ConservativeJoe

I think all you conservatives will agree that these are bang on. www.conservativejoe.com/chosen/video/commercial3.html www.conservativejoe.com/chosen/video/commercial4.html Here's hoping Monday comes fast.

There is no way the Liberals are closing the chasm that exists between them and the voters. Don't forget, the pollsters believe that they can pick and choose who wins elections. They have some effect, especially on those Canadians who think this is a ProLine bet, but for the most part, people aren't that stupid. Well, not for the most part, anyway. The thought of Harper gaining a majority is just too fearful for the anything crowd. As well, the media loves to depress conservative support, and can usually do it by disheartening conservatives with crummy polls right up to election day. Don't let em fool you. Conservatives: 160 seats, 30 in Quebec. Wishful thinking? I don't think so. Time will tell.

Oops, forgot one. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

How about this guy? Must be a nutcase, huh? Einstein was crazy too, he thought of hypotheses that no one considered. Way off mainstream. This was taken from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/...10615071248.htm Now all you have to do is discredit science daily.

A quote in Washington on global warming by Dr. Michael Crichton, yes the same one who wrote Jurassic Park. He does have a private life as a doctor.

Whoa! Back the truck up! How could 1998 temperatures be the warmest on record? If that is true, and it must be, Eureka posted it, then, follow me....... .........It has been cooler since then. (I'll wait for a peer review. Fire away guys.)

Cybercoma, it is so good to have rational company.

Sorry, I made a type. Should have said Once again, Eureka, that is not truthful. Also, the fact that you use the word reputable suggests that all of those in the scientific community who do not espouse to your views are quacks or less than qualified, which is totally untrue and unfair. There are many, many, brilliant minds who do not see the same things as others. If they were supporting global warming, those in the scientific community would be quick to point out their credentials, but since they won't tow the line, they are ridiculed and ostracized. Hardly an environment for neutral research.

There is no such thing as a totally environmentally way to live. It doesn't matter how many people you put on this planet, environmentalists will always find something to point at. Even one man left, excreting in a bush somewhere, would be producing methane. I know that I am digressing, but it is so frustrating hearing the same things over and over. Scientists see the planet warming, but don't know why. Period. There models have been, for the most part, proven incorrect. Yet they still push that data as factual. It is not. Environmentalists continue to tell us that we are hurting the planet. Sorry, but there is tons of data which also states that the earth cleanses itself. The ozone hole above the arctic has been seen to grow and shrink. While we are part of a closed system, our solar system, we are part of a smaller closed system, the earth, but only to a certain extent. Heat does escape into spave. As for the greenhouse effect, of course it fluctuates. Everything does. But we need the greenhouse effect to survive here, it is what prevents us from freezing solid, it is what helps our climate. The fact is, we do not know what is warming the planet. We do know that it has happened before. We do know that our temperatures on this planet have never stayed permanently stable. We do know that science keeps changing its data, thus the links I posted earlier. We do know that the hockey stick which you pointed out, is flawed, thus the whole argument is based on bad science. Besides, I don't give a damn if its a lacrosse stick, it doesn't prove anything. We do know that science loves the doom and gloom scenario above the reasoned approach. The doom and gloom gets it a hell of a lot more funding. We do know that this has been a bad year for hurricanes, but we also know that there have been worse. For some in the scientific community to use these tragedies for their own gain, ie the furtherance of their pet issue of the day, does themselves no good, and indeed drives the skeptics by giving them fuel. August1991, thank you for your thoughts. Well said. Eureka said, Once again, Eureka, that is not truthful. Also, the fact that you use the word reputable suggests that all of those in the scientific community are quacks or less than qualified, which is totally untrue and unfair. There are many, many, brilliant minds who do not see the same things as others. If they were supporting global warming, those in the scientific community would be quick to point out their credentials, but since they won't tow the line, they are ridiculed and ostracized. Hardly an environment for neutral research. The scientific community is doing itself in. Maybe they should just come clean and admit that they can't understand and manipulate everything about our planet. As for you stating that the 'global cooling' argument was flawed because of inferior data, that is fine. I'll buy that. But at the time, we were told that doomsday was coming, and that there was more data than they could possibly interpret. It was a sure thing, no doubt. Sound familiar?? Has science ever come out and admitted they were wrong? Those people may earn some credibility if they even ever once admitted they were mortal like the rest of us. Do I hate science? God, no. I love it. The world and our surroundings, and all creation, is a marvelous place of discovery. My children have indeed survived childhood because of science and medicine. Science, however, is not my god. It is not flawless, nor is the theory of man made global warming.

Scientists presently claim that as early as 11,000 years ago, most of Canada was under ice. That is hardly millenia.

