peter_puck

This is not 1776. There is little chance of our government becoming a dictatorship. If it did, there is little chance that you are going to be able to do anything about it. (did you watch the war in Iraq?) Does that same right apply to members of the Crips or Islamists ? How about the other pillars from the era of the American Democracy. Slavery and powdered wigs. Gun ownership to protect you from the government is just as outdated.

I just noticed he was on this list, as I said, I didn't really pay attention to the whole list. Dyson is famous (more so for his influence on science fiction (Dyson sphere). However, back to my point. His research in no way relates to global warming. His inclusion on that list is, at best, a celebrity endorsement. I don't buy Michael Jordan's underwear because he endorses it.

and they need to shut up. As much as I hate blind partisan behavior, now is the time for it. We have had the republican leader in the Alaskan senate say "she is not even qualified to be governor, much less vice-president". Her own mother-in-law questioned her qualifications. There are people on this forum who would argue anybody was a good pick, no matter what sort of baggage they had. Those people should be given rolls of duct tape to put over the mouth of the next Republican or conservative media person to say something bad about Palin.

Again, you are using more fuel than you making (according to the figures you quoted in your last post). You may be right that producing grain to rot would waste more, but that is a lousy argument. It is like choosing between coke and speed. If I can't choose something productive, choose nothing at all. If there is no market for something then don't make it. Then why are you not using this wonderful cheap fuel in your farm equipment ? Take away the subsidies and it cost more than $4 to make. Make the consumer pay the real price (no subsidies and the same tax as gas) and nobody will use ethanol again. I disagree that the subsidy was a good idea. But thats beside the point. The subsidy was used to jump start a technology that had the potential to be profitable. Corn ethanol will never be a suitable fuel. Its not a matter about how you refine it, its a matter of the energy in the plant. Because you are paying them to waste money!. What does Canada get for its 2 Billion ? Why not take that 2 Billion dollars and pay farmer to bury a few million Canadian Tire power boxes in their fields. Canadian tire stock will go up, farmers will make money. Why not spend the money to try to come up with a viable technology. Cellulose ethanol will be a game changer once it is perfected. Why not spend the money there. Making ethanol is not doing your part to improve the environment. As for other things farmers do.......I think the tax should be aimed at those people who have the ability to change. I really don't know enough about farming to say how farmers can improve fuel consumption, but if there is little they can do, there is little point in taxing them under a carbon tax plan. (which again, is too blunt an instrument). I would support an idiot tax. Want to buy a Hummer, here is your tax. New home built with poor insulation - here is your bill. Just bought a tank water heater -here you go. Want to use those old light bulbs ? Its gonna cost you.

I think that is what may happen unless we get better technology. We can get Americans to live like the French, but they make up such a tinny percentage of the world population, it won't matter. Its going to be hard to explain to some guy in Africa he has to give up his pedal bike to prevent global warming.

Then you are misunderstanding the points. If you look at the context of my statement that I responded to your points one by one, it was a response to your statement that I always "appeal to authority". I appeal to authority because every time I point out a fundamental flaw in your logic, you miss the point. Your quote two competing theories to make your points. You make statements that show you don't understand the theory you are quoting from. It takes me time to sift through the latest anti-AGW myth. An appeal to authority is much faster. Didn't the "Great Global Warming Hoax" argue that global warming was caused by increased solar irradiance ?? Didn't many of the people you quote advocate that position ??/ Didn't AGW types argue there was no significant effect from solar irradiance ??? Now you are saying that being proven right (AGAIN ) is a problem for AGW supporters ?? Conspiracy theories are not evidence. One section of the IPCC was meant to address the cause. They could have blamed solar radiation, farting cows, volcanic activity. They chose carbon dioxide. Any organized scientific process that does not support your views seems to be flawed. If the peer reviewed process is so flawed, why is it deemed so important in the academic world. In terms of prestige and promotions ? Certainly a handful of people think its flawed, usually because they didn't get tenure because they had not written enough. I don't watch hockey with a fan of a certain hockey team, cause each game he will point out how the ref cost his team the game. You missed nuclear.

