El Kabong (aka Ol’ GPo)

This supply management system needs to end.

@PeterCStewart @LyleStewart55 Excellent…. Good job Peter, yes you are so much better than your fellow Canadians, even for a Marxist government dependent…. Soon there will be nobody to pay your keep.

@GPoEngineer @LyleStewart55 🤡

Many Canadians if they watch Pierre Poilievre’s interviews with Joe Rogan in Texas and Bloomberg in New York will find out the MSM in Canada, the Liberal marketing team, has been absolutely lying to them about Pierre!

@codek_tv 20

Can you SOLVE this?🤔 | Comment your answers below!

Okay. Let's have some fun. Whenever you bring up the heatwaves and drought of the 1930s, climate panic puppies are quick to dismiss them as “statistical outliers” that were caused by “unsustainable farming practices” in the Great Plains. This is cute, but it's not really true. The decade-long drought of the 1930s covered much of the United States and significant portions of Canada. The extreme heat in July-August 1930, June 1933, May-August 1934, June-August 1936, and September 1939 also covered much of the Continent. But the “Dust Bowl” itself was primarily confined to a relatively small area in northern Texas, the Oklahoma Panhandle, and western Kansas. In other words, farmers plowing up deep-rooted perennial prairie grasses and replacing them with shallow-rooted annual crops outside of places like Liberal, Kansas or Boise City, Oklahoma were not responsible for the heatwaves and continental-scale drought. Sure, those agricultural practices amplified drought conditions and, by extension, the intensity of heatwaves on a very localized basis, and they stirred up the dust storms that swept through the Great Plains, but those farming practices were not the actual cause the persistent drought or heatwaves during the 1930s. The drought was naturally forced by persistent La Niña conditions (similar to what has been occurring in recent years) in the equatorial Pacific Ocean and an unusually warm subtropical North Atlantic (Schubert et al., 2004; Seager et al., 2008). 🔗science.org/doi/10.1126/sc… / open-access: www7.nau.edu/mpcer/direnet/… 🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/… Below average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical Pacific produced negative 500 hPa geopotential height anomalies over the tropics, which led to positive anomalies over the mid-latitudes. This created large-scale subsidence (sinking air) over the Plains, which suppressed rainfall for several years. Concurrently, a warm North Atlantic generated anticyclonic rotation in the mid-to-upper troposphere and low-level cyclonic flow that cut off moisture transport from the Gulf of Mexico (or America if you prefer; I'm not going to get into that argument with anyone) to the central United States, especially during the summer and fall. These two factors alone initiated the drought, as they had during the preceding centuries and also recently. In fact, severe droughts in the Great Plains typically happen about once or twice a century (Woodhouse & Overpeck, 1998), and occasionally have been so severe that they transformed the region into a de-facto desert with blowing sand. 🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/… Notably, multi-decadal droughts during both the 13th and 16th centuries exceeded the 1930s drought by intensity and duration, all naturally forced. A tree-ring analysis in Nebraska found that the 13th century Medieval drought lasted an incredible 38 years (Herweijer et al., 2006). 🔗journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1191/09… / open-access: researchgate.net/profile/Richar… Land degradation only locally enhanced drought and heatwave conditions during the 1930s. It did not cause it, nor did it enhance those similar conditions exhibited elsewhere on the entire continent. In other words, you cannot simply dismiss the 1930s heatwaves and droughts because they are problematic for your narrative. It was almost entirely natural. It verifiably happened. And, it isn't going to be dumped down the memory hole so long as I am still standing, I can rest assure you of that.

