Moonlight Graham

Canada doesn't "like to say we have free speech". We do, its legally enshrined in our Constitution in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Section 2. But sometimes people infringe on other people's rights, thats called breaking the law. If any people feel they have been wronged & their legal rights infringed, they should take it to the courts.

You mean sea to sea to sea.

Interesting letter/article. I don't know what will happen regionally in the rainforests due to global warming, but isn't it basic science knowledge that more warming temperatures creates more evaporation, at least on a global average? On a global scale, when the earth has warmed in the past it has usually caused more precipitation. As i said, if the rainforests are indeed susceptible to drought and somehow global warming will cause more drought there i'm thinking it will be a regional phenomenon. Throughout history flora and fauna have thrived in warmer times. Take the era when dinosaurs lived, which was a very fertile time for life on earth and was much warmer then than it was today. Also, during the Holocene maximum, Egypt (one of the driest places on earth now obviously) was much more fertile and the Nile much more flooded with water. There was lush Savanna all over Egypt at the time. This time also coincided with the great rise of human civilization along the Fertile Crescent, which included Egypt. As the earth became cooler following the Holocene maximum the Nile & Egypt dried up eventually to what it is now. Antarctica, the coldest place on earth, is also the driest place on earth as well. Antarctica and Arctic rank 1 and 2 in having the largest deserts on earth.

You and I would get along just fine i think.

i dunno. The # impressed him and actually made him more interested in conversing with him. I love the Normandy scene, but after that i think the movie was just ok. Not one of my all-time fav war flicks overall.

Pretty good flick, enjoyed it. I hated the lead character, he was an ass. The ending was a little cliche. But still good flick. Better than Avatar lol.

Tell that to Tiger Woods. And OJ. But in this case, its great for her. Especially if she still got paid for the canceled speech.

Where is it reported that the protesters threatened assault or showed violent behaviour in any way? I would think that if the University didn't want her to speak there, they wouldn't have let the organizers allow her to come in the first place. If anything i would say shame on the Ottawa U Students Association for banning people from putting up posters advertising the event because of their views on her.

Nobody prevented her from speaking but the organizers themselves. They were the ones who canceled the event. Not the university, not the police. And i've heard no reports of the protesters doing anything other than arriving in large numbers and chanting. The safety issue was in the large number of the crowd at the building, and only the "potential" for something to happen. Nobody besides the actual organizers prevented her from stepping in front of the mic. Ann has the right to free speech (though i actually dont legally know how this applies to foreigners), but Canadians also have the right to "freedom of peaceful assembly" as guaranteed in Section 2.c. of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Organizers, not university cancelled Ann Coulter: U of O

How does what happened in Ottawa have anything to do with sexism? It's more like arsehole-ism. Its not like people didn't protest when Bush Jr. spoke in Alberta last year. He, to my knowledge, does not have a vagina.

I have no problem with free speech. When i first heard about this incident i thought it a bit dumb that it was canceled. I originally thought "she's a moron but should be able to talk". However, after just reading some things she's said & what she recently said to a Muslim student at the University of Western Ontario i think she is seriously bordering on hate-speech: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/22/13322641-qmi.html Coulter is smart in that she knows how to get people talking and how to make a buck. But she is completely immoral as a human being. Anyone who has to say this crap to make a living is morally repugnant. Even if some of it is tongue-and-cheek. Personally i'm glad her ugly face was denied from speaking and i want her out of this country ASAP. She can say whatever she wants in her own country but don't bring your garbage into ours. See ya Ann. The most unfortunately thing is that this gives her even more attention that she loves and will make her more money. Its idiots like this that give Conservatives a bad name. Shame on people like Shady who pay her money to read her trash and to see her speak.

Canada and the U.S. are each others biggest trading partners. Logic says that a U.S. economic pooper would affect Canada the most. And its not like the economy in southern Ontario hasn't been ravaged by the U.S. car industry crisis. Canada has a better banking system than the U.S., and most of the rest of the world for that matter. Deal with it.

I certainly do try to scrutinize everything i read/hear etc. on the science. Am i 100% convinced the hockey stick graphs are wrong, and that i'm right? No certainly not. Even though i learn towards the side i argued, half the reason i made the argument was just to answer your challenge. But i still believe that tree rings aren`t the most valuable temp proxy. For either side of any debate on so many issues in climate science one can make a legit case with seemingly compelling arguments for each side of any issue. So what i generally said a while back is still my opinion on the whole climate debate: that humans understand so little about climate that anyone it makes the entire debate a giant piece of garbage. both the "skeptics" who say its cooling or its "blah blah" reason why its warming not CO2 and also AGW "alarmists" who are convinced on the effects of CO2 and that we headed for disaster both don't know a poop what they are talking about. I am actually very open-minded on the debate, or at least try my best to be. It seems like every week there is some new revelation about the climate science. I just think that we have so far to go in the science that anyone who claims to be sure of any conclusion is full of it. And i am quite tired of people trying to convince me and others of their views when they don't know what the heck they are talking about.