Of course not, anyone who questions the "consensus" (term used loosely), is ridiculed. As well, there is huge financial gain to be had by those who come on board, thus many studies are only using the data that backs the Co2 argument. Not a lot. It does, however, explain a lot of the temperature fluctuations, especially the ocean waters. It is not everything, but the way the data is being manipulated is not unbiased. It is never mentioned that fluctuation is normal and occurs on a regular basis. Come on, you've been keeping track that long? Okay, now you are rambling. In the last quote, you claim that science knows the exact temperature for the last 420 million years. I say exact, because right now, scientists are fretting over a half degree difference, so the historic readings must be pretty accurate, in their minds. Since we have been keeping track that long (which I don't buy), then how can you claim that temperature change has NEVER occured at today's rate, and that the icecaps have NEVER melted as they are doing today. when science claims that the "Great Ice Age" was only a million years ago. Where did all the ice go? Or is "geological history" actually "recorded history", and is that now conveniently only the last 100 years or so? As per my argument, the credits simply transfer wealth from our country to somewhere else. Wealth distribution. The industrial age has been going on for almost 100 years full throttle. If this is the cause of global warming, then why were scientists screaming about the coming ice age and global cooling just 30 years ago. (See my last thread.) I notice you didn't bring up the link I posted pointing to the big global warming warning cry from the 1970's. Hmm. Guess that went *poof*, huh? There is that self righteous "I'm smarter than you, cause you don't agree with me" attitude I was talking about. Thanks for proving pretty much my whole point.

Some have said that this is no different to what Ralph Klein did. Back the truck up. Uh, yes it is. Mr. Klein is paying a dividend to Albertans from the proceeds of the huge profits from oil Mr. Martin is paying you with less than a third of what he overcharged you. Does that seem the same to you?

I see a trend here. All who believe the evidence for global warming are self righteous and smarter than everyone else. All who believe the evidence against global warming are referred to in derogatory terms, and... All scientist who refute the claim are crackpots. Hmm. Quite the tolerant bunch, you wise ones are. How about this. Global cooling. Yep, Science says there is so much evidence, it can't be refuted. ONly 30 years later, we are warming up. http://federalistpatriot.us/news/EarthDay1975.pdf Also, there are those who just can't decide which set of stats to use http://www.conservativejoe.com/arc/arc005.php#headline132 There are those who will silence even credible scientific studies, reports, and facts, to substantiate the claim of global warming for their own cause http://www.conservativejoe.com/arc/arc006.php#headline144 http://www.conservativejoe.com/arc/arc006.php#headline145 If those of you who are wrapped up in the belief that man is killing the planet are so sick of the rest of us, why do you respond? It is because you want to convince us, and are getting frustrated that we aren't that easily deceived. Have you ever heard of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation? I thought not, read about it. Temperature swings are in effect every 30 years or so. Global warming is nothing more than an attempt at wealth redistribution, and before you label me as just one more ignorant right wind whacko, answer me this question. If our Co2 production is so harmful, and if it is with such dire urgency that we reduce our production of these gases, why does Kyoto give us the option of buying credits from third world countries? Don't explain how this works, I get it. But buying those credits will do NOTHING to curb the production of man made greenhouse gas, it will only sen more western cash overseas. Period. If it is such an urgency that we reduce these gases, why does Kyoto even suggest this idea? If man is killing the planet, why do we prop up third world countries to help them develop. Wouldn't 1 million dirt farmers be better off for the planet than 100 million new consumers? Wouldn't we all be better off letting aids spread? I am simply asking you these questions to see if they make any sense to you. I do NOT suggest we actually do it. But where is the consistency here? You claim that the icecaps are melting exponentially. That is what icecubes do. Try it on your counter sometime. The ice will melt faster and faster, the thinner it gets. Also, you are so surprised that the ice is even melting. What a shock! Ever go camping? Lastly, do I believe in global warming? Yup. Happens every summer. Do I believe the planets weather patterns are shifting, perhaps dramatically? Maybe. What I don't believe is that man has the capacity to be causing the changes. Just because you believe in man made catastrophe, doesn't make you any more intelligent that those of us whom do not. Get off of your high horse.

I think we have missed the bigger picture. The most damaging aspect of marijuana is that it tends to cause the individual using it to vote Liberal. John www.conservativejoe.com

"There is probably fairly widespread consensus that a 30 year old seeking sexual favors from a 12 year old is exploitive... " Ya, but consensus means nothing, especially in this liberal wonderland. All we need is a couple of pedophile programs to start running on CityTV, say "Young Eye for the Old Guy". We have seen how our entertainment industry can warp reality. I am a little surprised at how effective it is on most Canadians, but there you go. . Again, the point remains that you will have those on the left who espouse children's rights, who are nothing more than predators, that will quote the United Nations' child rights act. You then have our liberal judges who will do just about anything to make us the most leftist country on the planet. As well, the old argument "Who are you to dictate morality?" will be once again thrown about. Just because you or I KNOW it is wrong, that argument has been trashed. In Canadian courts, there no longer is right or wrong, nor morality. While sex with children is sick and should be forever outlawed, the same was said for sodomy, and the minds of most were changed in a mere 2 generations. That is what you are witnessing now with pedestry.' I don't care what you now think of sodomy, that doesn't change the fact that the consensus was easily moved in two generations. And as much as you despise the thought of adults engaging in acts with children, that is how much sodomy was despised only 20 years ago, that is my point.