Dumbest quote of the day: "“We knew regulatory capture led directly to Fukushima and to Chernobyl,” said Kathryn Huff, who was assistant secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy during the Biden administration." "Regulatory capture" is when a special interest essentially dominates regulators. But: 1. Chernobyl occurred in the Soviet Union when the Communist Party ran everything on the cheap. 2. Fukushima occurred because few thought likely a tsunami as big as the one that had last occurred in the 9th century (869 AD) was going to happen. That is just error, not regulatory capture. Keep in mind that: 1. France is 70% nuclear and no accidents. 2. US Navy ships have been safely using nuclear power for 72 years without accident. propublica.org/article/trump-… @AASchapiro

365 years of temperature data from central England, the world's longest running climate record, show no trend. Despite a six-fold rise in population and a surge in CO2, January temperatures have barely shifted since 1600. Likewise for July, the hottest month of the year, temperatures are virtually unchanged. Even during the coal-fired Industrial Revolution there was no sudden spike. The warmest winters on record occurred in the 1700s, the 1800s, and the early 1900s, long before modern emissions. Any warming appears slow and natural, with the slight modern uptick likely linked to two factors: 1) the urban heat island effect, and 2) Earth's gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. If carbon dioxide truly controlled the climate, the CET record would shoot upward on the right. It does not.

@vonpantsuit @CoryBMorgan That plays right into the hands of Alberta separation.

@CoryBMorgan It's been set-up. Carnage says he's talking to AB to release 'reserves'. AB won't, bc there aren't any. Carnage will tell the rest of Canada that AB is selfish, and causing the high prices. He'll get his majority in April. THEN they will bring in a Bill that seizes AB oil. Watch.

Do you hear those rumblings folks? This happens every time oil prices spike. Suddenly the "dirty oil" that belongs to Alberta & should be kept in the ground becomes "Canada's oil". Get ready for the grab.

If only there was a province that has been trying to do this for years but is continually blocked by the rest of the country.

@PeterCStewart @JJ_McCullough I already live outside of Canada 5 months or so per year, but not because of Trump, mostly to get away from arrogant entitled socialists like Peter.

@JJ_McCullough Poilievre got a nice spike of interest immediately after appearing on Rogan. But like all news, it is already fading. So what are you left with? Poilievre is still Poilievre. So you still have shitty polls.

I don't want to overstate it, but this is literally most dramatic thing that has ever happened in the entire history of Canadian politics.

@PeterCStewart @JJ_McCullough Who will pay for your Marxist agenda Peter ? x.com/wearecanproud/…

An unwitting renewables fan asked Grok to explain why countries with more wind/solar pay more than countries with less. I think she was hoping for a convoluted discussion about gas price. But Grok explained it very well. Because renewables are variable and so need backup and upgrades.

@PeterCStewart @LyleStewart55 See what a pompous ass you are? And easily baited as well….😂😂

@GPoEngineer @LyleStewart55 Maybe leave Canada? "Not written like careful native English—awkward phrasing (“lived lies”), poor structure, repetitive rhetoric. Reads like an emotional, partisan rant rather than credible writing." Source: ChatGPT

@alanfryermedia @vesperdigital

@mathtech789 4

20^x+25^x=1025 2x=?

We've known this for years, yet too many in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada insisted on voting Trudeau. And what has that brought us? Boosting oil production could ramp up Canada’s GDP and jobs, study suggests | Globalnews.ca globalnews.ca/news/11739635/…

Here's a chart of dozens of countries showing how their 'investment' in wind and solar has lowered their electricity prices Just one problem Prices have gone UP. Not down Its an 'investment' where you LOSE money Bad idea

Milton Friedman, 4 ways to spend money: 1. Your money on yourself (you’re careful about both cost and quality) 2. Your money on others (you care about cost, less about quality) 3. Someone else’s money on yourself (you care about quality, not cost) 4. Someone else’s money on others (you care about neither) Hint: #4 is the government

@mathtech789 3-4-5 rt, 7x3=21

Find missing number?

After most of my climate talks, someone will ask, "What about the 97% consensus?" Then I just show them examples of the many failed forecasts from the leadership of that fabricated consensus -- like this one.

Between 2007 and 2012, scientists carried out extensive ice drilling in Greenland, aiming to uncover Earth's climate history from the last 125,000 years. Their findings put today's climate alarmism into perspective. "Back then, Greenland was around 8°C warmer than today. Sea levels were 4-8m higher." "Yet the planet didn't collapse and Greenland didn't melt. There were no tipping points and no mass extinctions." "The planet was far warmer and life flourished." Credit: @Electroversenet