There are a handful of valid names on there...no where close to 50. I don't have time to google everbody, but Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist (social scientist?) David Nowell, M.Sc. No Phd Timothy F. Ball Nuff said. Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. No Phd William Kininmonth M.Sc No Phd Rob Scagel, M.Sc. No Phd Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Not a scientist The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy Not a scientist Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, A Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director Louis Hissink MS Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist (string theory ??) Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics Molecular Genetics ???? Bryan Leyland, An expert on hydro power (I had to google him) Gary D. Sharp <- A fish guy I suppose if I didn't have to go to sleep, I would google all those people to show that most are not climate experts, but I am getting tired of this. You could probably find that many Phd's taking taxi rides around Toronto. What I am looking for is people who have a relevant education who do relevant research. An engineer and a scientist are two different things. A Biologist is not a climate expert. Emeritus Professor means retired (or in Dr Ball's case it means you have made another accidental addition to your rsme) Some guy who spent his life researching protein folding has no expertise in climate modeling, even if he has a Phd in chemistry.

I have spend a silly amount of time showing the errors in your logic of you and your confederates. I have spent hours reading and picking apart the latest "proof" that AGW is false. I researched the list of "400 prominent scientists who disagree with AGW". I have read many of the abstracts of the "1500 peer reviewed articles against global warming". I looked into many of the "peer reviewed scientific journals" they were included in. I responded point for point for the article that started this thread. I have dusted off old textbooks from school. I have researched the absorption spectrum of C02. I have analyzed photos of the arctic showing what appeared on the surface to be a dramatic increase in ice cover since the 80's. I looked into the equipment NASA has pointed at the sun. I read articles describing the distribution of the antarctic ice sheet. I know more than I care to know about temperature and planets, the cycle of solar flares, the ties between Exxon and the anti-AGW community, Dr Bells resume, historic temperature changes, I have looked at pictures of poorly placed weather stations. I have watched the "Great Global Warming Hoax" I have simply don't have the time to research every time someone puts some bit of crap on the internet. I know its not true ? Then name the group I know about!. Unbiased means something I could recognize. Something that was not created for the sole purpose of being a group of anti-AGW scientists. A national organization, a professional organization, a UN committee set up to investigate the topic SOMETHING. To give an example, the world is full of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Submissions to these journals are reviewed by experts in the field and publish what is deemed to be good studies. Most hard core anti-AGW stuff never got into these publications because they were crap. In response somebody set up a "peer-reviewed" journal that published only anti-AGW stuff. Instead of a committee of experts, the scientific papers were reviewed by a lady who had not taken a single science course since high school. Even though the journal is not recognized by scientists in the field, papers written in this are constantly called peer reviewed research by right wing politicians. That is the sort of thing I would call biased. Okay. Here we can agree to disagree. You think the large number of organizations that have supported global warming have only done so because they are run by groups of people who want to deceive you. The Association of Petroleum Engineers have eliminated there anti-AGW statements simply because they are run by liberal tree huggers. George Bush has signed up because he is a closet liberal, same with Newt Gingrich and John McCain. Good enough. There is always a minority skeptical of everything. There are doctors who think High Blood Pressure is not really a cause of heart disease. Some think drinking your own urine is good for you. Some think vaccines cause autism. Some people insist that flouride (can't believe I forgot how to spell that) causes cancer. Link is dead. Well, until we solve the oil crisis, the money will not be wasted. Global Warming is nothing compared to the threat of peak oil (bitch with peak oil is that the skeptics will be wrong some day). If the AGW mafia doesn't force us to become better consumers of energy, the markets will. I don't know how bad Global Warming will be. From an economic perspective it will probably even benefit Canada . I do know, long term, we cannot use fossil fuel like we do.

