THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
User avatar
oldncold
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1015
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 11:17 am
Location: south of 78N latitude , north of 30'latitude

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by oldncold »

Just as a educational history lesson for those not born before 1997 I looked up total federal govt spending in 1997 157.4 billion total revenues 160 billion 2.6 billion surplus .
Adjusted for inflation that spending 265 billion not what trudeau n company are spending 380 billion and with the interest hikes on the deficit there "projections "are out the window

.
---------- ADS -----------
 
WellThatAgedWell
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:38 am

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by WellThatAgedWell »

oldncold wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 7:36 pm Just as a educational history lesson for those not born before 1997 I looked up total federal govt spending in 1997 157.4 billion total revenues 160 billion 2.6 billion surplus .
Adjusted for inflation that spending 265 billion not what trudeau n company are spending 380 billion and with the interest hikes on the deficit there "projections "are out the window

.
I took your napkin math and adjusted for population. Since we grew 9 million people in that time, 160 billion for 29 million population, inflation adjusted to an equivalent of 340 billion for 38 million population.

Suprisingly, only 40 billion not accounted for. Maybe the 40 billion is for interest to service our debt.

Open up the gates to more immigration. Someone has to start paying this debt. We can just give some people the privilege to live here and then make them pay for services rendered decades ago... Little do they know that's what all their taxes pay for when they see half of their income disappear. Unfortunately there's lots of big spenders out there who believe in this. They will tell you how they have good morals because they know how to blow cash to help everyone who needs free stuff!

Maybe a more appropriate thing to do would be tell people to get back to work, and if you want something, earn it. I guess that's socially unacceptable to say... Well then back to more free shit for everyone!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Two years of posts that aged like a fine cheddar.
User avatar
oldncold
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1015
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 11:17 am
Location: south of 78N latitude , north of 30'latitude

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by oldncold »

fair enough but ? Do all though 9 million in pop growth end up squarely in the middleclass that dont qualify for govt programs due to income . Or are they working on poverty line, which is more common among first gen immigrants . Where they use more n need more govt services . Where they going to live? This fact is very important with the feds running a 46 net debt to gdp ratio+ 35 more debt to provincial gdp . Not a hope n hell they build sufficient homes combined with a tripling of the carbon tax over the next 7 years or rebuild health care without sinking your grankids, taxes willneed to be 60 percent income. Plus consumption taxes .you think canada has a productivity problem now

This unholy spending alliance of ndp n liberal is akin to your spouse /significant other sleeping around living the hi life on your cc n you dont get a say in the matter . Need election sooner than 2025
---------- ADS -----------
 
kgb531
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:46 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by kgb531 »

How exactly would Harper have brought in more energy dollars over the last eight years? Would he have conjured up more demand for asphalt and bunker fuel (the only thing our heavy, sour crude is efficiently suitable for)? Would he have built more pipelines that he didn't build in the 9 years previous? Would he have magically raised the price of WCS during a 6 year glut of supply when our oil has one of the highest extraction/production costs per bbl in the world? Or would he have built LNG export terminals when the business case never existed?
Trudeau is a tool but let's stay in the real world.


"I wonder how many hundreds of billions if not trillions of energy dollars Harper would have brought in over the last eight years. Think about that while you wait for your emergency room to re-open."
[/quote]
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
‘Bob’
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:19 am

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by ‘Bob’ »

kgb531 wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:16 pm "I wonder how many hundreds of billions if not trillions of energy dollars Harper would have brought in over the last eight years. Think about that while you wait for your emergency room to re-open."
.

The global energy glut had already started when he lost the election. He squandered years of leadership during boom times never getting any pipelines built even when oil was over $150/bbl.. never mind the $30 it bottomed out at. Canada wouldn’t have had any more energy revenues with Harper at the helm.

But I guess he was always generous with the public sector and social programs. Oh wait, he wasn’t. Any job action for higher wages he’d legislate back to work and bring in substandard TFWs to undercut them. Surely as a pilot or being in aviation you’d know this.

So no. Canada wouldn’t have any more money from oil… and our emergency rooms would be worse.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TELL THOMPSON WE’RE COMIN’ IN HOT!!

http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/answer ... _FAQ_.html
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by rookiepilot »

‘Bob’ wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 11:23 pm
kgb531 wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:16 pm "I wonder how many hundreds of billions if not trillions of energy dollars Harper would have brought in over the last eight years. Think about that while you wait for your emergency room to re-open."
.

