peter_puck

]Pssst ...hate to break it to you, but the "great global warming swindle" is about the most debunked infomercial on earth.

The last place for really bad ideas to hide is conspiracy theories. By resorting to this really silly "everyone is afraid to tell the truth because of funding" idea, you are putting the anti-AGW idea right up there with the aliens-among-us idea.

Most of these "rebutles full of hypocritcal nonsense" manage to make it past editorial review boards of esteemed scientists. Who are you to judge them as "hypocrital nonsense". You don't seem to understand the concept. The rise of C02 is one factor that effects temperature. There are many others, many of which can be considered random for our purposes. Global warming states that temperatures will rise slowly over time, not in a 1, 5 or 10 year time frame. There is no way you can use this to predict temperatures from year to year. To put it another way, they don't say the Toronto Maple leafs will lose to the Red Wings .....they only give odds. By your logic, I suppose you could say the "Leafs suck" theory would be destroyed by a couple back to back wins against Detroit. If it was the "most important" you should have labeled it as that. It would have saved me from wasting my time going through the other list of CRAP. Much to my shock, this is the weblog of a REAL climate scientists. He is not, however a global warming skeptic. He seems to have a broader focus regarding the causes of global warming and wants more details. He is clearly somewhat out of step with the scientific majority, but he is not a skeptic: From his page (and Wikipedia) " the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf). [1] " I really don't have time to pick through the whole thing. The papers I have read so far don't seem anti-AGW. You have to remember that a paper that says 20 percent of the rise in global temperatures is caused by a change in land use does not count as an anti-AGW paper. People arguing about details is not an anti-AGW paper. Just because someone says we need better climate models does not mean that they don't believe in AGW. Again, I am not seeing anti-AGW peer-reviewed articles written by scientists. (I found a quote from Lomberg, but he is a POLITICAL SCIENTIST and the quote was from his own book)

Cool ....but how do I use this coal based electricity to lubricate my engine ? Where can I buy a cost effective electric car ? An electrical powered transport truck...ocean liner. How do I make plastic...or fertilizer....out of this electricity. BTW, nuclear is a better source of electricity than coal ...but the point is the same. There are some areas where oil and electricity overlap, but there are many that don't.

This is not about "correct journals". When you say "peer reviewed journal" people have an expectation that it is recognized in the scientific community, has an editorial board made up of experts in the field and scientists actually read it. The "peer reviewed journal" that some of those papers were published in is unknown in the scientific community (thought sometimes quoted by politicians). It is run by a lady who describes herself as a political scientists, who HAS NEVER TAKEN A UNIVERSITY SCIENCE COURSE. SHe says she is becoming more skeptical of global warming because more scientists are believing in it (good scientific reasoning). It is available in only 17 libraries world wide. I could start a peer reviewed journal in my basement that only published articles blaming earth quakes on fat people. It would technically be a peer reviewed journal, but I would be misleading people if I put on a resume that I was the editor of a scientific journal. By the same token I don't think you can really consider those papers as having come from a peer reviwed journal. Uhhh...I don't follow. How does your dubious list or the dubious peer reviewed journal support your claim ? The fact that there are all sorts of anti-AGW sites linking to that list, as well as the the list of "400 prominent scientists" supports my view that many of them don't have a clue what they are talking about. As for scientists not looking at science that does not support their views. Thats false. Google a little bit and you will find rebutles of the anti-AGW stuff. People have read it, pointed out the flaws and moved on. True, but it sure ain't in that list of 1500 :-}

I looked at the list of papers. I have to admit I did not understand a lot of it. But from reading the abstracts, it is a very poor list. Many of the papers are not anti-AGW. Most seem to be AGW agnostic. The ones that are anti-AGW tend to be old (outdated), published in journals that are unrelated to climate change (petroleum ), or published in journals that are not recognized (as anything but a place where climate deniers can publish crap). Some examples: How does the fact that very high elevations of Mont Blanc have not been affected by climate change make a difference (the authors are studying the EFFECT of climate change on a mountain, not if it exists.) Another starts off with this: "Extreme river floods have been a substantial natural hazard in Europe over the past centuries1, and radiative effects of recent anthropogenic changes in atmospheric composition are expected to cause climate changes, " They acknowledge AGW in the first paragraph !!! (then go on to mention various factors in river flooding) Another paper ends with "Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate." Googling some of the authors indicates they are pro AGW! This stuff reminds me of soemthing OJ's defense team would do

Ummm.... One of these guys is a economist from a right wing think tank while the other is a former mining executive with only a BSc in math. Where did they get their expertise in climate science ?