Thats true. Particulates and aerosols have a cooling affect, they reflect and block the sun as you said. One of the reasons volcano eruptions usually have a net cooling effect.

The Blackbird has always been very cool. Had a big G.I. Joe plane that looked like one as a kid. Black and everything. Badass!! This is a helicopter, but i also love the AH64-D Apache Longbow. Its too bad the Taliban don't use tanks because i'm sure the Longbow would be wildly effective among the mountains/hills in Aghanistan:

I probably don't have anything "new" to offer if you've already discussed the MBH98 graph at length. McIntyre & McKitrick did a good job at questioning the methodology of the graph in the journal Energy & Environment in 2003. The main thing for me is that the MPH98 graph is based greatly on tree rings, which is a pretty crappy proxy for temperature. Trees do no grow just based on temperature, clearly. The amount of precipitation is also a huge factor in tree growth. So how do you separate the two in looking at tree rings? Not to mentioned even more factors that go into tree growth, such as sunlight exposure and CO2 levels.

I don't understand the fascination with Environment Canada. The U.S. surface measurements have proven to be the most accurate in the world, despite the urban heat island effect. Also, until recent months the Environment Canada website still had the Mann hockey stick graph posted on their website being used as a public reference for temperature, even though it has long been proven to be inaccurate. The other issue is that the Canada temperatures show a regional bias, like any other country. But if you prefer Canada temps, then why not use more accurate satellite measurements from 1979-onwards. I think the biggest thing that the global temp level since 2003 showing stasis rather continued warming shows is that temp does not work in lock-step correlation with CO2 levels, and that there are many other variables that determine climate. But this is something most modestly informed people know anyways.

Ya right. The Liberals stuck 500 troops in there to follow NATO, not exactly a rousing sign of enthusiasm. Upon defeat of the Liberals the CPC was very quick to send 4x as many troops over there and put them in the most dangerous area of the country. One would be foolish to think there isn't an ideological difference between the parties. The CPC is also ruling with a minority, which tugs them hard to the center in order get legislation passed.

Maybe he'll get a boner?

I doubt they will even be able to get accurate models this century, let alone right now. There are just too many variables. It's similar as to why meteorologist can only get the weather accurate to within 2-3 days at best. Once you get to a certain point the models all just start the break down because of the insanely complex variables.

Dont worry, the ISI and Iran will get them some more ammo.

The Bible isn't the word of God. As you stated, it wasn't written by God but by many other folks. I find it impossible that they got the translation from God/Jesus's words and/or event to the book with significant accuracy enough to live by these quotes as if they are the Alpha and Omega of moral code. Certain "editorial creativity" by the actual authors must have also been a result.

Maybe in your particular field of work it may be difficult to compete with immigrants, however immingration was also blamed by many for the unemployment rates seen during the Canadian recession of the early 1990's but economists said this was not the case. Economists concluded that immigrants are actually good for the economy because they spend money and infuse more cash into the economy, which creates more jobs.

I never said i was "very new to the debate". Here is exactly what i posted: Being undecided on the debate and educating myself doesn't mean i'm entirely new to the issues. I've read a bunch of material, watched a slathering of videos, and have even recently taken a University course on climate change. I suppose i can see how people assumed i am "brand new" to the debate, which made some people post some basics about how the greenhouse effect works etc. While i sincerely appreciate the effort to help, i am already aware of how the greenhouse effect works. I also know how the physics of things like carbon-14 dating and oxygen-16/oxygen-18 isotopes work, how glaciers form/retreat/advance, and know my Oligocene from my Pleistocene etc. etc. I'm certainly no scientist, but i am no dummy either. On an issue as complex and divisive as "global warming" and with so much bullcrap on all sides of the debate, it takes a long time to figure out the facts and the truth. So far the only conclusion i have come up with is that there is indeed a lot of bullcrap mixed with the facts on all sides of the debate (even among the scientists), and until i discover otherwise my stance is that because climate change is such a complex, fast-changing, and disputed/debated issue where there is so much that scientists still do not know about climate change and so many variables i simply think nobody has a clue yet with what the heck is going to happen to climate 5, 50, or 100 years from now. I'm sleepy i'll try to comment on your other stuff later.

I'd like to say that the IPCC isn't exactly the most spotless organization in regards to the accuracy/reliability of their info, given glacier-gate, the Mann hockey stick etc. There certainly needs to be a review in how they operate and how they formulate their reports/info.