The global energy glut had already started when he lost the election. He squandered years of leadership during boom times never getting any pipelines built even when oil was over $150/bbl.. never mind the $30 it bottomed out at. Canada wouldn’t have had any more energy revenues with Harper at the helm.

But I guess he was always generous with the public sector and social programs. Oh wait, he wasn’t. Any job action for higher wages he’d legislate back to work and bring in substandard TFWs to undercut them. Surely as a pilot or being in aviation you’d know this.

So no. Canada wouldn’t have any more money from oil… and our emergency rooms would be worse.
When was oil over $150, exactly?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Squaretail
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by Squaretail »

April to August 2008, maxing out at $189/bbl in June. It also reached $150/bbl in April 2011.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude- ... tory-chart
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Squaretail on Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by rookiepilot »

Squaretail wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:00 am April to August 2008, maxing out at $189/bbl in June. It also reached $150/bbl in April 2011.
In USD? Canada prices? Who cares?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Squaretail
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by Squaretail »

rookiepilot wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:02 am Who cares?
You did. You asked.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by rookiepilot »

Squaretail wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:03 am
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:02 am Who cares?
You did. You asked.
For USD WTI.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by pelmet »

rookiepilot wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:50 am
‘Bob’ wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 11:23 pm
kgb531 wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:16 pm "I wonder how many hundreds of billions if not trillions of energy dollars Harper would have brought in over the last eight years. Think about that while you wait for your emergency room to re-open."
.

The global energy glut had already started when he lost the election. He squandered years of leadership during boom times never getting any pipelines built even when oil was over $150/bbl.. never mind the $30 it bottomed out at. Canada wouldn’t have had any more energy revenues with Harper at the helm.

But I guess he was always generous with the public sector and social programs. Oh wait, he wasn’t. Any job action for higher wages he’d legislate back to work and bring in substandard TFWs to undercut them. Surely as a pilot or being in aviation you’d know this.

So no. Canada wouldn’t have any more money from oil… and our emergency rooms would be worse.
When was oil over $150, exactly?
This is how they intentionally lie to you. They say that oil was above 150 per barrel when it never was and try to make themselves know what they are talking about when they actually have another agenda. And then they try to tell you that Canada wouldn't have any more money from oil.

https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2019/ ... il-and-ga/
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by rookiepilot »

Pelmet, you’re my indicator. Thanks buddy.

When everyone embraces the energy grid revolution — and most are fighting it, like you —- the opportunities will be over.

Early, early days.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by pelmet »

rookiepilot wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:28 pm Pelmet, you’re my indicator. Thanks buddy.

When everyone embraces the energy grid revolution — and most are fighting it, like you —- the opportunities will be over.

Early, early days.
The Europeans have embraced the energy grid revolution. People like me said use ethical oil and gas and if you must change the grid, use ethical oil and gas during the transition. We were and still are demonized.

Europeans embraced the energy grid transition the most. Now many people are going to lose their life savings.

As for us, hundreds of billions that went to Russian ammunition some of which could have gone to Canadian health care. A five and a half hour wait for my father when I took him to the hospital last night for a recommended precautionary checkup. He insisted on going home. I am up at 4 in the morning to try an earlier visit with a shorter lineup. Meanwhile, Russia mobilizes with what could have been our money.

Beware of the charlatans.

Updated: Just went to two hospitals this morning to check wait times.....7.5 and 8.5 hours. Imagine if we had the money pouring in for natural gas right now to supply Europe. We could increase pay by 50% for nurses and doctors to slow retirements, attract new people etc.

Meanwhile....Germany just signed an agreement with Qatar for natural gas. Not exactly a freedom loving country but they don't have all those fools voting for parties that block pipelines.

Working on a plan for private healthcare(actually did discover one) and the American healthcare option for the family.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by pelmet »

rookiepilot wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 6:56 am
Complete lack of understanding?

I agree with the above, but it won’t happen without a major restructuring of our current economic framework, which has been built on an assumption of cheap energy and low inflation. Prices will rise.

Complaining about actors in their private jets is something i won’t waste my time with.
Canada has devolved into a childish country incapable of solving big problems

One of the defining features of the postwar period was its almost unprecedented order and stability. That, in turn, created the comforting but childish illusion that the world was simply made this way, that we could insouciantly nibble away at the institutions and behaviours that underpinned this order and suffer no consequences other than to liberate ourselves from irksome constraints.

Universities could be transformed from places where minds are toughened and sharpened through exposure to challenging ideas, into child-care centres where no one must ever be made uncomfortable by being exposed to an idea that one disagrees with.

Family in general, and marriage in particular — which, since time immemorial have been celebrated as the indispensable means of moderating the dangers of sexual competition, civilizing children, caring for the aged and passing on both culture and property across the generations — could be allowed to reach such a degraded state that we celebrate people breaking up their marriages because they feel “unfulfilled.”

In the uncritical pursuit of prosperity, we seek to deepen our ties with China, which then openly and unapologetically uses our openness as a weapon against us, laundering money through our institutions, looting our intellectual property, threatening our access to critical minerals and kidnapping our citizens to press us to abandon the rule of law.

To combat climate change, we simply unilaterally declared that global energy use would be radically reduced, despite the fact that billions of people depend on cheap and abundant energy, which renewables are far from being able to provide. We thus plunged countries like Germany into crisis and gave Russia the whip hand in its invasion of Ukraine and its goal of disrupting the unity of liberal democracies.

The coming world disorder is the revenge of the second law of thermodynamics, which essentially says that the default state of the world is disorder, not order. In other words, order must be endlessly rebuilt by human will out of the raw material of a hostile world that’s tirelessly working to undo our efforts.

If you don’t maintain the institutions and behaviours that create order and stability because those institutions and behaviours are constraining, you don’t simply remove the constraints while maintaining the previous order — you get different and far more painful constraints without the blessings of order.

In the coming world disorder, the key distinction will be between the childish people who think the world must yield to their desires, however vacuous they may be, and those who see the world as it really is and therefore respond in ways that confer success.

In recent years, childishness has been the dominant fashion in Canada. We obsess about marginal issues that make us feel good, while nasty regimes around the world laugh at our moral pretentiousness and undermine the institutions we have so painstakingly created.

Children, as child psychologist Mary O’Kane reminds us, have an innate tendency to engage in magical thinking. They often believe that if they wish hard enough for something to happen, it will. They find it difficult to tell the difference between fantasy and reality and will accept totally improbable explanations for events.

But when Saint Paul calls on us to put away childish things, he is inviting us to see the world as it really is, not as we wish it was. Life is hard. It is an illusion to think it can, or even should, be care-free, easy, effortless and painless, and that unpleasant things can simply be wished away.

We all have to face some harsh, yet simple, truths. Nature is unaffected by our illusions. The laws of physics, the inevitability of biology and the march of time are indifferent to our purposes. Death comes soon or late. Events happen that are beyond our control. When we engage in magical thinking and believe what we want to be true, rather than what actually is true, we become not just child-like, but childish.

Take one practical example of the magical thinking that has Canada in its grip: the relationship between climate change and the global food supply. Today, we produce more food than is needed to feed the world’s population. Although many experts predict that humanity’s capacity to feed ourselves will continue to outstrip population growth, this will take effort and cannot be taken for granted.

The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that, in spite of the potential negative consequences of climate change, we can expect crop yields to rise 10 to 30 per cent above 2012 levels by 2050, thanks to technological progress. Crucially, rates of future yield growth depend far more on whether poor nations get access to tractors, irrigation and fertilizer.

But to combat climate change, our federal government intends to reduce the production of fertilizer and obstruct economic growth powered by Canadian energy resources. These things will guarantee less prosperity, ensuring, among other things, that there will be fewer of the tractors and less of the irrigation and fertilizer that poor nations need to feed our growing global population.

These policies are based on a crude and childish conception of how to combat climate change. Humanity’s experience has consistently been that the best way to solve major problems is to maximize growth and use part of the wealth that’s created to invest in discovering the new technologies that could help solve the problem, in this case climate change.

This approach has never yet let us down, and in fact is precisely the reason why, despite staggering population growth, we continue to be able to feed ourselves. A North American farmer who in 1940 could feed his own family and 18 other people can now feed his family and about 160 others thanks to a thousand incremental improvements in technology.

