Jump to content

      












Photo

2021 Canadian General Election


  • Please log in to reply
551 replies to this topic

#541 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 30,687 posts

Posted 03 December 2021 - 03:42 PM

Time to bury the Green Party already. I am sure it is mostly organic and will produce a decent mulch.


  • Matt R. likes this

#542 John M.

John M.

    John M.

  • Member
  • 412 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 08:35 AM

s it looks for ways to cut its costs and avoid insolvency, the Green Party of Canada is considering ditching its Ottawa party office.

A report from the party's financial arm, presented to party members at last weekend's virtual general meeting, says the cash-strapped party is considering all of its options, including shutting down the office.

Donations to the Green Party fell off a cliff in June as efforts by members of the party's executive council to oust leader Annamie Paul spilled over in public. The drop in donations also coincided with the recent federal election.

_______

The fund report says that legal proceedings involving the former leader consumed a lot of time and money, as did its collective agreement with newly unionized staff.

https://www.cbc.ca/n...vency-1.6271510





Talk about a self-destruct. I love it when these woke organizations champion things like unionisation then realize in the real world that sucks lots of money.

unionisation is now "woke"? You should go to a Unifor or USW shop and see how "woke" pulp and steel workers are. Are police unions also 'woke'? 

 

I'm a fiscal conservative, but reasonable unions that stick to their mandate of representing employees in negotiations and dispute absolutely have their place in the worksite. I've worked in private-sector and public sector unionized and non-unionized shops, and they unions certainly have both benefits and drawbacks. And, based off of how it sounds like the staff at GPC office were treated by their leader and executive director, I can't blame them for unionizing. Sounds like what the Greens really have is a cashflow problem, since if they would have kept up the donations they were getting in the "Late May" period (after 2017 or so) they could have easily continued to afford these expenditures. 


  • Nparker, Brayvehart, FogPub and 1 other like this

#543 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 67,004 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 09:07 AM

Will the Greens just fold and split into the NDP and federal Liberals?

Ten years ago Gilbeault would have been running under the Greens. Now he’s a Liberal MP. How do you stay relevant if that’s how the game is played now?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#544 John M.

John M.

    John M.

  • Member
  • 412 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 10:37 AM

Will the Greens just fold and split into the NDP and federal Liberals?

Ten years ago Gilbeault would have been running under the Greens. Now he’s a Liberal MP. How do you stay relevant if that’s how the game is played now?

I think the reality is now that all parties have drank the climate kool aid (yes of course climate change is real and primarily caused by humans, but the reality is that 1.6% of global emissions are from Canada. We could shut down our entire natural resource sector and devote that 17%+ of our GDP exclusively to carbon capture, and it wouldn't make a dent in global emissions) the Greens really have no purpose. All of the major parties are now green parties. 



#545 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 67,004 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 12:47 PM

Indeed.

This must be why May stepped aside when she did, recognizing that her mission was accomplished and either fresh blood reinvents the party it will collapse. We are likely watching the liquidation now, with the party lost amid a wide array of social and climate issues that prevent it from finding focus and being easily defined for the average individual.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#546 North Shore

North Shore
  • Member
  • 2,051 posts

Posted 06 December 2021 - 05:35 PM

I'm a committed Green voter/supporter both Provincially, and Federally; I have pretty much sat on my wallet with regards to the Federal Greens for most of the last year.  There's no bloody way that I'm donating my hard-earned cash to pay a bunch of jackal Bay Street lawyers to sort out the Annamie Paul/Noah Zatzman/Israel/Green Party executive spat!  A completely self-inflicted wound, and all over a stretch of near-desert that should have no bearing whatsoever on a Canadian *Environmental* party... :mad:


Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?

#547 JimV

JimV
  • Member
  • 775 posts

Posted 10 December 2021 - 09:15 AM

I think the reality is now that all parties have drank the climate kool aid (yes of course climate change is real and primarily caused by humans, but the reality is that 1.6% of global emissions are from Canada. We could shut down our entire natural resource sector and devote that 17%+ of our GDP exclusively to carbon capture, and it wouldn't make a dent in global emissions) the Greens really have no purpose. All of the major parties are now green parties. 

Correct, except there is increasing evidence that the primary driver of climate change is solar activity which affects cloud formation by deflecting (or not, depending on the cycle) cosmic radiation.  Less solar activity=more cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere=more low level clouds formed=cooler surface temperatures.  Good recent work on this by the Danish Space Institute and Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

 

There is plenty of evidence that human caused emissions are an extremely small component of the process.  (Dramatic climate shifts before the human era, ice core samples showing atmosphericCO2 levels follow warming-not the other way around, large temperature changes in historical pre-industrial times.)



#548 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 17,710 posts

Posted 11 December 2021 - 01:42 PM

^ Doesn't really matter at this point JimV. There is so much momentum (and money) behind GW and 'solutions' that nothing at this point is going to stop it. Sort of like Y2K when even though a mountain of technical evidence was produced to show that there would be minimal to no impact, anyone who wasn't pounding the drum was cast aside. The smart naysayers back then simply pressed the egregious consulting engagements and collected their retirement money.

 

Fill your pockets while you can. You will be paying for it.


  • Nparker and LJ like this

#549 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 30,687 posts

Posted 11 December 2021 - 02:00 PM

Those who dare question any part of the anthropogenic climate change doctrine are treated no better today than religious "heretics" of the middle ages. If it were acceptable to burn people at the stake today, you can bet Greta Thunberg and David Suzuki would be there with matches lit.*

*having purchased the necessary carbon offsets for the conflagration of course


  • phx likes this

#550 Moderation

Moderation
  • Member
  • 190 posts

Posted 11 December 2021 - 07:16 PM

Quote:

Correct, except there is increasing evidence that the primary driver of climate change is solar activity which affects cloud formation by deflecting (or not, depending on the cycle) cosmic radiation.  Less solar activity=more cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere=more low level clouds formed=cooler surface temperatures.  Good recent work on this by the Danish Space Institute and Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

 

There is plenty of evidence that human caused emissions are an extremely small component of the process.  (Dramatic climate shifts before the human era, ice core samples showing atmosphericCO2 levels follow warming-not the other way around, large temperature changes in historical pre-industrial times.)

 

A counter point of view.

 

FAQ: How Does the Solar Cycle Affect Earth's Climate? | NASA



#551 JimV

JimV
  • Member
  • 775 posts

Posted 12 December 2021 - 09:45 AM

It’s not really a counter point of view.  The NASA piece concentrates on solar irradiance, which directly affects solar energy reaching the earth’s surface.  The Danish research addresses the secondary, and larger effect, which is the formation of low cloud cover.  As noted above, that is a function of solar activity deflecting cosmic radiation.  

 

This is a recognized dynamic in the scientific community.  The problem is that this effect has been vastly underestimated.  The Danish/HU research concluded that the IPCC report erred in this regard by orders of magnitude.  (The IPCC also gave high and low ranges for possible global warming.  The media, predictably, reported on the highest and least likely scenarios.  But that is another story.)

 

Forecasting aside, it is indisputable that climate change occurs without any human intervention.  (12,000 years ago there was a glacier three blocks from where my house now stands.  It didn’t melt because of FN campfires.)  There are many factors, of which atmospheric carbon dioxide is one of the smallest, let alone the almost insignificant fraction contributed by human activity.


  • Nparker and LJ like this

#552 Matt R.

Matt R.
  • Member
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 17 December 2021 - 12:34 AM

Trudeau gave his cabinet their new mandate letters this week, including some pointed suggestions for the new Minister of Immigration and his IRCC.

https://www.cicnews.....html#gs.j1y5u5

 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)