JerrySeinfeld

I totally agree. I looked at the seawall around stanley park yesterday. There is still a good 4 feet of excess wall, even at the highest tide. By my calculation, that gives us thousands of years to build another foot or two onto the wall.

Alot of the "explanations" of the myths therein aren't very solid. For example under the myth "we can't trust computer models", they basically go on say yes, the models arn't perfect. The detailed explanations says: Moreover the explanation further goes on to compare global climate models to stock market computer models: This statement just shows plain ignorance about the stock market. Anyone with experience in the financial markets knows the big time fallibility of computer based trading models LOL!!! In another "myth debunked" this link attempts to explain the inaccuracy of the original Hockey Stick Graph, again quite poorly and admitting the shortcomings of the model: This is a "myth debunked"? Looks more like a "myth proven" to me. The hockey stick graph, even in it's obsolete state, goes to the heart of climate science and why there are prudent doubters. In it's heydey the hockey stick was a much used symbol of what kind of trouble we were in as a world. The graph was also highlighted in the 2001 IPCC report. Since being discredited, the graph has mysteriously disappeared from subsequent IPCC reports. This illustrates an important point: Climate Science isn't static. For that matter, no science is static. Scientific advancement is, in large paart, perpetrated by disproving what we thought we knew. What we think know today does not represent absolute truth. Anyone truly interested in science, and not in politics, would welcome a healthy debate on the subject. The problem is that the IPCC report - written by scientists and containing a varied number of viewpoints and opinions with respect to the relatinoship between climate and CO2, is a completely different animal than the "IPCC policy summary" - which is most often quoted by alarmists and written by politicians and UN monkeys. Many scientists have expressed concern or even anger at being included as one of the "2500 top climatoligists who have a consenses that climate change is largely manmade".

Commies like Klein are so out of touch they think they're making a big revelation when they pronounce that they have "discovered" that firms in free enterprise countries allocate their capital to timely, profitable businesses. Why is this news? Why is this an issue? Why are we supposed to care? The real shocker would be to have this big war and all kinds of people knocking at their door trying to annihalate them - and no companies had any interest in seing the investment opportunity. THAT would be interesting fodder for discussion.

I know....people only now are having affairs, Gays only recently became known ..... You should have been there at the Pride parade on Sunday Betsy, Yonge Street was awash with fun and frivolity , smiling faces, happy people. Heck , a million people cant be wrong. You have your morals and I have mine. Spare me the theatrics. The mid-east woman who "fears the USA" would hate your "morals".

This woman's comments support what I have said many times on other threads. Particularly many threads have touched on the reason why "they hate us". The reasons I have put forth many times is so obvious, but many left wingers find it unbelievable. They hate us because they think we are scum and they are superior. I'm glad you posted this, because now we are seeing some true words.

Gee. Capital investment in a free enterprise economy is directed toward a timely and profitable industry - what a novel concept This column just embarasingly illustrates how out of touch with basic economics the far left really is.

Just a quick side note: I have not patricipated in this thread in probably a year or so. Why? Because responding to conspiracy theorists only puts them in the conversation in the first place, which only helps provide the illusino that their claims are even close to legitimate. I suggest anyone who realizes the ludicrousy of conspiray theories do the same: ignore. Meantime, I though I would just drop in to say I can't believe this thread has 140 pages worth of replies. Wow. People really are as dumb as I thought.

I think we should definitely at least tolerate the idea

hmm. The actual sea level rise has been minimal. So has the actual temperature rise in the past 100 years.

I'm glad you touched on that because I think it's an important point. Therefore can we ALL agree that whether it's an unusually dry summer or hot one or a hurricane hits a city chaped like a bowl, that we will not cite this WEATHER as evidence of our crisis - one way or the other? Thank you.

Actually, that's an excellent point. Mercifully weare blessed to be living in a warm period. But you raise maybe the best point of all. What if the earth is headed toward a major ice age in 100 years and we don't know it. The argument that we need to cool down the world is predicated on the assumption that all else is equal - which we know to be false. We know that climate changes all the time. We know for a FACT that in the future, regardless of what humans do, the earth will either get warmer or colder. And maybe alot colder. So by trying (in futility) to control the climate, we are essentially rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic - or rearranging chairs on the deck of the Grand Princess - depending upon whether the earth - on it's own - gets warmer or colder. We have no idea which direct the earth's climate will take in 100, 200, 400 years. If the earth is warming anyway, then our contribution (if we have one) wil mean we'll have to build some sea walls and find a vaccine for malaria (according to Al Gore - but we know he's exaggerated or outright lied in his movie). But it the earth is cooling - dramatically, then our contribution (if we have one) may in fact save us all. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I love it.