This approach won’t satisfy those who want instant results. Yet as any gardener knows, no matter how badly you want the flowers, you cannot make them grow faster by pulling on them.

If the government’s childish approach to climate change had been applied to feeding the world’s burgeoning population, the almost certain result would have been draconian authoritarian birth controls. That might have reduced food demand, but it would have done so at the price of a lower standard of living, less technological innovation and fewer of those fertile human minds who are humanity’s greatest asset. The fact that we can feed billions of people is not a gift of nature, but a triumph of human ingenuity.

There is no reason to think that ingenuity, given enough resources and the right incentives, will be defeated by climate change, any more than it was defeated by population growth. Childishly obstructing wealth creation and fertilizer production, though, will make it both harder to control climate change and to feed the world.

It’s time for Canada to grow up, because, while we may not be interested in disorder, disorder is interested in us.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by rookiepilot »

pelmet wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:17 am
rookiepilot wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:28 pm Pelmet, you’re my indicator. Thanks buddy.

When everyone embraces the energy grid revolution — and most are fighting it, like you —- the opportunities will be over.

Early, early days.
The Europeans have embraced the energy grid revolution. People like me said use ethical oil and gas and if you must change the grid, use ethical oil and gas during the transition. We were and still are demonized.

Europeans embraced the energy grid transition the most. Now many people are going to lose their life savings.

As for us, hundreds of billions that went to Russian ammunition some of which could have gone to Canadian health care. A five and a half hour wait for my father when I took him to the hospital last night for a recommended precautionary checkup. He insisted on going home. I am up at 4 in the morning to try an earlier visit with a shorter lineup. Meanwhile, Russia mobilizes with what could have been our money.

Beware of the charlatans.

Updated: Just went to two hospitals this morning to check wait times.....7.5 and 8.5 hours. Imagine if we had the money pouring in for natural gas right now to supply Europe. We could increase pay by 50% for nurses and doctors to slow retirements, attract new people etc.

Meanwhile....Germany just signed an agreement with Qatar for natural gas. Not exactly a freedom loving country but they don't have all those fools voting for parties that block pipelines.

Working on a plan for private healthcare(actually did discover one) and the American healthcare option for the family.
I am trying to make the connection. No success as yet.

You’re writing an editorial. I am not interested.

I’m recognizing and embracing the future.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by pelmet »

rookiepilot wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 5:28 am
pelmet wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:17 am
rookiepilot wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:28 pm Pelmet, you’re my indicator. Thanks buddy.

When everyone embraces the energy grid revolution — and most are fighting it, like you —- the opportunities will be over.

Early, early days.
The Europeans have embraced the energy grid revolution. People like me said use ethical oil and gas and if you must change the grid, use ethical oil and gas during the transition. We were and still are demonized.

Europeans embraced the energy grid transition the most. Now many people are going to lose their life savings.

As for us, hundreds of billions that went to Russian ammunition some of which could have gone to Canadian health care. A five and a half hour wait for my father when I took him to the hospital last night for a recommended precautionary checkup. He insisted on going home. I am up at 4 in the morning to try an earlier visit with a shorter lineup. Meanwhile, Russia mobilizes with what could have been our money.

Beware of the charlatans.

Updated: Just went to two hospitals this morning to check wait times.....7.5 and 8.5 hours. Imagine if we had the money pouring in for natural gas right now to supply Europe. We could increase pay by 50% for nurses and doctors to slow retirements, attract new people etc.

Meanwhile....Germany just signed an agreement with Qatar for natural gas. Not exactly a freedom loving country but they don't have all those fools voting for parties that block pipelines.

Working on a plan for private healthcare(actually did discover one) and the American healthcare option for the family.
I am trying to make the connection. No success as yet.

You’re writing an editorial. I am not interested.

I’m recognizing and embracing the future.
It amazes me how people can't see the obvious connections to such destructive policies. Even the EU is changing their tune......now that they have a crisis. They tried 'embracing the future' in a similar way. Now, so many will lose their life savings. They were not interested in what I have to say either. Now.....more realize that I know what I am talking about. Too bad they didn't listen to people like me 15 years ago.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryc ... 9d01ab7663

The EU Finally Admits Natural Gas And Nuclear Are Key To Decarbonization

Finally, the European Union has admitted the obvious: if decarbonization is the goal, natural gas and nuclear must be a big part of the continent’s energy mix. On Saturday, the European Commission released a statement which said “there is a role for natural gas and nuclear as a means to facilitate the transition towards a predominantly renewable-based future.” The move means that gas and nuclear could be classified as “sustainable investments” under certain conditions.

