gerryhatrick

Quoted from: National Energy Information Center Many gases exhibit "greenhouse" properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human-made. Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes collectively known as the carbon cycle. The movement or flux of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While these natural processes can absorb some of the net 6.1 billion metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions produced each year (measured in carbon equivalent terms), an estimated 3.2 billion metric tons is added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth’s positive imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of human-made carbon dioxide emissions were from burning fossil fuels. The ability of natural plant photosynthesis world wide is greatly reduced by the elimination of plant life, mainly forests. Tranlsation: IT'S OUR FAULT. Thanks.

From wiki: Very impressive qualifications, I'd say. It's too bad there aren't some qualifications for posting on forums....such as the most basic of research abilities.

Now that Ratzinger is stirring up religious division it's perhaps more important than ever to re-examine who this man is. He is the man who wanted to protect sexual abusers in the church and even put it in writing: So in short.....don't tell the cops about allegations of sexual abuse...and claim the right to withold evidence of such abuse for at least a decade after the victims 18 year birthday. This is the morally bereft human being who is now engaging in open attacks on the Muslim faith. Is it stupidity, or something worse?

And yet, the Conservatives and all their friends in the oil sector and rightwing thinktanks with their so-called "scientists" claim that action under Kyoto (or global warming action in general) will cost us dearly...hurt our economy. They don't say how, of course. Gee, given the only way to cut our emissions by a third is to close down half our manufacturing, oil and mining industries I wouldn't think anything more complex would be required. Wow, I didn't know that was the choice facing us. You've really clarified it there Argus. There must have been some really big brains at work to come up with that estimation. I guess fighting Global Warming would totally destroy our economy and maybe even help the terrorists. Would we all have to give up our cars too?

Oh yeah, that "Muslim world" is so stupid, huh? I mean, totally, huh?

Afghanistan is unwinnable for us, it has never been conquered by a non native force, the Russians failed with a hell of alot more firepower and far more brutal tactics then we could realistically employ. As for the former Taliban fighters that are supposedly the ones we are in conflict with they do have support, huge support in fact from both inside Pakistan and a significant portion of the Muslim world through Pakistan. Nothing that carpet bombing the Pashtun villages in the hills won't resolve. Hey yeah, we should do that! And when Canada is demonized in the Arab world for it, that's OK. They hated us already, right? And when a terrorist plot is launched and thousands of Canadians killed, that would have nothing to do with the carpet bombing we conducted because terrorists wanted to hit us before that, right? We should feel absolute freedom to conduct brutal assaults upon any area of Afghanistan or Pakistan because nothing we do can bear any responsibility for any future response. Isn't it wonderful!?!

What a nonsensical rant against environmentalists. The problem is not oil, the problem is morally bereft politicians like George Bush and Stephen Harper who aren't willing to do anything about Global Warming. Legislate tighter emision controls? No way, that would "destroy" the economy. Right? Go find all the oil you want, but how about using it responsibly. No? Oh yeah, Bush and Harper are in the pocket of big oil, so of course they won't fight for our interests.

And yet, the Conservatives and all their friends in the oil sector and rightwing thinktanks with their so-called "scientists" claim that action under Kyoto (or global warming action in general) will cost us dearly...hurt our economy. They don't say how, of course. Quite whining about the media for not being critical of Kyoto. They're the ones who've for years reported that Global Warming is still uncertain or under debate. Whine about that if you want to whine. Whine about all the times Tim Ball and Bob Carter and other lying scum have been given editorial page space....so amazingly out of proportion to all the honest scientists who aren't being funded by oil companies. What a joke...what a sick bizarre joke that anyone would complain the media is being complicit in support of a Global Warming issue.

Actually reading the posts, rather than projecting opinions I never stated, helps to understand too. Chastising the right for that behaviour is akin to chastising water for being wet.

Ouch! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6091500996.html He engages in some democrat bashing at the end, but you've got to hand it to Joe....he's not afraid to give an honest assessment of the failed Bush presidency.

If you're going to start a topic calling someone out, the least you could do is proof read it and ask yourself if it makes sense. You accuse BM of saying "the West CREATES terrorism", and then ask him to prove that "the West started terrorism". Are you wanting to know if "the West" has created any terrorism? The answer to that is obviously yes, but if you're retort will be that there was terrorism before Bush went into Iraq I won't bother. Bush is the biggest Al Q recruiter that ever lived. He's been a boon to that organization. It's membership has quadrupled during his tenure.

I think it's worth noting that 100$ taxable $$ per month is not a "child care plan". It's a benifit. Not a "child care plan". What nonsense, and what a complete pass they've gotten on this from that evil media.

That's interesting. Do you have a link for that? How's this? Paktribune That's a very good link, thankyou. Your comment is incorrect though, in a couple of respects. Minor point, it wasn't a NATO invasion. It was a US led invasion with UN backing. Beyond that the implication of your post is wrong. When you said "Here is a number that I believes says it all: 2 million. That is the number of Afghan refugees that returned to the country since....." you are implying that the post 9-11 action has made the nation more livable/desirable/ect. But considering this portion of your link: it is clearly unknown how many of these reternees are returning since the US-led invasion. Obviously people will flee war, and after 9-11 they experienced war.

I didn't see it geoffrey. I read your complaint though and all I can say is: so what? I mean, first of all I doubt there was any "misrepresentations of statements", rather just a presentation of them. And considering that Chomsky and Moore are two examples of Bush critics, why the H wouldn't they present them??? Did they endorse them? This is a problem with the right....they see ANY depiction of opinion left of center as bias. It's a bizarre and serious problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1OA2wHcBt4 I don't fully agree with his critisizm over the site not being built up yet, it's not Bushs' fault. There's extensive consultations going on over that site. I do think his commentary on the partisan way in which 9-11 is being used is brilliant though.

I have one thing to say to this: BOO F'N HOO.

That's interesting. Do you have a link for that?

I don't think we have to assume, the report was that he was "obviously reading a monitor". I'm not faulting him for it, don't be so sensitive. Just sayin' maybe he needs to work on being more natural perhaps. Maybe it's hard to seem natural when issuing lines like "Taliban is on the run".

Silly boy, we can't see if it appeared staged from a trascript.

Is it a Bush bash to point out a similarity between Harper's and Bush's lives? What a sad commentary.

It's always easy to put together the facts, which is what passes as "anti-Harper" these days. Simply relating what he's been up to is "anti-Harper". His life has become so Bush-like!

http://www.cjad.com/node/408659 I missed it myself.

You are mistaking contempt for fear. Harper is standing up to them and refusig to do as they want. That doesn't strike me as weak. I don't think so. When he stood at Vimy Ridge and labelled the Canadian press as an "enemy" akin to the Germans during the battle he sort of gave away his fear. All soldiers fear the "enemy". If you're not afraid you're stupid. In Harpers case there's no real need to be afraid of the press. They're not as fearful as the Germans were....however he's just a man who is fearful of something like that. It's quite obvious he's a temporary PM. Being unable to deal with the press does not generate respect.

Yeah, that poll was called an "election". I think you're bleeding one topic into another anyway. This topic isn't about the $85,000 Harper wasted on partisan polling right after the election.

That's a cop-out. Assuming your number is correct....that's 6% of the greenhouse gas from .05% of the population. It's immature to say we're only 6% and therefore we're the "wrong government" to focus on. We need to lead by example, and Harper is failing us miserably in that regard. You seen to think this "made in Canada" policy will address Global Warming in some significant way, but the previews have been telling us that it's more focussed on clean air and water. As per the little focus group he paid for, Harper thinks he can get away without doing all that much on Global Warming.