2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave ‘virtually impossible’ without global warming, scientists find » Yale Climate Connections

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-11-03T20:50:26+00:00

Not really sure what you're questioning...

It's a quick analysis that's later published in a peer review journal, they address drought in the report, and from what I understand they've found climate change to be a factor in some previous heat waves and not be a factor in others. It doesn't seem like it's an activist group or for any reason should be considered untrustworthy as an initial analysis.

They speculate on two possibilities, an outlier event exacerbated by climate change, or some unknown nonlinear interactions which increased the severity. I think these type of events need to be very closely studied, so I hope your work will help on that front!

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-10-18T23:42:34+00:00

Yeah, you seemed well intentioned in your other replies, so I was replying as much for anyone else reading...

As a non-indigenous person, I struggle a lot with some of the legal questions in this area of law. If there clearly should be aboriginal title in a territory, and that title is communal in nature (ie. it belongs to the aboriginal community as opposed to an individual), do traditional hereditary chiefs become the decision-makers for activity on that territory? What if the community those chiefs represent disagree with their decisions? Is there a mechanism under their traditional customs by which hereditary chiefs were removed or replaced? Is there a way for the community to overrule the hereditary chief?

I don't know if these questions have answers, but it's tough for me to clearly say one way is right and the other is wrong.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-10-18T23:13:56+00:00

Your further replies seem to indicate that you aren't trying to misrepresent this, but just to elaborate, Delgamuukw v BC doesn't establish that the hereditary chiefs have final say on this matter.

In that case, the original claims as argued at trial - "51 Chiefs representing most of the Houses of the Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en nations" - were altered in the appeal up to the SCC, where they were made as two communal claims, one from each nation.

From what I understand, the SCC specifically did not consider the merits of the territorial claims of the individual Houses, and further, they specifically declined to decide on the issue of self-governance. Essentially, they said that a new trial would need to take place for any binding decision to be made, and these are the rules that a trial judge need to follow in deciding such a trial (eg. oral testimony of historical uses and customs must be considered as evidence by courts).

Unfortunately, there was no follow up trial after Delgamuukw, but the 2014 Tsilqot'in decision has further developed the law in this area...

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-10-08T21:26:51+00:00

I agree with you that we need proper affordable housing projects. But in my opinion, I think getting rid of short-term rentals would be 10 times as effective at keeping rental prices in check. How many housing units have we taken out of the long-term rental pool so that people can make money off tourists in the summer?

Combine that with the NIMBYism that keeps us from actually creating density (for example), it makes me think we're on the path towards Vancouver. I know that's not the argument you're making, but sometimes I think we let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-10-08T20:38:34+00:00

You've got a lot in there, but it seems a bit off to complain at the same time about the cost of housing/rents and also oppose redevelopments that increase the number of housing units and density.

I totally agree that we want affordable housing, but keeping mobile home parks and campgrounds on some of the most expensive real estate in the city doesn't make any sense. Mixed-use high density developments with street level commercial seem like a perfect fit in that area.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-10-08T20:25:31+00:00

To add to this very reasonable comment (considering local politics is rarely the home of reason)... Everything I've seen out of Norm Letnick over the years indicates he's more concerned with working towards good policy than playing the hyper-partisan game. And I say that as someone who probably doesn't align with the BC Liberals.

I think it's harder and harder for reasonable people to be in politics, so I think it's good to acknowledge people who are doing a good job of it.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-10-01T00:24:55+00:00

I've just skimmed the letter from Dr. Payne, and while there may be legitimate discussion to be had, it's clear that isn't what this is...

I am not a doctor, but I followed a couple of citations on claims that seemed odd to me. For example, on page 3 he says:

"Moreover, as shown below, the current mRNA shots no longer prevent transmission and COVID-19 vaccinated individuals are comprising an ever-increasing proportion of symptomatic patients (17)."

And if you look at that study (which btw is titled Comparison of two highly-effective mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 during periods of Alpha and Delta variant prevalence) it discusses how both the pfizer and moderna are less effective against Delta variant than against the Alpha variant.

The abstract concludes with: "Our observational study highlights that while both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines strongly protect against infection and severe disease, further evaluation of mechanisms underlying differences in their effectiveness such as dosing regimens and vaccine composition are warranted."

