JerrySeinfeld

One gem I LOVED was the "skeptic quiz" when you had a multiple choice. They showed a picture of Richard Lindzen of MIT and said "what is this person best know as? (a) the spouse of a comedian ( MIT Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology blah blah blah THE CORRECT ANSWER IS ( - BUT RICHARD LINDZEN was also discredited by....THIS PERSON...who is best know for be THE SPOUSE OF A COMDEIAN" hahahah I laughed out loud because earlier in the show it showed this chick confidently attempting to discredit REAL SCIENTISTS like Lindzen of MIT.

I have as much time for Glenn Beck as I do for Oprah or Ellen. I don't leave the television on the Anna Nicole Smith Headline News channel for more than 10 seconds at a time. You've obviously never seen the Glann Beck show because it is absolute the polar opposite of the other shows you mentinoed. Let's now make this a debate about Glenn Beck, anyway. This is a thread about a documentary giving you the OTHER side of global warming. Don't argue against the man, argue against the ARGUMENT.

I've seen this advertised for a couple of days now in several places. Rutherford mentioned it this morning on his show. The more the UN and Gore are exposed for the frauds they are the better. While I agree with you - I don't think that's the best way to get the indoctrinated to watch. If they see this as political, they'll stick their heads in the sand and raise a fist in the air fo good ol' Al and the poor ol' planet. But if you frame it as "the other side of the story" - the right to question authority, then maybe some of the converted will still tune in. After all - don't lefties love to "fight the power"?

Or as Mark Steyn once said (paraphrased); "First it was global cooling....then it was global warming....now it's "climate change" so the ecoloonie crowd doesn't have to change the bumper stickers every 30 years" ... Sorry, this is not just insulting, it is not true. Yes it is. Did you know the world's first Earth Day was convened to bring attention to the impending global cooling crisis?

Or as Mark Steyn once said (paraphrased); "First it was global cooling....then it was global warming....now it's "climate change" so the ecoloonie crowd doesn't have to change the bumper stickers every 30 years" A side point: I started a thread back in winter about how fricken cold it was in Vancouver this winter and related it to "climate change". Predictably, the ecoloonie nuts jumped all over it - citing the VAST difference between 'weather' and 'climate'. But look at Big Al Gore! He's trotting about the country pointing to weather and blaming climate!!! In fact, on the front of his movie cover there is a big photo of hurrican katrina, a random storm that tragically killed alot of people. But it was the STORM that killed them. It was the fact that New Orlean's is in a BELOW SEA LEVEL BOWL SURROUNDED BY A COMPLEX AND UNRELIABLE SYSTEM OF LEVEES AND DYKES. The images were impressive, but again, to quote the alamists: this is WEATHER, not CLIMATE. Recently I heard on the radio that Al was in Saskatchewan blaming recent flooding on CLIMATE CHANGE. SO question: Isn't it CONVENIENT (pardon the expresssion) that weather can be used to argue climate change is our fault, but it can be used to oppose that theory? This just reeks of NONSCIENCE.

I would think so. I suspect this is some roundabout way to get Quebecers wanting to have a Team Quebec separate from a Team Canada. I hope some french players speak up and say they're voting Conservative next time. Question: Where the f*ck has this guy been for the past 30 years? Hasn't this MP watched even one iota of CBC's "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" or umpteem other CBC comedies? It's practically a national institution, including referenda, electioneering, comedy routines, hockey games, etc. for the ROC and the French to call eachother names.

GWB deniers remind me of that comcast phone commercial --- a guy stands there in his boxers and his tiger stripe tattoos -- "I told you before, tattoos are permanent" "but that was before on my old service" "sorry, Roger, you tiger now" "sorry? ... but I have Comcast Digital Voice" Here are umpteen examples of GROWING GLACIERS. Let me guess: this, too, is evidence of global warming?

But that is a decades-old argument and simply not even close to being the case anymore. What's clearly happening now is that there is a new cartel, and it includes and loves everybody except white males. Now I'm not going to sit here and argue that white males aren't doing alright for themselves economically. But certainly in the arena of public discourse, we are a neutred bunch without the same freedom of expressino as EVERYONE ELSE for fear of being called bigots, racists and every other generalist name in the book, when in reality, many times the racists are the others. This thread points that out and it's worth talking about.

This is a Glenn Beck Special documentary for those of you interested in keeping an open mind. It airs on CNN Headline News at 7pm and 9pm Eastern. We all know that the media virtually EVERYWHERE ELSE will tell you Al Gore's story, so what's the harm in hearing the other side? Watch it! Then we can all debate it. Cheers

What's the alternative? Allow an ideas free-for-all without any limit? I imagine if NASA were interviewing for a research director position they would turn down any candidate who claimed the big bang didn't happen, and that would be totally justified. Paradigm shifts are difficult to achieve in science, but in time if such a shift is justified it will happen regardless. Galileo is a prime example of this. Debate and testing of hypothesis is at the very heart of science. When "science" shuts out debate and attacks those who disagree - that ceases to become science and instead becomes DOGMA and POLITICS. I saw the director of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" being interviewed on TV and he said his life has become a "living hell" since he aired the show. All at the hands of climate change fanatics - including death threats. Now if that's the reaction a TV DIRECTOR gets for a dissenting viewpoint, imagine how much PRESSURE is on world scientists to concur with the "consensus" view. This kind of intimidation cannot with a clear conciencse even PRETEND to be objective scientific debate. It's really kind of funny - because the cluimate change nutjobs are demonstrating their own lack of credibility in their science through their own abusive and intimidating behavior!