OK I stole this from Anthony Robbins (amazing guy by the way) but I'm using it for my point. Close your eyes. Now, while your eyes are closed name everything in the room that is blue. Now open them. Chances ar you named smoe things but missed a few too. Now while your eyes are still open, take note of everything that is green. Now close your eyes. Name all the green things. Chances are you did much better. Robbins' point is that we tend to notice what we focus upon. For good or bad. For him it's an excercise in positive thinking I suppose. But think about this whole "climate change" thing for a moment. Now before all the eco-nazis get their tights into a big knot, relax. I'm necessarily in this post siggesting our climate hasn't changed perhaps slightly. Heck, given the fact that climate always changes, I'd be a little worried if it didn't But think about the idea of noticing what we focus upon. Since Suzuki, Gore and their foot soldiers have gotten the media by the tail, it seems like everytime someone gets a little snow in may, we all get this urge to turn off our lights. But come to think of it, I can remember weird weather decades ago. I think we all can. But we just weren't phased by it, because the "earth is coming to an end" crowd hadn't latched onto it as a way to get money and power. I can remember a quote from a famous investor. When asked what the stock market will do he'd say "I know exactly what the market is going to do. It's going to fluctuate" I played golf in a beautiful golf course in Washington State the other day. You cuold tee off from this big ridge down into this amazing valley. Your ball (if you hit it well) would sail out over this huge gorge and drop down into the fairway. Breathtaking. Through all 18 holes you'd work your way up and down into and out of this massive gorge. The gorge was filled with tremedously tall cedar trees and a huge diversity of foliage, the kind you can only see in the pacific northwest. When I remarked of the beauty to a staff member in the pro shop, the guy said "yeah - this place thousands of years ago used to be a lake." I'm so glad that, when it began to dry up, the cavemen didn't ban fire. 'Nuff said.

Good gosh - a theatre critic with no real education. And people wonder why I have such a low opinion of our beloved mass media - and pseudo-journalists. oh - you're one of those who thinks the only smart people are the ones with degrees? that explains alot.

Mark Steyn weighs in on the Knighthood - and history:

If there's nothing wrong with internment then why were we not all interned? The percieved threat was from the Japanese. Those Canadians of Japanese descent were considered untrustworthy - without a shred of evidence to support it. It was bigotry pure and simple. The very same bigotry that refused to compensate them for their losses caused by the internment. They were'nt Canadians they were Japanese no matter what thier citizenship papers said. Therefore they were the enemy and war is hell. This is pertinent because the very same logic is being used against Canadian citizens today. They're Muslims from Lebanon therefore they can't be trusted....despite thier Canadian citizenship. Its nothing but bigotry. Not everything in the world related to people of different races is bigotry. Life isn't that simple. I know you lefties think it is, but it's not.

...no need....just go to pearson and jeer the passengers boarding for Houston and demand they insitute a more brutal and painful death penalty than they have now, and then jeer some more and demand they justify it. hat' s the most retarded thing I've heard all day. Why don't you move to Takistan or one of the "stans" since it's such a normal everyday place to live

Yah Betsy We should prostrate ourselves and PRAY to the great USA god that they don't invade our useless nogoodfornothin country. You have very low self esteem Betsy. You and peter need to cool it. Knee jerk anti-americanism is so "2002 France" - and so cliche Canadian. I think the point of the quoted article was that if someone burns your flag - you must stand for something. As a wise man once said - if you're pissing people off you must be doing something right!