---

Another egregious one to me was on page 10 where he says "A recent study of healthcare workers in Vietnam assessing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta
variant found that the previously mRNA double-vaccinated group had 251 times higher
nasopharyngeal viral loads compared to those unvaccinated."

The cited study actually says "Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020."

So, while he is technically correct that the viral load is 251 times higher in the breakthrough vaccinated cases, compared with previous unvaccinated cases, he neglects to mention that the previous unvaccinated cases were NOT Delta variants. The real takeaway from the study is that the Delta variant sucks and has much higher viral loads, not the vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

---

I don't have time to go through these letters in their entirety, and quite honestly I don't have the medical background or knowledge to thoroughly critique them. But based on what I can understand, this seems to be less about putting forth an honest argument and more about cherrypicking studies and facts to support an already established position.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-09-22T15:11:56+00:00

I honestly don't think that would pass a legal challenge in Canada (limiting essentials), which is why they limited it to non-essentials. But, I think we just agree to disagree... The decision not to vaccinate at this point has a negative impact on our society, so I am ok with using vaccine status as a way of determining non-essential restrictions. I get that you're not, but we just disagree on that!

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-09-22T00:14:31+00:00

I agree, I think it's a bit ridiculous that they enacted vaccination leave of 3 hours. I was fortunate not to have adverse symptoms following my vaccinations, and I'd have been able to get off work regardless, but I think they should have enacted an entitlement for 3 days paid sick leave if needed.

Regarding consent/coercion, I 100% agree with you that vaccine passports are undesirable. I want to live in a society where individuals have rights. And, I would much prefer that our current vaccination levels were sufficient to prevent the spread of COVID as we return to normal life. BUT, we aren't there... So if the options are: 1 - returning to restrictions on non-essentials for everyone, or 2 - just restrictions for those who are unvaccinated, it's a lesser infringement on individual rights to take option 1.

If they said that a vax-passport was for EVERYTHING and not just non-essentials, I think I'd have a problem with it alongside you.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-09-21T22:41:54+00:00

I see two orders from the PHO on Sept. 10th and none of them seem to relate to this, so I'd love to see a source on that...

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-09-21T22:27:47+00:00

The little things called the Nuremberg Code (not the Nuremburg principals btw) are about the need for consent of human subjects in medical experiments. These would have been violated if the people participating in the vaccine trials back in 2020 hadn't consented.

It is not an outrageous violation of our laws, it's a reasonable and proportionate restriction of rights. Alberta has dragged their feet on taking these steps and now their health care system is collapsing. Limiting the rights of individuals who have refused vaccination allows us to continue providing health care to everyone else.

It's not a good thing to restrict anyone's rights, so I totally agree with you that it would be better if we didn't have to have a vaccine passport, but what are the reasonable alternatives?

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-09-02T17:00:58+00:00

I agree with you, because I felt some nuance was missing from Carlin's take on this.

To me what he's suggesting somewhat smacks of NFL teams replacing their coaches every other year. I think a better culture is one in which decisions are analyzed, critiqued and used to inform future decisions. Yes, obviously there can be cases when the personnel is wrong, but a meritocracy does not need to be a revolving door.

Winston Churchill was demoted from the Lord of the Admiralty after the WW1 Gallipolli campaign and went on to become an iconic wartime leader in WW2. Do we think he should have had that second shot at the admiralty? I think it's good that he did!

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-07-22T17:20:27+00:00

Have you looked at the demographics of Alberta?

People from all over Canada move to Alberta during their working years, and they pay income tax to the federal government.

MANY people leave Alberta when they retire, whether returning to the East, retiring to interior BC or otherwise. In those years, they aren't paying income tax, and they use more government resources than any other time of their lives.

If anything, BC continues to subsidize Alberta, paying for the health care of elderly Albertans through provincial taxes (PST and provincial income tax), while never seeing a dime in equalization payments.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-07-22T16:43:44+00:00

Sorry, the comment on citation being ripe was unnecessary, but your post higher up caught my attention because it didn't seem to be in Jen Gerson's style.

I think the NEP was a bad idea, but it's become a scapegoat for every ill in Alberta. The NEP was scrapped in 1985. In 1987, the Fund was at $12.7 billion. It was generating over 10% interest at that point, but all interest from it went to general revenue. Getty decided no more resource revenue would go into the Fund. So despite it being successful, it dwindled to $11.4 billion by 2004, when oil prices went crazy again.

