JerrySeinfeld

I have't visited this site in a bit and noticed no one seems to have picked up on Al Gore's apparent hypocrisy. Average household in Nashville used about 15,000 kilowatt hours of energy. Al Gore's house? It used about 200,000 kilowatt hours - ten times the average. Isn't this just more evidence that the environment is a political tool used as a trojan horse for socialism - a tool which the very top echolons of the movement don't even believe in?

Objecttive report not so much stating the benefits outweigh the costs, but simply that people who ignore the benefits and exaggerate the costs are idiots. Dr. S.J. Tol is not an Oil Industry Lacky (from the National Post):

um - have you even been paying attention to the ongoing Iran-nuke situation?

It's difficult to debate something whose premise is entirely, unequivocally and universally accepted as incorrect. I don't know why the David Suzki foundation, in this comment refuses to accept in it's factual, yet completely distorted representation of reality, seems to think ANY action Canada takes on emission will have ANY meaningful impact on climate change. It's just further evidence that the debate is being SPUN for political benefit.

Your question is misphrased. You mean, what should we be willing to do to prevent this guy from getting his hands on a nuke? I mean, no-one is really 'letting' it happen since Iran is doing it on its own. True - but the UN and it's club of thugs and thug apologists is a complete joke.

Isn't it 4:30 in your parts? Shunt you be in the corner of the last "smoking allowed" coffee shop snivelling with the rest of the lefties?

Yes - I'm sure you're correct. When the leader of a country openly develops nuclear weapons, flouts the UN and openly desires armageddon, the prudent thing to do is...um...NOTHING DOGGY you're contradicting yourself. I thought you were of the camp that says it's alreadya done deal: More airstrikes Given the amount of time and effort you put into this thing, neither can I Yet you still can't seem to muster a good point.

Did you even read your own post? Then you ask me about HOW LONG boreal would take to grow? You postulate about long term problems but complain about LONG TERM benefits. That jeopardy tune must be play and playing and playing in your contradictory little head. It is a FACT that the earth, when [photographed from space, is in fact GREENER now as a result of increased carbon in the atmosphere. And on top of all of this, you have (in typical lefty fashion) steered this debate to one about the possible problems of global warming, and completely ignored the benefits. This isn't very scientific behavior at al my friend....(music still playing).

You can believe in Santa Claus if you want to! But it doesn't change the principles of chemistry. By the way, HOW LONG do you think that Boreal Forests take to grow to significant levels? ( I still got the Jeopardy music going) Oh, so you're a short term thinker? I thought enviro-kooks were supposed to think LONG TERM

Well, I wasn't convinced the first 5,000 times I heard about Alhalamjwearsarmyboots' outburst about Israel, but this article from two years ago totally changed my mind about Iran being a bigger nuclear threat than the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the PRC, North Korea and Pakistan (a country with lots of nukes, an extremely shaky regime, high levels of popular support for Islamist groups such as Al Qaeda and a history of supporting terrorism). Not only that, but the compelling argument that we should just not let Iran get nukes (would perhaps a firm "no", or a timeout suffice?) has totally convinced me of the power of wishes. The scales have fallen from my eyes, lord a-mighty I'm free at last. Good to hear your coming around. just to educate your really quickly: 1. MAD was a good deterrent for the ruskies - whereas Armageddon is a desirable part of the deal for the Imams in Iran. 2. North Korea already has 'em (didn't you know?) 3. Pakistan's leadership hasn't expressed the desire for Armegeddon. 4. Airstrikes can set back the research in Iran. Game, Set, Match. Now go back and study for your next post - I am wiping the floor with you in my down time while you scurry around the internet looking for creative lefty new ways to rationalize letting an Armageddonist kook get nukes.

You're assuming the water system in the great lakes is as simple as a one way flow. WHere do you think the water ni the great lakes comes from? Perhaps runoffs from melting ice? Perhaps increased precipitation (a cited effect of global warming)? You obviously havenm't factored in all of that. Besides, on the outside chance that the seaway DID lose a few inches of depth, that wouldn't kill anyone or harm anything. We could dredge the seaway same as many other canals in the world if it ever (doubtful) came to that. As for your comment about TUNDRA I find it hard to believe that frozen TUNDRA absorbs more carbon than an entire forest of photosynthesizing TREES in a boreal forest.

