JerrySeinfeld

Please provide your reasons.

I'm surprised you no so little about the situation that you aren't even aware that Congress doesn't have access to the same intel as the president. They have to trust his word for a lot of the intel. They did. He lied. Hence, the situation we're in now that you are scrambling to blame on anyone but the true perpetrators. um - FYI since 9-11 there have been no terrorist attacks on the US and many attempts throughout the world on the US and it's allies have been foiled - not to mention we're battling Al Qaeda on their turf instead of ours. Overall a pretty good success I'd say. Bush has done a pretty good job.

I'm glad you diagnosed yourself. I hope you're better. Annnnyway...back to the issue...

Is that so? According to Richard Lindzen, ALfred P. SLoan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT: "So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation. All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry. Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions. And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen. Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers."

Maybe - or the vast wasteland of northern Canada, greenland, siberia could all become arable land with amazing crop yields solving world hunger problems.

What he fails to say is that those changes show that CO2 is not a driver of global warming. Doctor fruit fly is a messenger of misinformation. Exactly, and fails to mention that increases in earth warming have historically PREDATED CO2 concentrations by as much as 800 years.

Are we dickering about whether Suzuki is: 1. Biased and 2. Trying to stifle honest scientific debate and muzzle dialogue ? I think the answer is OBVIOUS from his language yes on both counts without having to resort to funnellnig through his opaque financings.

Well if you read the posts on whether being gay is an anomoly you would know if he is evil he must be gay. But i am confused. I thought he was married. Anyways I think your trying to turn David Suzuki into a demon is stretching it. The fact that you do not agree with him does not make him evil. Using your subjective name calling we could easily same of you in reverse because you continue to poison the planet and don't give a damn. Why don't we avoid the name calling and stick to the issues and not demonize people. I will say this though, David Suzuki is sort of beginning to look like Colonel Sanders. Some people believe Col. Sanders was Satan. So to conclude. Stop demonizing people because of the potential bias and stick to the arguments? Great.

OK - well for the sake of argument - if I can trace some man-made-climate-change researchers' funding back to an interested party such as an alternative energy company - can we discredit that "science" too? Better yet - I betcha if you tried hard enough you could trace almost all scientific research back to a corporation of some variety. If I could find a man-made-climate-change scientist whose funding is tracable back to BP Amoco, what would that tell you?

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/ There you go geoffrey, perhaps as an accountant you can find what you say they aren't telling. but be very careful.... your mind might be broadened. Who provides funding is overshadowing the real issue: it's funding itself that is a motivator. Lets suspend reality for a moment and concede that some scientistss motivations must be tainted by monetary motovation. If that is possible, it's certainly possible on both sides, no? Think about this. If your website/foundation's implied goal is to save the world from humans, you'll certainly get a lot more attention and MONEY if the end of the world is nigh will you not? So doesn't Suzuki and others of his ilk have an implicit motivation to exaggerate the crisis? It's the same argument used to discredit the deniers, so why wouldn't it apply to Suzuki as well?

Anyone with a brain knows that some little boy raised by two moms is gonna turn out with an overblown sense of entitlement, lack of control over his temper, a penchant for crying and won't know how to change a tire. That said, I'm not sure if anything even close to reality would ever make the ivory tower definition of "social competency". 'Nuff said.

A quote of mine from a prevoius post of mine: Exactly. The dangerous thing about eco-nazis is that they dress up their basist desires with grandiose images of "saving the planet" - the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing. And as I have quote PJ many times: people whose missino it is to save the world want the world to seem much worse off than it actually is so that their mission will seem much more important. Not only that - but speaking of money and power - I dare ANY scientist to try disputing climate change dogma and see how long his funding/career/credibility survives. It's a witch hunt of the worste magnitude - not a very condusive environment for candid scientific discussion. Right now, any scientist who find legitimate reason to be skeptical of the wild and world-ending hysteria being thrown about risks his livelyhood. Again, doesn't sound very scientific to me. I say it again: Suzuki is evil.