Don't think I made that claim anywhere. Nor is that in the IPCC report. Take it up with Harper. You're talking in circles. You said "if the right did have a scientific argument against global warming..." The "right" as you put it is not making any scientific claim. The onus is on those claiming a scientific theory: ie. man made global cliamet change, to prove that. The point is this: The claim about man-made global warming is being made. Hence the onus of proof is on those making the claim. Since the IPCC lead authors choose to lie and misinform the public during press conferences, that undermines their credibility. And once again you have tried to make this political - a common mispractice my global warming alarmists. It is not a "right" "left" issue. It's a true, false one. And when the people shouting "true" commonly misinform the public and ae caught trying to scare the public with that misinformation, they aren't very credible.

All of this has been debated countless times. If the right did have a scientific argument against global warming, it would have been made by now. Instead, the try to create the science conspiracy. As I said, why argue with me? Go to Harper and show him your findings. I'm not the one claiming the end of the world is nigh (again). The onus of proof is on those making the claim. And when they get caught lying to the media and the public, their theories tend to lose credibility.

Was it in the IPCC report? No. The rest of your argument has been gone over countless times. If you have a problem with it talk to Harper who has said that he now believes the science on global warming. See? So again you're trying to make this political. This is about science and truth. We should believe what's in the reports then? WHat about the hockey stick graph from older IPCC reports?

Cripple?From G & M article above: As to your comment about Canadians contribution to GHG, any one person's voice in a noisy room has a similarly small but discernable effect. The world's best economists can't tell us what the collapse of today's housing bubble in the US will do, but everyone knows what the effect of a carbon tax will do in 2020? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA You're right about the voice, though. If we're all scream in a hockey arena and one person stops - technically the room will be a touch less noisy. So think of the Air Canada Centre after a Leaf's goal. The place erupts in a wash of screams. To complete the metaphor, you're suggesting we tell one child to keep his mouth shut.

The right wing trots out a 2005 story as brand new news. It isn't. The IPCC report didn't include the information that Landsea thought it would. It more or less followed his line of thinking. The deniers use his arguments to discredit all of the global warming reports but while doing so ignore the fact that Landsea himself says that global warming is happening. He even said that Rita and Katrina were more forceful hurricanes because of warmer Gulf water but only to the degree of 1 or 2 m.p.h. And the only ones who don't believe global warming is happening are righties such as yourself. Um - global warming and cooling happen all the time. It's called CLIMATE CHANGE. And as you can see, when it comes to planet earth, change is a constant. This is a thread about a leader of the IPCC. The IPCC is the most often cited "credible" source of the enviro-alarmists. Do not try to turn this around and make it into a thread about "deniers". The only denier here is you. You are denying the obvious. Dr. Trenberth: 1. Requested that research into climate and hurricanes be done by Lansea 2. Then held a press conference titled ""Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" - stating a scientific conclusion before the research had been done This is an example of an IPCC lead author using the media to promote an pre-determined POLITICAL agenda with no science to back up the claim. Whether this deceptive and unscientific attempt to alarm the public happened in 2005, 2004, 2006, 2003 or 2002 or 2001 is completely irrelevant. By trying to dismiss this serious [/b]use of the media to unscientifically deceieve the public because it happend two years ago is tantamount to saying: "That's an old IPCC lie so who cares - show me some NEW lies" The hockey stick graph was another old lie. Al Gore's Kilimanjaro snow melt is an old lie. How many old lies will it take? Shouldn't this whole debate be about truth and what scientifically matters to the planet? Has this thing ceased to become science and instead become such a religion to you that you believe your great eco-leaders and not your lyin' eyes? This is about lies. Lies being told to us by the IPCC. Tell me - why should anyone believe the IPCC claims that the "science is settled" if the lies keep changing?

Why would it be imperitive that the national policy of a nation do the following: 1. Attempt to reverse a trend that is a net benefit for that particular nation. 2. Cripple the nation's economy to reduce world emissions by 0.003%. It's not good politics and it's not good policy for anyone with a brain in this country.

Merits of smoking? Huh? Why are people so quick to defend an action that is clearly unscientific and intended to decieve the public? It's this kind of blind defnse of the IPCC lead authors - even when they act deceptively - that fuels skepticism. The environazis trot out these guys who act deceptively, then get caught, then backpeddle, then wonder out loud why everyone in the world doesn't buy the drivel they're spoonfeeding us all. Hilarious.

Huh? So cripple the engine of the nation's economy to result in no discernable effect on the world's climate? Ya. Makes PERRRFECT sense to me