I look at it from a cost benefit perspective as opposed to a moral one. How many benefits has modern gun ownership brought compared to what would have happened under prohibition. Even better, we can break it down by groups. Do we have a net benefit from teflon coated bullets that can go through a police officers bullet proof vest? What is the net benefit from automatic machine guns ? What is the cost/benefit of a shotgun in rural Alberta. What is the benefit of a semi-automatic pistol in downtown Detroit? I think we should weigh the costs against the benefits. I grew up in a rural area where people used to bring guns to school during hunting season and nobody thought about it (this was pre columbine). I don't see the harm of a hunting gun in a rural area. On the other hand, a machine pistol with telfon coated bullets is silly. Personally, I think we should allow long hunting rifles, license hand guns, ban silly weapons and "cop killer" bullets. You could leave some of the regulation to the cities. If Toronto wants to ban all guns, thats their business. If some rural town in Alberta wants to loosen regulations somewhat, let them. The government regulates what kinds of drugs I can possess. The government regulates the car i drive. The government tells me how fast I can drive If the government can ban light bulbs and license dogs, I see what makes owning a bazooka so special (some guy at the NRA said people should be allowed to own them on principle)

To a point. I think you have to be really worried about tearing her apart like they did Quayle. She seems like a very likable and competent person. She has a very compelling story. She will no doubt appear on The View and charm people. An attack dog like Joe Biden tearing her apart in a debate might backfire. "I knew Hillary Clinton, I worked with Hilary Clinton - you are no Hillary Clinton" would be a disaster. Mind you, all they would have to do would be to quote from right wing blogs. The "She isn't even qualified to be governor comment from that Republican from Alaska would be a start.

With her opinions of birth control and abortion, she will be thought of as a figure for womens rights ? I suppose Clarence Thomas is going to be though of as a major figure in the civil rights movement ?

Thats not gain. The energy density of ethanol is much less than diesel. You could travel farther on the barrel of oil than you could on the 8 barrels of ethanol. Energy density of crude is maybe 50% more or so. So 7 barrels of oil would equal 10.5 of ethanol in terms of energy. (yes, its more complicated than that but this is the readers digest version) If there is no market for something, it shouldn't be made. The tortilla give away was dumb idea, but not any dumber than the biofuel idea. According to your own figures above: You take a 7 barrels of oil and turn it into the energy equivalent of 5.5 barrels of oil. You no doubt spend a lot of time and energy doing this. You may make a profit at it, but in terms of Canada as nation, you are doing worse than wasting your time. You are being paid to waste energy. GOOD!, lets let private industry solve the problem and end the subsidies!! No! My point is , ethanol is a bad idea. You can argue all you want that there are dumber ideas, but that doesn't make yours (ethanol) less dumb. If we want to grow are own energy, we should be spending our money trying to make it produce a clear energy gain and be profitable. Every dollar we pay ADM to waste money and energy could be better spent trying to find a way to convert cellulose into fuel in an economical way.

Can you name them ? The US senate published a list of 400 "prominent" scientists who disputed global warming. That list turned out to be garbage. Could you even give me 50 people who: Have a Phd in a relavant science (chemistry, physics, mathematics etc) AND Have done relevant research (Science is a very specialized. A guy may have spent his entire life trying to figure out how electrons orbit a hydrogen atom - this does not make you a global warming expert) AND Have not committed some form of academic fraud. AND are published in peer reviewed scientific publications (by a peer reviewed publication I mean one which is recognized in the scientific community. A bare minimum would require someone with a science degree as editor )

There is a huge hole in your logic here. The small minority of people who cling to this solar magnetic field idea say it changes climate because it causes changes in cloud cover. Mars does not have clouds of water vapor. IF you held to this "solar magnetic field" idea, you would be expecting Mars to stay the same, not warm! Again, indirect means a change in the atmosphere. Mars does not have an earth like atmosphere. What I am saying is that it is not a good way to measure temperature. Anti-AGW types say we cannot measure the temperature of the earth despite all are equipment. Why are a handful of photographs of the clouds a few years apart proof of anything. You are measuring - very indirectly - the amount of ice on mars over a short period of time. Ice core samples (and nobody calls this perfect data either, just we don't have ice core samples from Florida) are taken over a very long period of time. Sigh. All these guys with Phd's are so much dumber than you are. By some anti_AGW types it is. In other forums of have tried to explain it to people and they have demanded some sort of proof. In this case, I was pointing out that the scientist who posted this is far outside the scientific mainstream on other points. Thats what the cancer stick companies said for years. That is what the absestos industry said. Thats what they said about PCB's. Its right in the play book.