Is it just me or are we absolutely insine to let this guy get his hands on a nuke?

I looked back at my posts and saw that they were, in fact, written in English and not Swahili. So I'm a little puzzled why, to borrow a phrase, "some in Canada" cannot grasp the difference between a statement denying the existence of a terrorist threat altogether (which no one has made) and a statement indicating that said threat is not particularily severe. Nor am I celar on the implications of a statement like "it has happened before, and is likely to happen again." I mean, yeah: so? That's your problem on the far left: no WMD, terrosit threat or possibility of enemy attack is "severe" enough until it has already happened - and even then you spend your time assuring everyone that the attackers "come from a broad strata of society" and that "not all muslims are terrosists"

I actually do, but I'm not gonna argue with you on this point. Kyoto should be used a guideline, and not the rule, because developed nations will pay too much a price for something that affects US ALL and developing nations will use this as an excuse to go on polluting. But your post wasn't necessarily about Kyoto, just climate change in general. And in particular this: While this is true, it only focuses on the good things, but: - Believe it or not, we have summer here in Canada as well, and it gets very hot already. We don't need a repeat of European heat waves and the casualties which ensued. It’s easier to die from heat than cold because its harder to escape from it. - That which we would save on heating would be spent on cooling. - Warmer climate = More bacterial activity = More carbon = More heating. - Increased forest fires = More carbon = More heating. - Vancouver, St. John's and Halifax would be progressively "screwed", albeit over a slow period of time. (People up in the hills of Vancouver though would become Insanely RICH, in case your thinking of good investments). - The great lakes would be under attack. Decreased water levels would reduce the hydroelectric output - The St .Lawrence seaway would be at risk, blocking one of the worlds major trade routes. I'm an adamant believer in the market. Money talks, so let's ensure the Invisible Hand guides us to a cleaner world. This is ridiculous. Warmer climate = larger forest growing area up north = more trees = less carbon Your sea level argument is the oldest and perhaps the stupidest one of the climate change fanatics. These models all assume humankind will just stand by passively while the sea swells up around them over a period of decades. The seawall in vancouver already provides for a few extra feet of sea level rising - its not like they built it down to the millimeter. Even if the sea rises the 3-4 feet in the worst case scenario, you could simply build a higher wall. As for your comments about hot days and air conditioning - you obviously haven't even read the literature posited by the CC crowd, because if you had you'd know that even the alrmists predict the warming will mostly occur at night, during winter months and close to the poles. How this affects hot days is beyong me. The facts state historically even by the alarmists that the average daytime summer temperature in the world has dropped, and that the warming has largely occurred at night, during winter and close to the poles. Please tell me how the st lawrence seaway would be "at risk"? If anything you'd think a few more feet of water would be a good thing for a "seaway".

I hope so. There's not much time left before the "let's lose the war" crowd takes the whitehouse.

? There is no substance or specifics at all in this comment. "go down the crapper" doesn't really specify what would be so wrong. Higher sea levels? It's not going to be a Tsunami. As it gradually occurs, we'll build higher seawalls. So in your analogy, Al Gore and David Suzuki is a opressed prisoner unableto excape an overheated world? WOw. you really are delusional. Yes I am: Warmer evenings, warmer winters, lower heatnig bills, less need for fossil fuels, greener forests, longer growing periods, more food production, better crops, bigger forests, Fewer deaths due to cold....and on and on it goes! I'm glad to hear you don't drive. I know that. The dinosaurs found that out the hard way. It's been giong on since the world began. In fact, it's cooler now than it was before fossil fuels wer even discovered.

Not really. Letting the market in on the solution (such as trading caps which are auctioned off) and development and selling of new, more efficient technologies ain't IN NO WAY redistributing wealth, well, only to new engineering firms in that case. You obviously have no understanding of the Kyoto protocol.

