Alta4ever

This is debatable and the reason for the poll. More on this later.

I'll take a boeing over an airbus any day.

So what is it. I'm Curious.

I'm done talking about beck in this thread if you want to continue this I would be happy too in a thread about beck and other commentators spin on this subject.

Nope both sides have talking heads that misrepresent and distort.

pundits and commentators don't matter, linking to Glen Back is no different then linking to Jon Stewart, neither of which are sincere.

I didn't bring in "other" sources of information I dragged in the very scientists behind global warming theory and their credibility. You deflected away to Glen Beck.

Does it matter in this thread we are talking about debate style and substance of three members of this forum. If you want to discuss Beck create a new thread

What does glen beck have to do with this thread?

It depends if you trust the scientists data, but with what has come out since November is getting harder and harder to trust them.

The whole reason why I read the whole poll and the data, and give little credence to the opinion piece.

Nanos is the most reliable pollster in Canada on politics.

This is the best part of your angus reid poll http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2010.02.16_Politics_CAN.pdf Canadian Political Pulse - OUTCOME If a federal election takes place in 2010, which of these outcomes would you personally prefer? Its shows that in all regions but Quebec and Atlantic Canada people would prefer a Conservative Majority over minority, and they prefer the Conservative majority over either a liberal minority or majority. Although I do doubt the accuracy of the whole poll.

And yet Harper is still the best in the role of PM in this poll by half http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/Best-PM-201002.pdf Harper 32% Layton 16%

I assume you have a cite for this illuminating data.

We flew the Red Ensign.

I have no issues my energy consumption but then again I don't advocate like you.

Feeling a little left out and hurt are we?

No it doesn't mean I will not talk to you it means I will not engage in meaningful debate on AGW with any fanatics as it will accomplish nothing.

What meaningful discourse do you actually believe by posting here on AGW you are contributing something to society? All that you are accomplishing on this forum is expanding your carbon foot print by running your computer, and every minute you spend responding to me your foot print is getting bigger and bigger, or are you buying offsets to make this forum conversation carbon neutral?

What in the sentence " I don't debate with fanatics" do you not understand?

William G. McAdoo, US industrialist, lawyer, & politician (1863 – 1941) said: It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. Thats a great quote although I think you fail to see the irony of you posting it.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Winston Churchill

I don't debate with fanatics.

Just a reminder http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15552&view=findpost&p=492377