First of all, you should qualify "qualified experts". The Senate report that the anti-AGW types like to quote lists 400 "prominent scientists"- many of whom don't have Phd's in science, or Phd's at all. There are dissenters in a wide range of fields. OJ Simpson's defense team came up with scientific evidence to clear him. That Kelly guy had video experts claiming the tape was fake. There are scientists that claim smoking is not harmful for you. There are scientists who claim to have refuted the "theory" of evolution. Heck there is even a study that a Hummer produces less greenhouse gas that a Prius. You run into the same problem as you do in the scientific forums. How are the politicians going to decide on the state of the scientific knowledge. If they ask the majority of scientists ---they will say its settled. Besides, politicians don't give a rats ass about the state of the science. The leading anti-AGW senator called a science FICTION writer to testify about global warming. Politicians rule number one is that if a long term problem ain't gonna bite you before the next election, ignore it. (look at the debt) Studies how the more CO2, the more the temperature rises. If policies reduce carbon, temperature should rise slower. Kind of obvious. (of course, some all the families in china buying their first electric scooter may offset this but ....) The IPCC study involved a number of parts. One was the impact of global warming on the economy, social factors, political factors etc. If you go to many anti- They concluded that the results of global warming would be devestating. Although I would agree, it is far from settled. Anti-AGW scientists can have been debunked in a scientific manner. Its a little hard to debunk a prediction about population movements or future economics.

We are going to have to adapt anyways. There is a finite amount of oil on the planet. Every barrel we consume makes the next cost a little more. Every barrel we spend driving a hummer on a 50 mile commute is oil that cannot go towards a dike. Every old incadesent light bulb, tank hotwater heater, poorly insulated house takes money and resources away from other uses. How many lives will be saved when we drive oil up to $200 a barrel. How many 3rd world countries will be able to afford fertilizer ? How many people will be able to buy food from the farmer who can afford the fertilizer and pesticide. Even with out global warming, the west needs to get smarter in a hurry. We are wasting huge amounts of power for nothing.

I disagree. They thought Saddam had WMD's, Bush thought Saddam had WMD's. (I will even admit I was sure he had some) Solid evidence was clearly not there, but they were okay with that. Bush, the weasel that he is, told the American people that Iraq was linked to Al Queda. He framed the war against Iraq as the war against terror (which he framed almost all of his mistakes as, come to think about it). The Democrats then had a problem. They knew (as Bush did) that Saddam and Al Queda were enemies and that Iraq was no serious threat to the US . The problem was that a no vote on the war would make them look weak on terror in the political enviroment of the time. Instead of trying to explain to Americans what exactly Al Queda was and why they did what they did, they took the easy way out. Bush is guilty, but so are the pro-war Democrats. Not meaning to start a flame war, but the American voting public that "doesn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran" (from a 9/11 country song) are to blame as well.

You got a one track mind.

The US cannot keep drugs out of max security prisons...how can they prevent Olga from getting it out ? Are you going to keep Olga in solitary confinement for the rest of her life ? No letters.....phone calls... Somehow if I were the person who ratted her out....I would not sleep well

On the other hand, who are we (and/or politicians) to determine that the scientific community has "tunnel vision" ? Would it not be better to have the major scientific organizations determine if there is "tunnel vision". Of course it would, but we know how that went. Since they lose in every scientific forum, the anti-AGW types are now appealing to lawyers (politicians to settle the dispute).

They can bad mouth it all they want, there is still BILLIONS of dollars going into it. In Ontario there are solar and wind power plants being built. The government has to pay a massive subsidy to make them work. If there were something better there would not be needs for subsidies. What effect does a Ontario refinery have on the WORLD price of oil. Maybe we pay higher rates for gas because of that, but it does not explain the huge rise in world oil prices. I could also add that Ontario has a lot fewer hospitals that it used to, but has a higher percentage of elderly patients. I don't know if refineries work the same way, but I think you have to look at their total output, not the number. Automakers build cars to make a profit. (or in the case of the big three today, try and make a profit). If they made a plugin hybrid, I would buy it. They would make money off of me. The problem is they have not come up the with technolgy to do this with a mass market car yet (although it is likely close). Automakers don't make a buck from big oil

There is a high bar for impeaching a president. Bush made very bad decisions. Bush exagerated the case for war. Bush did nothing to meet the test for impeachment. If the US constitution had something like a recall vote, then yes, go ahead and have a recall election. I really wish there was a legal way to impeach him, but there isn't. (it DEEPLY pains me to take this side of the argument)

How many attacks were there on American soil before 9'11 ? One I think (back in the early 90's). I think everyone over estimated Al Qaida after the attack, and it provides a false sense of accomplishment that there have been no more attacks. How many Al Qaida agents has the US caught trying to enter the US since then ? Very few. The most high profile one was a highschool drop out who thought he could make a hydrogen bomb. (something that only a few COUNTRIES have mastered).