Isn't it kind of CONVENIENT (sorry Fat Albert) that all the news about the earth's temperature is BAD news? Isn't it CONVENIENT for the ex-politicians-turned-movie-stars who are making a killing and nominated for academy awards by the oh-so-objective hollywood crowd? Isn't it CONVENIENT for those who recieve endless government and UN funding to research the terrible aspects of climate change? Isn't it CONVENIENT for the eco-nazis who's alterior motive is to hijack the issue and use it as a premise upon which to build a new global socialist wealth redistribution? Is climate change the eco-lefty's WMD, but on a massive global scale? Think about it for a minute. Is it reasonable and scientific to assume that global warming will be a net negative for humankind? As an example, I saw a report that said a warmer world will be very positive for Canada, resulting in higher yielding cash crops like corn for the prairies. As well, the boreal forest would expand northward to areas which are currently tundra wasteland. As PJ O'rourke once said: People who's mission it is to save the world want the world to seem alot worse than it actually is, so their mission will seem much more important. or, to quote an article (whose entire link is below): Link to the whole piece. This really should even be a political debate. If we're really critical-thinking creatures, we should all be asking this question: Is climate change BAD?

Drea, if only you had such power! *LOL It's just that you seem to relish America's demise and China's rise. Good luck to you, I say. China might start out paying market rate for your timber and natural gas, but if you think 35 million Canadians can say No when China's 1+ billion people start demanding a better price for your resources, I'd say you're being naive. What Wal*Mart is to the economics of retail, China will soon become to "your" natural resources. Don't be too surprised when China Inc. starts buying "your" timberlands and wheat fields. I don't understand you people. Trade is dealmaking. Good deals have winners on both sides. Certainly there are some challenges for both us and China moving forward, but there are also immense opportunities on both sides. Good economics and business sets aside nationalism. Smart American businesses will benefit from the rise ni china's capabilities - in the near term with respect to manufacturing and in the longer term with respect to it's consumerism. So will smart Chinese companies. The real question is how the day of reckoning INSIDE china will be played out - and it will. The politburaeu likes it's new windfall, but it won't let power go gently. Should be interesting. And this is a political risk any company doing business in China must factor into it's future.

There is no reason to fear China. You know how women sometimes joke about how simple men are? "Sex and food bascially sum us up and if you figure out how to manipulate those two things you can get a man to do whatever you want" China is even simpler than men. There aren't two motivating factors, there is only the one: Money.

Source? Cite?

If the NFL is smart they won't do it. The only reason Toronto wants a team is to keep consistent in it's ongoing quest to be in the same "league" as big american city. This is Toronto's little inferiority complex and has nothing to do with the love of football. I just can't picture a bunch of pole-up-the-ass Torontonians whooping it up with beer and ribs at a tailgate party 4 hours before kickoff - or screaming their lungs out on a third and long...they'd be too busy wondering if it was offending any cultures that might not like noise

ahhh - no offense, but, other than the possible ways it can help them with their own forieng policy goals, I don't see the US getting in a tizzy about not winning world popularity contests: just look at the voters. Most of the world, including most of Europe, the middle east, Russia, big chunks of Asia and of course, poor old africa, are infested with corruption, human rights abuses, unassimilated immigrant crises, overspending on lavish social programs and general moral relativism and lack of any direction. Suffice it to say if America isn't pleasing the rest of the world, chances are it's doing something RIGHT.

Hahaha. The left used to be all about non-proliferation - my how times have changed. Back in the day we were inundated with horrifying images of mushroom clouds ad infinitum. NOW the left is all about more nukes. NUKES FOR EVERYONE!!! (especially the half nutty armageddonist anti-western dictators). BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.

Example of this data? ahh - and the IPCC crowd is working for free? Actually - it has. The earth has been fluctuating in temperature for eons - and it's cooler now than it has been in the past. Oh my god that is PRICELESS. The left's solution for EVERY problem is MONEY. WHat the heck do you think makes Kyoto tick? Good will? hahahahaha.