Wilber

You'd think, unless you were looking for a Darwin Award.

Ah, haven't they had nukes for years?

Get back to work.

Well it's a sh--y comparison.

I was always under the impression that an officer's primary responsibility was to those who served under him. Something that the politicization of our military brass was making obsolete. Hillier seems to be a throw back to a time when that was still true and a damn good one at that. He sticks up for his people, that makes him a man to be respected.

Actually, there's where you're wrong. The computer modelling was done using the German Dehomag punch cards, an offshoot of what is now IBM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehomag It is one of the first uses of computer modelling. How do you think those numbers came about? There was still plenty of physical evidence including records kept by the Germans, the camps themselves, the remains of victims and mountains of personal effects. Not to mention the many witnesses to what went on, a lot of them who are still alive although getting on. I wonder what they would make of your comparison. It amazes me that you would compare that which we know to have happened to computer models predicting what may or may not happen in the future.

Come on, the six million number was arrived at long before they were doing computer models or even had computers that could do models. I remember hearing the number when I was a kid. Six million disappeared and there were enough witnesses and physical evidence left to know where most of them went.

The British government commissioned a study by Stern on the economic effects of global warming. He's not a scientist but then again, climatologists are not economists. Europe wanted some hard numbers on the price of doing little, some or a lot and what the effects of the climate would be on the world economy. If Conservatives disagree with those numbers, commission another report but don't discredit global warming scientists because they are not economists and then on the other hand discredit economists because they are not climatologists. Again, there can be no hard numbers because whatever is going to happen hasn't happened yet, there are only theories and theories built on theories. If the Conservatives commissioned a report, it to would be a theory built on theories. I'm not saying Stern is wrong but for gods sake, surely you have to admit that at best it is an educated guess.

Hmm. Anyway, what's all this talk of this guy Stern spouting off on the effects of global warming? He's an economist isn't he? Barely a science at the best of times. What does he know about climatology? He is just taking someone else's theory and using it to build his own. All of a sudden it is the gospel to the converted. You wonder why all this stuff coming from supposedly intelligent people makes me nervous.

That's very nice of you but fortunately we still live in a society where you don't get to chose what people can question. You throw a blanket over all of the "right" by accusing them of discrediting scientists. Even scientists discredit scientists. You have embraced the science which you have chosen as your religion. Any questioning of that is heresy from someone who either hasn't seen the light or is in someone else's pocket. Don't you ever think that just maybe it has been suggested to the odd scientist out there that they might want to consider the effect of not embracing the fashionable or PC view might have on their funding or resources, or the funding and resources of the institution he works for? That the odd scientist has thought, Gee, global warming is where it is at and I could do real well if I jump on this band wagon? Or do all scientists wear either white hats or black hats depending on whether their findings or opinions fit your view of the world? Scary is when people stop questioning and become sheeple. Really scary is when they are actively discouraged or prevented from questioning. Seventy some years ago it happened simultaneously at both ends of the political spectrum. Hitler on the right, Stalin on the left. Consider the consequences. Trying to discourage debate by labeling anyone who questions the accepted norm or the flavour of the day is dangerous. The world is warming. While there may be evidence pointing to man playing an important part in that, everything else is a theory at this point. Some theories are better than others but they are all just theories. This global warming crusade is becoming a bit too much like a religion for my taste. As it gains momentum the greater the likelyhood of science being more and more displaced by dogma. That makes me nervous.

The left hasn't discredited scientists. Enough of your nonsense. Unless you believe that the left uses science as a religion. People like to call themselves liberals because they believe that they are somehow more tolerant and accepting. There are many who call themselves liberals who are just as willing to generalize, marginalize and label anyone who questions their version of the truth as any fascist or religious fundamentalist.

Ah, now Doonesbury is science. The left doesn't generalize? Give me a break. What the hell are you doing right now? Enough of this nonsense.

And there you go again not showing how the left discredits science. I don't have to, I have only shown how you chose what you will believe in and discredit the rest. I haven't accused the left of discrediting anything, only that people in general tend to discredit what doesn't fit their view of the world or they don't see to be in their interests, it is you who are generalizing.