Here is a test. Go look at all the liberals who were critical of Biden as unfit. Then go look at all the non-social conservatives who have criticized Palin. To have this sort of debate within your own party AFTER you have made the pick has unprecedented. Even Quayle did not garner this sort of reaction at the start. To turn your biggest advantage into a weakness is suicide (to quote one conservative commentator) If I could vote there, I would vote for McCain, but I sure hope he takes his vitamins.

The article states that this is the view of one scientist whose views are rejected by the rest of the scientific community. This is part of the "warming planets myth". The warming planet myth is the idea that it is somehow the output of the sun that is responsible for global warming. The "proof" of this is that other planets in the solar system are getting warmer as well. Here are some of the reasons why this is rejected. 1. NASA has all sorts of instruments pointed directly at the sun that measure solar output. Aren't they a much better measure of solar output than a measurement of the ice caps on mars. Why don't they show fluctuations showing what the anti-AGW crowd refer to ? 2. Some planets in the solar system are getting colder. 3. The temperature measured is only for a certain part of Mars. Mars could actually be getting colder. If you take the temperature of certain parts of the earth over time, they will actually be getting colder. Its the average that counts. 4. How many planet scientists has this guy got to agree with him ? Most planet scientists unconnected to the AGW debate talk about dust storms (weather) or planet wobble as being the cause. 5. This guys view of the effect of CO2 on climate rejects most science on the subject going back to the 1800's. He rejects most of the "greenhouse effect" - the only thing preventing most of the earth turning into a giant ball of ice. Also, lets look at how the anti-AGW crowd would look at this type of evidence. They say that are vast array of satellites and ground weather stations are not enough to measure the climate properly on earth, yet they feel that a handful of pictures of the ice caps of Mars are PROOF that the whole planet is warming. They feel that climate models run by supercomputers are totally inaccurate, but restaurant napkin calculations can prove their "warming solar system" model.

Well, I am pro McCain, and I think the pick was a (potential) disaster. You are right that the Obama camp would have probably said whoever was chosen was not a wise pick, but this time, they are right. Why pick a candidate with such a glarring weakness and no real strengths ?

By that logic, the average hobo on the street corner would be an acceptable choice (as would many members of the Taliban). Somehow, I think the bar should be set a little higher.

They are picking up a MP that the *Liberals* rejected for ethical reasons. He is joining the Greens because nobody else will take him. Garth Turner would have fit, this just looks like hypocritical.

I would agree with what you are saying if you produced something of value with crops that go towards fuel. I don't think the family farmer is the bad guy here- its the large companies like ADM (the same people that destroyed the US family farm through price fixing in the 70's) are. The problem is that for every BTU of ethanol you produce, you consume a BTU of diesel. Some studies show this is negative, some say its positive, but nobody shows that corn ethanol produces a large gain in energy. We are not making energy, we are converting diesel to ethanol.(while wasting vast amounts of good farm land and farmers time). If you want to address the financial situation of the family farmer, this is not the way to do it. If you want to address the fuel shortage, this is not the way to do it. If ethanol can be run without a subsidy, then fine, but until then, it makes no sense.

Lets recap here. I said Clarence Thomas was not a qualified jurist. I pointed out that he had only one years experience as a judge (among other things). Instead of presenting one iota of evidence that he was a qualified jurist you keep calling me racist (and "rube", I think there was also some other sort of insult in another thread as well) Are your arguments/mind so weak thats all you can come up with ?

They have lots of qualified women available. Thats what drives me NUTS!. What causes very smart, very experienced politicians like the first Bush and McCain to screw their chance at being elected but putting a ball of fluff on the ticket ? (note, when I say "ball of fluff" in regards to Palin, I am talking about her resume) She seems like a very bright, very personable lady. She has an 80% approval rating or something as a governor. This would have been a reasonable pick if McCain were desperate, a "hail Mary" pass if you will. But the score is getting tighter and its still early in the game.

You choice of straw men is as stoopid as your choice of names (bush_cheney).

"we" as in the west (I thought that was obvious) Unilateral bombings may or may not be effective, unilateral sanctions can't. It would be very difficult to totally stop the Iranian nuclear program with bombs. The only way to stop them is to stop them from selling oil (of course, just like bombing their is an ugly cost).