You make a good point - I often hear visible minorities (and women for that matter) openly disdaining white males with impunity - sometimes it's almost trendy and certainly accepted. Then the very same people have a cow if you trun it around and make generalizations about other groups. Talk about hypocrisy. If you're against racism, it should be just as unacceptable to hear comments like "oh the place was lame - just a bunch of white people there" - which I have heard at least a few times and more than shoould ever ben accepted by a "tolerant society". Your post will undoubtedly be knee-jerked as racist by the lemmings ni the PC crowd, bvut you raise a very interesting and valid concern about the fact that racism and sexism is accepted in our society - as long as it's not against minorities or women.

Ahhh, the old anti-Americanism. *Nobody* has dealt with the advantages I outlined. Why should the governing party be able to dictate the date of an election? Why should a majority give a party an automatic leg up in the next election? "too american" is a cop out translated into "i watch joe canadian beer commercials because it makes me feel like i have an identity and my opposition to fixed election dates is another weak effort at defining my nationality" this is great legislation and might help put an end to decades of liberal rule briefly interrupted by short conservative stints. in the interest of fairness - i say great job.

the general point of the article is an interesting one: the tone of our country has changed from "immigrants come here and integrate" to one of: "immigrants come here and Canada integrates" I personally don't like that but some people think it's something to celebrate. My opinion is that there are a lot of assbackward traditions and beliefs form many cultures that come here - many of which aren't pleasant and often contradict the other "progressive" values held by the many supporters of "cultural diversity at all costs". I'd prefer to see a society where it's expceted that immigrants follow the basic values of the society we've built here - not viseversa. The states is more that way - and I prefer it.

The environmental crowd has a tough time with credibility. I mean, from the "overpopulation scare" (Late 60's) to "global cooling" (1973) to the "ozone layer" (80's and 90's - hey how 'bout that shrinking hole ozone layer eh?) and now "climate change", the end of the world is never quite close enough for this crisis crowd. I'm surprised they haven't found a way to blame the tsunami on humans. - hey: maybe there's an idea for Al Gore's follow up feature!!!

I'm not sure Galileo would agree. This whole climate change thing is eerily like the flat earth people - refusing to accept that the consensus could in fact be WRONG - and completely shutting down scientific debate from credible scientists in the process. I mean, really: if the flat-earth consensus tried to discredit Galileo for being funded by shipmakers, would that make the earth any less round? BTW Ferrari's aren't the point. But scarce research dollars go to the crisis crowd -no doubt about it.

"People whose missino it is to save the world always want the world to seem much worse off than it is so that their mission will seem more important" - PJ OROURKE That about sums up the massive amounts of research money sloshing around the IPCC scientists' pockets.

That's kind of the point, dude. They skulk around and bully, kill, bomb and maim while the "advanced" west (read: liberal) argue willy nilly about the best method of appeasement and "tolerance". Thank god for the USA that's all I can say.

Hey - if you worked or got funding to contribute to the IPCC, wouldn't YOU provide evidence to support it's existence?

Semantics.... fine, you're a "bigot" if you think most Muslims support extremism. Actually, if that turns out to be true, then it's not bigotry, it's simply fact. Neither you nor anyone on this forum has the authority to say which is fact. I do know there is a knee-jerk ethno-sensitivity out there that jumps right past facts and directly into the "defend the downtrodden immigrant" routine. And many people from this ilk refuse to even accept the possibility that there are large groups of people who think MUCH differently than others do. One thing I do know is that I've seen little muslim girls on camera referring to jewish people as "filthy pigs and apes who must be killed". That isn't a symbol that bodes well for the image of a religious group that doesn't support extremism - but I'll withhold judgement for now. One thing is certain - there is a BIG difference between "supporting" extremism and "acquiescing" to extremism. Example? Not all Germans "supported" the Nazi death camps, but a lot of good that did the jews.

My comment: The real racism seems to stem from Rev. Al Sharpton whose double standard on "ho-talk" seems to judge people's remarks based upon the racial origins of the people uttering them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...770&ito=newsnow This doesn't surpise me one bit. It's only the beginning.

Yes - for all those who say the mid-east is not a barbaric, savage world, pick up a copy of Living In Hell. But, of course, "not all Muslims are extremists"..... Still - a strong argument can be made that moderate muslims (ie. the ones who DON'T believe that anally raping women with baseball bats is ok) might want to think about standing up to the more extreme manifestations of their religion, instead of acquiescing to them.

GREAT question.

It's tough to deter people who want and believe armageddon will bring the 12th Imam.

They spend the money to incrase awareness amongst shareholders, retail and institutional. The same reason why Archer Danial adverstise in the US That's BS. Way back in biz school i was forced to read an Harvard Biz report on how 'image" advertising is a complete waste of money - no measurable benefit. Plus - this ISN't a quebec-bashing thread, August. Nowhere in my opening post did I mention quebec. You're right. It's a government subsidy-bashing thread. And ALSO Canadian pride bashing thread because I wouldn't be surprised to actually SEE Canadians doing such absurd egoistic things abroad. Trust me -I've seen close fascimiles.