This is good news and a tacit acknowledgment by European policymakers of the energy disaster that is now shaking the region. But it’s also far too late in coming. Indeed, my immediate response was to ask: what the heck took them so long? If decarbonization is the goal, then natural gas and nuclear are the obvious ways forward. I have been making that point for more than a decade. More on that in a moment.

To be sure, the EU’s move didn’t please the catastrophists. Robert Habeck, a co-leader of Germany’s Green party called the move “greenwashing.” Leonore Gewessler, the climate action minister in Austria, said gas and nuclear couldn’t be included because they are “harmful to the climate and the environment and destroy the future of our children.”

It’s also worth seeing how big media outlets are covering the story. The New York Times summarized the move by saying gas and nuclear would be considered “transitional” sources to be “used to bridge countries’ moves away from coal and carbon-emitting power toward clean energy technologies like wind and solar.” It continued, saying nuclear would be considered sustainable if the countries can agree on how to handle nuclear waste and that gas-fired power plants would be deemed okay if they “meet certain emissions criteria and replace more polluting fossil fuel plants.”

Before going further, let me state the obvious: Europe cannot — will not — move to “a predominantly renewable-based future.” The never-ending claims that Europe, or any other region with a large economy, can run solely on “clean energy technologies like wind and solar,” are not based on history, math, or physics. Indeed, Europe is already in the throes of an energy crisis due to its headlong rush to adopt renewables at the expense of traditional thermal power plants. Numerous news outlets have documented the causes of Europe’s predicament. Two days ago, Bloomberg ran a story with the headline: “Europe Sleepwalked Into an Energy Crisis that Could Last Years,” which said that Europe is “in the midst of an energy transition, shutting down coal-fired electricity plants and increasing its reliance on renewables. Wind and solar are cleaner but sometimes fickle...”

Fickle isn’t the right word. The right word is unreliable. On December 22, Reuters reported that “In Germany, Europe's largest economy with the continent's highest wind power capacity, combined output from both on and offshore wind farms fell around 16% this year-to-date.” Reuters also reported that “Europe’s largest wind producers ‘Britain, Germany and Denmark harnessed just 14% of installed capacity, in the third quarter, when gas prices hit record highs, compared with an average of 20-26% seen in previous years.”

Furthermore, the idea that Europe is going to add lots more renewable capacity ignores the backlash against Big Wind and Big Solar, a backlash that may be even more virulent in Europe than the ongoing rural backlash here in the States. Need proof of that? Back in 2010, the European Platform Against Windfarms had about 400 members in 20 countries. Today, it has 1,615 member organizations in 31 countries. In Germany, where climate catastrophists and the government are pushing hard for the vaunted “Energiewende,” rural opposition has led to, according to the news outlet Deutsche Welle, “a dramatic decline in the number of new onshore wind farms.” Nor is the problem limited to the citing of the wind turbines. It also includes resistance to transmission lines. The German government has estimated that it needs to construct about 3,700 miles of transmission lines to accommodate new renewable capacity. But by the end of 2018, less than 100 miles had been built.

In 2020, the International Energy Agency reported that land-use conflicts in Germany over high-voltage transmission have become a key constraint on the growth of renewables. “Connections to carry wind power from the north to the south are insufficient,” the agency reported. “Public opposition to north-south high-voltage transmission lines has slowed down construction of new overhead lines considerably and eventually forced costlier underground construction of interconnectors. Public opposition remains an impediment to the siting of necessary infrastructure.”