Before we all get carried away with our righteousness, the Holocaust was carried out by Germans and much of it was carried out in Germany itself. It was perpetrated by people who were also responsible for the destruction of their country and the deaths of millions including a few million non Jewish Germans. They are not going to look at it the same way as any of us and aren't about to allow these people an opportunity for a repeat performance.

There you go again, the only science is that which you choose to believe in.

To start with, I do know people who vote on the right who are on both sides of this issue. I assume there are people on the left who are also capable of thinking for themselves and are also on both sides of the issue. Your comment just shows that you do exactly what you accuse the right of doing. You reject what doesn't fit your view. You choose which science you will worship and discredit the rest. There is no such thing as the final chapter in science. Newton had the last word in physics until Einstein came along. I don't reject any of it, I am just skeptical of evangelists from either end of the scientific or political spectrum regardless of what they are selling.

I Balls, people try to discredit anything that doesn't fit their view of the world or isn't in their best interest. Their political orientation has nothing to do with it.

The issue was on the backburner in people's minds. It has only been in the last year or so that the public has put huge pressure on every major industrial government. I have no doubt that that if the Liberals had won, they would have faced huge pressure for their very weak environmental program. If the right wing defence for doing nothing is that the Liberals did it first, then they aren't going to last the long. They promised change. If the Liberals weren't promising change, why did they sign an agreement that committed the country? As you say, it was on the back burner then and there was little pressure for them to sign. The Conservatives did nothing for a year with a minority, the Liberals did nothing for ten with a majority. They have no excuses or credibility on this issue and passing this bill is about as cynical and dishonest as you can get. If they wanted to make compliance with Kyoto law they had ten years with a majority to do it. Wa happened? As for the Conservatives, we'll just have to wait and see. Shouldn't be hard to do better than nothing.

As opposed to what the Liberals didn't do for 10 years?

We've seen a few people in support of the idea of global cooling. A few, but then 20 years ago that was also being put forward by many scientists, not a few of whom are probably now on the warming band wagon.

I don't know of anyone who is denying that the globe is warming. It was the Liberals who did nothing for ten years.

If Conservatives believe the science is inaccurate, they should fund research to get a better sense of what really is happening and if and how it can be affected by changes in behaviour. At the moment, all we are hearing is a lot of people discrediting scientists in general. It has been done so many times in the past and continues now. It is like arguing that the computer models used to determine the amount of deaths in the Holocaust are imprecise thereby discounting that the event even happened. You know what they say about computers, BS in, BS out. I am saying that they are not precise enough to put a dollar figure on it. Estimates range from one to five degrees by the end of the century. It's probably going to be on the high side but that is a 500% difference in estimates by scientists who believe in global warming. You call that precise? I am saying that the earth is warming anyway regardless of mans interference. That is a fact, the only variable up for dispute is how much man's interference is affecting the rate. Speaking of the Holocaust, perhaps those who have caught the Inconvenient Truth religion should stop acting like a bunch of Brownshirts when anyone questions some of the stuff that is in it or some of these way out economic forecasts from people who don't know dick about science.

By doing nothing I mean the earth would continue to warm even if we weren't here.

All this assumes that we can reverse global warming of course and the reality is, no one really has a clue whether that is possible, they can't even agree on how much it is going to warm by 2050. The only thing they can agree on is that it is getting warmer but then it has since the end of the last ice age. If it has been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age it is going to continue to get warmer even if we do nothing unless we can figure out how to reverse the process. Any ideas? Nuclear winter maybe. The science on this is so imprecise, I just can't understand how people can come up with these kinds of BS predictions or how others can actually swallow them. Why don't they just say global warming will be expensive. That I would believe.

Our lives have become so insulated from the bad stuff we tend to forget how the real world has worked in the past and still does in many places. The 1918 influenza epidemic killed between 50 and 100 million or between 2.5 and 5 % of the worlds population at the time. More than the Bubonic Plague during the 4 year period when it was at its height. There is no reason to think that such a thing will never happen again.