Yes, every time I read something from Mr. Push-Poll, it becomes so much more and more obvious that he's less interested in FACTS and alot more interested in ATTENTION. Just another Troller. FACTS? Let me ask you a very simple question. Do you consider it scientific or even remotely reasonable to only tout the DRAWBACKS of a warmer world without even giving MENTION to the benefits? Suzuki would have us believe there are only cons and no pros to climate change. Is this a balanced and honest approach? And if it's not honest, then what is his motivation for being DIShonest? Think about it. No. Seriously. Take off your blinders and THINK for a moment about that question. Objectively.

Just to be clear: do you consider any non-procreative sex act to be abnormal? I don't. hey if ya like it in the bum - more power to ya!

Yes, every time I read something from Mr. Push-Poll, it becomes so much more and more obvious that he's less interested in FACTS and alot more interested in ATTENTION. Just another Troller. Isn't it a bit ironic that you're attempting to assassinate my character because it's wrong to assassinate Suzuki's character? Exactly. It's quite common in the left: attack attack attack. The left is sinister and evil. Sound familiar? How many times have you heard the phrase "extreme right winger" or "hard core neocon" to discredit someone. I just though for amusement, why not play their game for a change and now their getting their tights all in a knot about it. Predictable.

So that makes it OK to target him for character assassination? HAHA - that's rich. Given the relentless character assassination he participates in on a daily basis, I think if anyone is ripe to be picked on for their motives, it's good ol' DS.

How many ways can you dress up "curtail development, tax corporations, redistribute wealth to poorer nations" and pretend it's not copmmunism? Ask David. And he seems to think this climate change hysteria is his golden moment - that his time has finally come to rule the world with rhetoric and scare mongering. Every time I see this guy speak, it becomse so much more and more obvious that he's less interested in FACTS and alot more interested in ATTENTION and INFLUENCE. This is evil - and a scientist in drag is the worst kind.

It doesn't - but the agenda of the overall left wing is driven by hard core lefties with wacky ideas a la Suzuki et. al. These are people that think we should all live in eco-communes and now they're driving policy on the left. This hard core left wing is scary. There is actually another thread on here discussing the "waning of the GOP" but I truly think the left wing parties like the Liberals (in Canada) and the Democrats are the ones in true danger of long term extinction if they align themselves with the thinking stemming from these eco-nutjobs.

translation: "My speculation on the contents of this list have me outraged!" I'm pretty copmfortable that Rosie O 'Donnel is a more influential entertainer than George W. Bush. As for Bush himself, how influential can a deeply unpopular, lame duck president be? You must be right - because his policies and actions certainly haven't been the subject of a huge chunk of debate on THIS forum, not to mention the rest of the galaxy. Let's count the number of topics devoted to Rosie O'Donell and the number of topics devoted to GW Bush's policies, then determine who has more influence in today's world.

That's funny - because it's so obviously "both" haha

I can't bel;ieve this poll got no response...

Is this just Gore v. Bush all over again?

Oh Argus , you really are being silly. Lets read that blurb above...."unable to address any of the substance" and then you reply thusly..."Just none of the ones in this thread, but congratulations anyway. Straw men are always nice to see." Beautiful ! Straw men.nah...just showing all the posters that infact the immigrants are doing much better than they want to believe , as if in their "concern" they would ever help them out.But I digress. Oh sure plenty of people have addressed all the concerns presented. But some .....ahem....dont like the message and therefor attack the poster , not the message. I know, immigrants, Quebec, all bad..... Considering that they will pay your CPP, I wouldnt be too critical. Note to Guyser: If you're counting on CPP your financial plan leaves something to be desired. But this thread seems more to do with the attidues of SOME immigrantss families, not their economic productivity. Stick to the subject.

The show called for a closed mind prior to watching it. Hardly impartial with a name like "The Real Story, Global Warming." Classic Beck rhetoric. Bullshit. He said it would NOT be the same side you've heard EVERYWHERE ELSE. The show poked alot of holes in Al Gore's science fiction movie. And was decidely more humorous in the process.

Watch the documentart on the General Motors electric car called the EV 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 http://ev1-club.power.net/ A great documentary called 'Who killed the Electric Car' shows that there was a huge demand for the car, but GM did not want to build anymore. The simple fact that none of these cars were ever 'SOLD" jst leased to the person can tell a lot about what GM had intended for the car. http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/ If GM had done it right, this car would be the most popular electric vehicle on the road. Isn't the majority of electricity in North America generated thru the burning of fossil fuels?