Now back to natural gas and nuclear. I am not bragging here, but I must note that I have been touting N2N — natural gas to nuclear — as the best “no regrets” policy for more than a decade. Natural gas and nuclear are not “bridge fuels” or “transition” fuels, they are the fuels of the future. Why? They are low- or no-carbon, have small footprints, are affordable, and scalable. In my third book, Gusher of Lies, published in 2008, I wrote that nuclear could provide “large increments of low- or no-carbon electricity to the world’s energy mix over the next couple of decades. Nuclear is the only sector that has enough momentum and enough capital behind it to make a significant dent in the overall use of fossil fuels.” I also explained that the world has a “surfeit of natural gas and more gas is being discovered all the time.” I continued, saying environmental groups “should applaud the increased use of natural gas as it is part of the ongoing ‘decarbonization’ of the world’s energy mix,” and that natural gas should be the dominant fuel of the 21 century. And that dominance should be welcomed.”

In 2010, in my fourth book, Power Hungry, I have a chapter called “Why N2N? And Why Now? (The Megatrends Favoring Natural Gas and Nuclear). In 2011, I published a 14-page report titled “Ten Reasons Why Natural Gas Will Fuel The Future.” In 2014, I published my fifth book, Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper, which has a chapter titled “Climate Change Requires N2N.” I wrote, “Regardless of what you think about carbon dioxide or the climate-change debate, it’s apparent that the best way forward is to embrace N2N.”

In my latest book, A Question of Power, published in 2020, I have a chapter called “The Nuclear Necessity,” in which I repeat one of my favorite lines: “If you are anti-carbon dioxide and anti-nuclear, you are pro-blackout. There is simply no way to slash global carbon dioxide emissions without big increases in our use of nuclear energy.” I concluded that N2N “provides the best no-regrets policy on climate change because those two sources will have minimal negative impacts on the economy and environment while providing significant decarbonization.”
---------- ADS -----------
 
goldeneagle
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1177
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by goldeneagle »

pelmet wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:17 am A five and a half hour wait for my father when I took him to the hospital last night for a recommended precautionary checkup.
Why are you waiting in line at the hospital for a precautionary checkup ? If it's not an emergency, just make an appointment with your doc, show up on the appointed time.

Over the last 3 years I've been to the hospital emergency twice, once for something myself, and once taking my wife in. In both cases the triage nurse checked us, and we went directly into the bay because the reason we were there was indeed a real emergency that required immediate treatment. But if you do show up at the emergency entrance with an ailment that isn't actually an emergency, ya, you get to wait in line. One of the problems with some areas these days, so many folks trot off to the emerge for 'little Johnny has a sniffle' or 'I stubbed my toe', the lines can get long at times.

If the triage folks at the emergency entrance at the hospital send you to the back of the line, then maybe you need to realize, you are not experiencing a symptom of the problem, you are indeed creating the problem.

Just to be clear, a 'recommended precautionary checkup' is NOT an emergency that requires immediate hospital treatment. If you can spend hours waiting in line at the hospital, your time would be better spent calling your local doc, make an appointment, and go in at the appointed time, leave the emerg entrance at the hospital for things that are indeed emergencies.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by rookiepilot »

goldeneagle wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:06 am
pelmet wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:17 am A five and a half hour wait for my father when I took him to the hospital last night for a recommended precautionary checkup.
Why are you waiting in line at the hospital for a precautionary checkup ? If it's not an emergency, just make an appointment with your doc, show up on the appointed time.

Over the last 3 years I've been to the hospital emergency twice, once for something myself, and once taking my wife in. In both cases the triage nurse checked us, and we went directly into the bay because the reason we were there was indeed a real emergency that required immediate treatment.
Exactly.

Stay out of the ER. +

They should charge people 100 bucks for non emergency visits.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by pelmet »

goldeneagle wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:06 am
pelmet wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:17 am A five and a half hour wait for my father when I took him to the hospital last night for a recommended precautionary checkup.
Why are you waiting in line at the hospital for a precautionary checkup ? If it's not an emergency, just make an appointment with your doc, show up on the appointed time.

Over the last 3 years I've been to the hospital emergency twice, once for something myself, and once taking my wife in. In both cases the triage nurse checked us, and we went directly into the bay because the reason we were there was indeed a real emergency that required immediate treatment. But if you do show up at the emergency entrance with an ailment that isn't actually an emergency, ya, you get to wait in line. One of the problems with some areas these days, so many folks trot off to the emerge for 'little Johnny has a sniffle' or 'I stubbed my toe', the lines can get long at times.

If the triage folks at the emergency entrance at the hospital send you to the back of the line, then maybe you need to realize, you are not experiencing a symptom of the problem, you are indeed creating the problem.