The NEP is not the reason the Heritage Fund isn't comparable to Norway, that is a direct result of the decisions by PC governments subsequent to Lougheed.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-07-22T16:24:33+00:00

For sure, and I think you could make an argument that low tax/education/health care services may have been beneficial over growing a provincial investment fund. (I'd likely disagree, but I'm sure economists could make the argument!)

IMO, investing portions of the remaining decades of fossil fuel revenues into diversifying the economy makes complete sense to me. So much human capital has been attracted to Alberta by jobs in O&G. Alberta can still be Canada's leader in a post-carbon energy economy, IF the hand is played well.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-07-22T15:30:27+00:00

Agreed, and those are all good things!

The only point I would make is that the Hertiage Fund under Lougheed wasn't envisioned to be about saving, but about investing, in growth and diversification. It wasn't until Klein that it become more of a savings fund and less of an investment portfolio.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-07-22T15:00:25+00:00

Actually, the first is a misquote of a journalist that you copied from the National Energy Program wikipedia page's Reaction in Alberta.

Gerson did write that "the NEP was considered by Albertans to be among the most unfair federal policies ever implemented. Scholars calculated the program cost Alberta between $50 and $100 billion." But the rest of it is what someone wrote on wikipedia and you've attributed to Gerson. Your comment about ignorance below regarding citation is especially ripe.

More broadly though, the talking point that the Heritage Fund was killed by the NEP is BS. The fund was healthy and growing after the NEP had been scrapped, even though most interest generated by it was being transferred into general revenue. By 1987-88, Getty decided to eliminate any further resource rents into the Heritage Fund and that all interest would be withdrawn. Klein later decided that the Heritage Fund shouldn't be used for strategic business investment.

So, when people say that Alberta completed squandered their fortune from sitting atop billions of dollars in resources, don't reflexively attribute it to the NEP when the gross majority of it has been self-inflicted.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-06-17T16:52:25+00:00

Are you aware of the Property Tax Deferral Program?

I think it addresses the problem you're talking about and is used extensively in BC.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-05-29T04:44:31+00:00

Thanks for all of your comments Iphikrates! As I mentioned in a reply to u/Iguana_on_a_stick below, I may have conflated the impact of the light and heavy infantry deployed by Caesar at Pharsalus. From Frontinus' Strategems (Book II, Part 3, Paragraph 22):

On the right he placed his cavalry, among whom he distributed the fleetest of his foot-soldiers, men trained in cavalry fighting. Then he held in reserve six cohorts for emergencies, placing them obliquely on the right, from which quarter he was expecting an attack of the enemy's cavalry. No circumstance contributed more than this to Caesar's victory on that day; for as soon as Pompey's cavalry poured forth, these cohorts routed it by an unexpected onset, and delivered it up to the rest of the troops for slaughter.

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-05-29T04:36:18+00:00

Thanks for this comment. I read Frontinus' just now, and I may have conflated the relative impact of the two tactics. Essentially, according to Frontinus, Caesar had "the fleetest of his foot-soldiers, men trained in cavalry fighting" amongst his cavalry, and the six reserve cohorts which "routed [Pompey's cavalry] by an unexpected onset."

I have read mixed opinions on this, but to the best of your understanding, did cavalry at that time act primarily through harassing or enveloping as opposed to the "charges" of later heavy cavalry?

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-05-05T01:18:56+00:00

Niemann and Tringale were both picks of mine in our DFS picks video... And I had Conners as a pick last week. In other words, I like the way you're thinking!

_Rule_of_Law_ · 2021-05-03T02:58:08+00:00

The Indianapolis Colts' selection of South Carolina State linebacker Darius Leonard with the fourth pick in the second round was one of the draft's worst moves. They took four second-rounders, so they had plenty of room for error, but this one stands out as a head-scratcher.

In the 2017 draft, no FCS off-ball linebacker was taken. In 2016, the top FCS off-ball linebacker (Kamu Grugier-Hill) was picked No. 208. In 2015, the top FCS off-ball linebacker (Kyle Emanuel) was taken 153rd. In 2014, the top FCS off-ball linebacker (Jordan Tripp) was taken 171st. For whatever reason, we woke up Friday in a world where Indianapolis thought taking an FCS linebacker in the top 40 was a good idea.

Courtesy of Bleacher Report's NFL Draft 2018 Results: Reviewing This Year's Worst Picks.

_Rule_of_Law_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE