



## LAM (Dec 5, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I forgot, the U.S. is the only country in the world.
> 
> DOMS



DOMS never leaves small town USA, it's all he knows...


----------



## vancouver (Dec 5, 2011)

DOMS said:


> It's not the only one, just the most important.


 

You are absolutely the most important; the most important source of cheap assets for the rest of the world to buy. Thank you!


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You are absolutely the most important; the most important source of cheap assets for the rest of the world to buy. Thank you!



I'd dare say your ass is the cheapest. 

It could be worse, I could be from a place where there's nothing worth buying. If you're not sure what that's like, just look up from your computer.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 5, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I don't often subscribe to conspiracies. I've made that clear before. But I do on this. I've seen this shit rise up. I know if for the near religious movement that it is. I've seen enough to make me doubt it. I've seen enough to make me believe that the global warming (the real stuff) is natural.
> 
> But okay, so you believe in AGW. You've bought into hook, line, and sinker. So...
> 
> ...



I do what I can (Buy local organic) but I'm not against driving cars, etc.  I am against the notion that it is not worth our time to negate the impact of our decisions through developing ways to counteract it.  I have no problem paying a little money to have a clean planet for me and my future children.  I want a planet where my kids can play outside and think that is something worth paying for.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 5, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I'd dare say your ass is the cheapest.
> 
> It could be worse, I could be from a place where there's nothing worth buying. If you're not sure what that's like, just look up from your computer.


 


OK, I just looked over my computer, it just so happens there is a window just in front of it. I'm looking at my Mercedes CLK55 AMG. I'm also looking at the neighbors head off to work. There's a Cayenne Turbo, now an X5; a few cheap BMW's and Merc's; oh shit a Bentley.

I live in West Vancouver dipshit. You should look it up. Average residential sales price from 2009-2011, 2 million, 1.5 mil 5 years ago. I'm the black sheep of the neighborhood though, my house is only worth 1.5.

Before you try to dis somebody, you might want to learn a little something about where they live first. Vancouver has the most expensive real estate in all of North America. Vancouver surpased NYC a few years ago. I live in an upscale area of Vancouver... There are 3 world class ski resorts in my backyard and then there's Whistler just an hour down the road. There's 5 marina's within 10 miles of my house, the average yacht value, more than the average house value in the U.S. Let's see I golfed yesterday and then head up to mount Seymour for some sking...

It's not a contest though and I would have never brought these facts up if you didn't put it out there. Yeah, you're right, nothing worth buying up here...What a fucking door knob...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

vancouver said:


> OK, I just looked over my computer, it just so happens there is a window just in front of it. I'm looking at my Mercedes CLK55 AMG. I'm also looking at the neighbors head off to work. There's a Cayenne Turbo, now an X5; a few cheap BMW's and Merc's; oh shit a Bentley.
> 
> I live in West Vancouver dipshit. You should look it up. Average residential sales price from 2009-2011, 2 million, 1.5 mil 5 years ago. I'm the black sheep of the neighborhood though, my house is only worth 1.5.
> 
> ...



50 most expensive cities in the world, 2011.

USA, New York: 32
Canada: not on the list

Most expensive housing prices in the USA and Canada.

USA, "Newport Beach, CA, led the list of most expensive U.S. real estate  markets for the second year in a row, with an average home listing price  of approximately $2.5 million"

Canada, "Vancouver, British Columbia, repeated its top ranking as Canada???s most  expensive housing market, with an average listing price of $1.5 million"

Anything else you care to make up in order to make yourself feel worthy?  Or maybe you're a billionaire? How about you're Superman?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> I do what I can (Buy local organic) but I'm not against driving cars, etc.  I am against the notion that it is not worth our time to negate the impact of our decisions through developing ways to counteract it.  I have no problem paying a little money to have a clean planet for me and my future children.  I want a planet where my kids can play outside and think that is something worth paying for.


I want the same thing, but we're not going to get it by throwing money at the wrong problems.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 5, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I want the same thing, but we're not going to get it by throwing money at the wrong problems.



So you believe there is no benefit to reducing the amount of CO2/pollution we produce either by technology or reducing it directly?


----------



## vancouver (Dec 5, 2011)

DOMS said:


> 50 most expensive cities in the world, 2011.
> 
> USA, New York: 32
> Canada: not on the list
> ...


 
 

Here you go, #1, Hong Kong, #2 Sydney and #3 Vancouver (#1 in N.A) Recent to 2011.

Table 8. http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf

Newport Beach  85,000 people live there; there are 85,000 population neighborhoods that live within our 2.2 million metropolis where average house prices are over 5 million. Why does Wiki say the median house price in Newport Beach is 1 mil??? The Vancouver metropolis has 11 cities within it. No fucking researcher or economist is going to give a fuck about a small suburb.

Anyway, we could agure different publications until we're blue in the face, the only thing that will come out as true is that you don't live remotely close to any of the neighborhoods we're talking about 



Once again for anyone else reading these posts, this is not a contest that I would have brought up if it weren't for that Dumb Ass DOMS from the projects. And I'm not comparing countries, in fact, LA is one of my favorite cities in the world and I've been to a lot of cities, unlike DOMS who vicariously lives through the internet with is cock in his hand


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> So you believe there is no benefit to reducing the amount of CO2/pollution we produce either by technology or reducing it directly?


Sure I do, but when you toss in the bogeyman of global warming, you end up wasting too much money and effort in solving the problems in the wrong way. Again, feel free to look up the Kyoto protocol.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Here you go, #1, Hong Kong, #2 Sydney and #3 Vancouver (#1 in N.A) Recent to 2011.
> 
> Table 8. http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf
> 
> Newport Beach  85,000 people live there; there are 85,000 population neighborhoods that live within our 2.2 million metropolis where average house prices are over 5 million. Why does Wiki say the median house price in Newport Beach is 1 mil??? The Vancouver metropolis has 11 cities within it. No fucking researcher or economist is going to give a fuck about a small suburb.



I wasn't aware that *you *could decide what constitutes the most expensive cities. Just like the "study" you linked to. He chose a method that none of the official sources use, but it's just gotta be right. 




vancouver said:


> Once again for anyone else reading these posts, this is not a contest that I would have brought up if it weren't for that Dumb Ass DOMS from the projects. And I'm not comparing countries, in fact, LA is one of my favorite cities in the world and I've been to a lot of cities, unlike DOMS who vicariously lives through the internet with is cock in his hand



You're appealing to other readers to validate your posts? Holy shit, you're pathetic. Really... Not enough time on your mommy's tit? Even Danny never resorted to that. That's a new low.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 5, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I wasn't aware that *you *could decide what constitutes the most expensive cities. Just like the "study" you linked to. He chose a method that none of the official sources use, but it's just gotta be right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 It keeps getting better!!!

You used cost of living you dumb fuck, of which housing is just a factor. The other link you used was an article sourcing Coldwell Bankers listing prices, not sales price or median price. At least my link has some accreditation behind it.

Appealing to readers, no, being respectful of others yes. A person could read my last few posts and confuse me with being a DOMS asswipe. Just because I know I'm better than your white trash ass, doesn't mean I'm better than everyone else, nor is my country better than all the rest.

Speaking of tits, you obviously didn't spend any time on you mommy's tit, you lost some very important brain development nutrients.

You might be the biggest fucking dumb ass that I've ever had the pleasure of debating with. Well I guess you can call it a debate even if it is mainly one sided. You could at least use sources that are accredited . It's just like all of your other posts, you prematurely ejaculate information and then I tear it appart. Life just isn't fair for dumb fucks...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

vancouver said:


> It keeps getting better!!!
> 
> You used cost of living you dumb fuck, of which housing is just a factor. The other link you used was an article sourcing Coldwell Bankers listing prices, not sales price or median price. At least my link has some accreditation behind it.
> 
> ...



That's rambling mess is your comeback? And you even had to resort to _using the same putdown that I used on you?_ You really are pathetic, and delusional.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 5, 2011)

That's the best you got?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

*Why affordability matters*



vancouver said:


> That's the best you got?



You're not worth any more than that.

Let me demonstrate, boy.

You wrote, "You used cost of living". So this seems to be a problem for you. However, _your_ document said (emphasis mine), "The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey employs the ―Median Multiple (median house price divided by gross annual _*median household income*_) to rate housing affordability". As a matter of fact, the introduction is "Why affordability matters." You didn't even bother to read your own shit. Never mind that one of my sources simply listed house prices.

All you've done is misinterpret facts, lie, use other peoples put downs, over reliance on emoticons, and, judging from the "Old dude" thread, suck minority cock.

You're an Internet retard.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 5, 2011)

DOMS said:


> suck minority cock.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 5, 2011)

DOMS said:


> You're not worth any more than that.
> 
> Let me demonstrate, boy.
> 
> ...


 
Wipe the drool from your chin, my link showed actual median home values and was actually researched (7th edition), who gives a fuck if it also showed affordability for houses, the more info the better. Clearly you're slow, you need all the help you can get to see the big picture. You showed total cost of living, not even remotely close to house prices   You're such a dumb fuck, you actually think you cought me in a retarded moment, only you're so fucking stupid that you don't realize you just made yourself look retarded. You'll try to spin it though, like you'll try to convince me that the price of noodles in China town has something to do with home values...

BTW, I love these emoticons 

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings but,


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

vancouver said:


> who gives a fuck if it also showed affordability


And, once again, you have to backpedal because you're full of shit. The story of your life. Getting your shit "backpedaled"...probably by a minority.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

min0 lee said:


>


----------



## vancouver (Dec 5, 2011)

DOMS said:


> And, once again, you have to backpedal because you're full of shit. The story of your life. Getting your shit "backpedaled"...probably by a minority.


 
Backpedaling from what? So my source provided more information than was needed.

You know you're not going to win right...I mean really, it's like trying to have a debate with a 5 year old downs syndrome child. I should be nicer to you though, it's not my nature to make fun of the mentally challenged.

Really I should have given up on you a long time ago, but I'm having so much fun.



Here's a song for you DOMS, now bang your heals and get it on with your other slow buttfuck buddies.

Dueling Guitars (Live) - Josh and Zac - YouTube






YouTube Video


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

vancouver said:


> it's like trying to have a debate with a 5 year old downs syndrome child. I should be nicer to you though, it's not my nature to make fun of the mentally challenged.



Once again, using a put down already in play. Zero originality on your part. It's what I've come to expect from you. Does your mom know your on _teh interweb?
_ 


vancouver said:


> Here's a song for you DOMS, now bang your heals and get it on with your other slow buttfuck buddies.
> 
> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="Dueling Guitars (Live) - Josh and Zac - YouTube" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



You're awesome... 

And reusing a put down _I just used_. Again. Is there a particular put down you'd like me to use so that you'll know what to use next?


----------



## vancouver (Dec 5, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Once again, using a put down already in play. Zero originality on your part. It's what I've come to expect from you. Does your mom know your on _teh interweb?_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Where did I reuse your put down??? Although  I did actually think you were somewhat sane.

Back on the meds man...






YouTube Video


----------



## DOMS (Dec 5, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Where did I reuse your put down??? Although  I did actually think you were somewhat sane.
> 
> Back on the meds man...



Holy shit are you stupid.


----------