Just to be clear, a 'recommended precautionary checkup' is NOT an emergency that requires immediate hospital treatment. If you can spend hours waiting in line at the hospital, your time would be better spent calling your local doc, make an appointment, and go in at the appointed time, leave the emerg entrance at the hospital for things that are indeed emergencies.
Buddy, I don't need your stupid advice about the hospital. My father was recommended by another Doctor with a letter to go to emergency as a precaution for potential risk of stroke due to some varying symptoms discovered during a last minute eye appointment that I took him to, due to double vision. They wrote a letter concerned about risk of stroke and the letter was shown to the the hospital staff and he was made to wait and wait and wait.

Eventually, he insisted on going home as feeling better and not willing to wait any longer. He seems to be back to normal today. Talking to someone else in the medical field, it may very well have been a TIA.

If I hadn't gone to the hospital and he had a stroke, you would be lecturing me differently.

As for his doctor, his last day on the job was last week. His next appointment with a new doctor is in October. He has no doctor and the waiting list is huge, so I am paying for a private clinic to bypass the all those voters forcing us into the wonderful, broken down Canadian system that is so fantastic. I think they are the same fools telling us how bad it is to build a pipeline for natural gas.

It seems almost every reply Golden Eagle makes to a post of mine is a stupid statement, this time telling me I am creating a problem at the hospital.

P.S. Todays waiting time for patients categorized as 'Urgent Care' at the two hospitals(the ones I was told are preferred for neuro) I visited early this morning to see if it my father was willing to go again...7-8 hours.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: THE NEXT GIGANTIC ISSUE.

Post by rookiepilot »

pelmet wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 11:47 am
goldeneagle wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:06 am
pelmet wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:17 am A five and a half hour wait for my father when I took him to the hospital last night for a recommended precautionary checkup.
Why are you waiting in line at the hospital for a precautionary checkup ? If it's not an emergency, just make an appointment with your doc, show up on the appointed time.

Over the last 3 years I've been to the hospital emergency twice, once for something myself, and once taking my wife in. In both cases the triage nurse checked us, and we went directly into the bay because the reason we were there was indeed a real emergency that required immediate treatment. But if you do show up at the emergency entrance with an ailment that isn't actually an emergency, ya, you get to wait in line. One of the problems with some areas these days, so many folks trot off to the emerge for 'little Johnny has a sniffle' or 'I stubbed my toe', the lines can get long at times.

If the triage folks at the emergency entrance at the hospital send you to the back of the line, then maybe you need to realize, you are not experiencing a symptom of the problem, you are indeed creating the problem.

Just to be clear, a 'recommended precautionary checkup' is NOT an emergency that requires immediate hospital treatment. If you can spend hours waiting in line at the hospital, your time would be better spent calling your local doc, make an appointment, and go in at the appointed time, leave the emerg entrance at the hospital for things that are indeed emergencies.
Buddy, I don't need your stupid advice about the hospital. My father was recommended by another Doctor with a letter to go to emergency as a precaution for potential risk of stroke due to some varying symptoms discovered during a last minute eye appointment that I took him to, due to double vision. They wrote a letter concerned about risk of stroke and the letter was shown to the the hospital staff and he was made to wait and wait and wait.

Eventually, he insisted on going home as feeling better and not willing to wait any longer. He seems to be back to normal today. Talking to someone else in the medical field, it may very well have been a TIA.

If I hadn't gone to the hospital and he had a stroke, you would be lecturing me differently.

As for his doctor, his last day on the job was last week. His next appointment with a new doctor is in October. He has no doctor and the waiting list is huge, so I am paying for a private clinic to bypass the all those voters forcing us into the wonderful, broken down Canadian system that is so fantastic. I think they are the same fools telling us how bad it is to build a pipeline for natural gas.

It seems almost every reply Golden Eagle makes to a post of mine is a stupid statement, this time telling me I am creating a problem at the hospital.

P.S. Todays waiting time for patients categorized as 'Urgent Care' at the two hospitals(the ones I was told are preferred for neuro) I visited early this morning to see if it my father was willing to go again...7-8 hours.
I'm guessing you're the same type who would complain if your property taxes went up, let alone a pipeline or wind turbine went into your backyard, to pay for non urgent ER service in 5 minutes for everyone.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”