Shady

Exactly. In fact, NBC Universal has had several "green" weeks prompoted on their network. Emphisizing so-called climate change, in conjunction with it's parent company General Electric.

What's affect and modify mean? When I boil water, I'm sending water vapor into the "atmosphere", therefore, modifying/affecting things. When I breath out CO2, I'm modifying/affecting the "atmosphere."

That information is from pre-climategate. New facts have been introduced. Facts that shine a very negative light on the so-called scientists involved in so-called man-made global warming.

The data they ignored and/or deleted and/or suppressed. A combination of all 3 methods.

The hypothesis was built on cooked data, on purpose, as to fast-track this hoax into theory.

The so-called community of legitmate scientists have been exposed as bullying, bias, scale-tippers. The process is rigged.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Complete nonsense.

This data... University of East Anglia's influential Climatic Research Unit, CRU has been forced to admit that it dumped "the original raw" climate data used to bolster the case for human-caused global warming, while retaining only the "value-added" - read: massaged - data. In short, the CRU dumped the scientific data, but archived information that supports its conclusions. "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years," wrote Times environment editor Jonathan Leake. Link

This is the post of a global-warming true believer, who's world is crumbling around them.

I don't think that dissenting views should be referred to as "skeptics." If anything, I'd call the scientists ignoring their own data, that doesn't reflect their global warming view as skeptics. Skeptics of their very data that doesn't reflect their beliefs.

I think Harper deserves some credit. It looks as though Obama adopted his timeline of 2011. Thumbs up to Stephen!

If anything has actually happened.

What exactly do you feel has been taken out of context? Can you provide an example please.

So is it your opinion that the emails are false? Or are they just taken out of context like you previously stated? Which one is it?

LOL. that may be the understatement of the year!

Nah. When he usually disappears, it's because the LPC have stopped sending him his monthly internet propaganda cheque. He doesn't work for free you know!

Republicans winning recruiting battle Cook Political Report House analyst David Wasserman notes a telling indicator that the political environment in 2010 is shaping up to be favorable for Republicans: Several Democratic candidates have decided to drop out of tough races, while Democratic members of Congress who rarely face serious challenges are finding themselves with their toughest re-elections in years. Politico

I've already proven you're a liar. I've posted several links directly refuting your misinformation. However, you'll have a difficult time proving that someone in a forum, who you don't know, and can't see, is a hillbillie or reichwinger (whatever that is). Like I said before. I admire that you're a true believer, but you really need to allow some logic and reason (science) into your area of information.

It's not simply name calling to point out when somebody is purposely lying. Well, I consider them liars as well. And the recently hacked evidence proves it, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Well, it's not my fault you've continuously lied throughout this entire thread. A liar is a liar. Period. And the only narrow view of the world is yours my friend. I admire that you're a true believer, but sometimes you gotta allow at least a little logic and reason to enter your mindset. No, the real irony is you claiming to respond in kind, to people who discuss things rationally, and then calling them reichwingers and hillbillies.

Does calling people reichwingers and hillbillies qualify as defending your position and ideas?

Not initially. But they know that down the line proitability at that particular store would have become a problem. One just has to examine pretty much every unionized industry. Exactly. Because long-term, they know that unionization of their business is bad news for the success and survivability of the company.

I would agree. Although I'd like to know what the reason is for the delay. Because what government wouldn't want to brag about faster crime solving, faster investigating, and saving tax payers money? There's always another side to the issue.

There are currently many, many, many, restrictions on guns. Restrictions in which the Harper government has no interest in repealing.