It probably should have, but I don't think "known to police" is a not fool proof system. The local police may suspect that I have a grow op in my basement, but they would not likely tell CSIS or the RCMP. The biker unit may have a file on me, but it most likely won't be visible to someone in Quebec. If you look at how much money it cost them to make a gun registry, imagine how much it would take to make a biker chick registry. I know someone who went through an extensive security check in the United States where guys in suits actually showed up to visit the neighbours. From his description of what they did, I can see someone getting through. Again, never been arrested or charged probably goes a long way. I wish this was not such a partisan thing. Biker gangs have tried for a long time to infiltrate police departments, and I am wondering if this is the same thing. There was a story a while ago about how bikers had "biker chicks" try to pick up police officers at bars frequented by cops ...(I assume married cops for blackmail purposes). I think this should be explored with the cooperation of the government. I would really like to know exactly what this lady did for a living (yes she was a real estate agent, but there is no record she sold a property) It is a good story ..but I am wondering how much the average person would care. This has got the attention of people who don't normally read the news.

If you look at the Iran/Iraq war, they were willing to sacrafice tens of thousands in human wave attacks, but when Iraq started lauching scuds into wealthy neighbourhoods in Iran, the war ended. Iran was sure alot more pissed at Iraq than they are at Israel (poison gas and all), but they made peace when the upper class began to suffer.

What a waste of time. By the time you get him impeached, he will probably be out of office. If you impeach him before then, you have president Cheney! Besides, being stuipid does not constitute high crimes.

Just as a post script to this forrestal crap, I have ran accross a few other pages laid out exactly like that one with pictures describing a major incident. Just like the Forrestal page, at the bottom there is a note explaining how the jews and marxists are responsible.

Just because it was foolish to go in (and I said it from day 1) does not mean it is equally silly to leave. There are lots of people who opposed the war who feel the US should not cut and run.

The bottom line is that GM is not a charity. How are they supposed to keep the plant open when nobody wants to buy the vehicles ?

Rising oil prices are a GLOBAL problem. The lack of new refineries is an AMERICAN (or WESTERN) probem. Again, the shortage of oil is a GLOBAL problem. Big oil has no influence on China and India. I really wish they would stop buying these pathetic shills to fight the Global warming science, but that does not really have an effect on oil prices today. I hate to break it to you, but right now there is no alternative fuel that can compete with fossil fuel on price. Human waste is turned into fuel now. Landfills generate electricity. These are noble endeavours, but they cannot make up for the amount of energy needed for are current vehicle fleet. SOMEDAY they may be able to generate economically viable fuel from cellusose, but not today. Huge amounts of venture capital are going into alternative energy. People speak of alt-energy stocks in terms of a bubble. If they can produce enzymes to break down celulose (SP, again) in a cost effective manner then yay us. Until then, we can't plan our energy future around it. The real fact is we are energy pigs. It is much easier to consume less than to try to make energy with expensive technology.

That was meant to be a joke. I was on heavy pain meds during my posting marathon on here yesterday and forgot the smiley. I really doubt they knew the full extent of it. Look at elections both here and the states where political parties don't really know who is running for them until the candidates are vetted by the news media. If you cannot find everything out about your potential MP's, how can you vet their girlfriends. You have to remember that as far as we know, she has never been charged with anything, much less convicted. If they ran her record she would , she would come back clean as a whistle. I wish I could play god and go back in time and make her fat and ugly, just to see how much different the story would be. I guess that is why this plays more in Quebec than anywhere else. Organized crime trying to get into government, as well as their biker problems have gotten more press in the past. When you tell someone in Ontario or Alberta that there was a chance that bikers were trying to infiltrate the government, it just doesn't play because bikers have never gained the level of influence there.

From what I have read, the Iranian nuclear program is in bunkers and spread out. It has extensive air defences. The Americans might be able to take it out (or slow it down a fair bit), but I doubt Israel would. They would be dropping bomb after bomb onto the desert not knowing what they hit. All the time having to content with modern air defenses and a return trip over Syria. They probably have too many. They do have reasons for having them, however. Israel does not. They were small escort carriers and that was ancient history. At one point Canada had the third largest navy in the world. I believe they were turning it into a floating casino at one point. These carriers have a huge operating cost. You need spare parts and all sorts of other things. This is not all that usefull anyway. Israel cannot hope to bomb away Iran's nuclear program. It would be like Lebanon all over again. Israel would be fighting on Iran's terms. Israel would have to bomb forever (which it cannot afford) and loose airplane after airplane. Iran could play the victim while continuing to run its nuclear program. If I were Israel, I would probably wait for the first excuse and start bombing Iran's oil industry (mostly with drone aircraft). No money to fuel their cars, much less buy stuff from North Korea. Don't stop until they agree to let in UN inspectors.