peter_puck

I would not take a lot of comfort in that. Most Nobel Prizes (with the exception of the peace prize) are for old work. Up until recent years, the resources to conduct top level research were only available in the US, Western Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan. Also, remember two of those prizes belong to Carter and Gore :-)

They are just mocking how silly this Hussein thing is. Really, what is the point using his middle name but to appeal to biggots ? What does his middle name have to do with ANY issue of importance to the United States ?

I think this is part Chretien's point. He will be viewed as being a "crook" despite the fact that there is no real evidence he was. Part of the reason people have this impression is that they A) misunderstand Gomery's report, and paid more attention to Gomery's off the cuff statements rather than the report.

Evidence ?

The problem is that the that the "Saddam B. Hussein Osama Obama " line of reasoning only appeals to really stoopid people that aren't likely to vote for anyone not endorsed by the klan. You also have to remember that switf boating is about rewards too. Many of those involved in these type of dirty attack adds later got rewarded by Bush. I really doubt McCain would do that sort of thing. Many of the really good swiftboaters were involved in pushing Bush past McCain, and I think McCain holds a grudge. Also, the real dirty money comes from the Christian right. How eager are they to switfboat for a candidate not has not only said they deserve a special place in hell, but who has also called them "agents of intollerance" ?

Actually, the number of foreign students had been declining (although the dollar's collapse has been helping to slow this down) No, they are not overtaking the US YET, but they are catching up in a big hurry. The US has a technical advantage right now, but China is training far more engineers and scientists. Is there any reason that there greater number of scientists will not outproduce are smaller number ?

You gotta screw up pretty bad, or get swiftboated to loose that sorta lead. Since McCain has stated there is a "special place in hell" for swiftboaters, it is unlikely that they will come to his aid (really a shame we get a really decent politician for a change and he is going to loose because of it)

What worries me is that it took him so long to say this. It implies he was waiting to see what came out before he made a statement. Not wanting to say something that could be proven wrong later.

How about 3) Adopt sane energy policies in Western countries. Why are oil prices so high for third world countries ? What have global warming advocates done to increase the cost of oil to the third world ? Our energy pig economies have used up all the cheap oil so that they have to buy the expensive oil. There is a guy down my street driving a hummer on a half hour commute. He is in a bidding war with someone in Africa trying to find fuel to pump clean water to a village. If we had been proactive and started to conserve years ago, there would have been enough for both.

Yes it did. BTW, it was not "NASA", it was political appointees within NASA. "NASA" itself was shocked and made it very clear that scientists views were not to be censored (like had happened all over the public service under Bush). The fact that it is "unlikely htat he would have kept documentation" is laughable. Right up there with the people who believe there really was a 200 mpg carburator that was stolen by oil industry spies. You missed the point. I said if someone knew they were lying and knew that their lying would cause harm then they should be punished. Now it is very clear to many scientists that elements of the anti-AGW movement are lying for money. Sure Gore does make lots of money for speaking (as does Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, and any other number of ex politicians). However you do not have one iota of evidence that Gore knows he is lying. Imagine the trial: " I just relied on the opinion of every major scientific organization and thousands of peer-reviewed papers". THere is a small chance he could be wrong...but there is no way anyone outside of the kooky world of climate denial could state he knew he lied) With this, I think I am going to have to leave this line of debate. I really lack the time to chase your tinfoil hat army accross the internet anymore.

How are China really going to strike back against Israel ? The both have large armies, but I don't think either is really capable of harming Israel with anything other than nuclear weapons. That is not going to happen

I really think it is going to be China at the rate its going. It is gaining rapidly in almost every area where the US has had an advantage in the past. It is also a more functional society than the US. They don't have one lawyer for every 300 people like California does. They don't have the massive welfare state or prison system to weigh them down. They don't really have to worry about public opinion. They graduate massive amounts of Science/Engineering graduates. Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't admire their policies, I am just saying they are gaining rapidly, and at this rate, will overtake the US at some point.

Look at the growth of the Canadian economy during that same period. Economic growth caused the increase in greenhouse gases. I see your point that the Liberals didn't do a heck of a lot during those years (then again, it wasn't as clear an issue), but to blame them for economic growth seems a little silly.

The Milroy link was in the tobacco papers. Ball's funding was rooted out by a investigation by the U of Calgary. The links between these people are well documented. You on the other hand parrot right wing talk show hosts talking points. You should no that those things are not meant for the rest of the world, only the true believers. I have read the Soros foundation report. I ask you again, where is the evidence of Hansan being paid $750 000 by Soros ? I think what you are getting at is that some conservative talk show host took the entire budget of one program and said Hansan COULD have gotten that much because thats how much was in the entire budget. BTW how can you accuse me of looking at some blogs that you mentioned (Exxon secrets and smogblog) when you get you news from "newsbusters". A site that exists to counter "liberal bias in the media). First of all, what evidence do you have that Spencer was censored besides some things he said to right wing talk show hosts long after the fact ? The NASA report has emails, memos, morons trying to defend themselves. What do you have ? Besides, the NASA scandal was not just about climate. If Hansen misrepresented the science for financial gain and was aware that his actions would cause a great number of deaths, then yes he should be. Same with Gore. The problem is you have no real evidence that Gore and Hansen have done that. I find it odd, because many of the people on the other side don't act like religious zealots - they are religious zealots. (many happen to be supporters of intelligent design) I don't know about you, but REAL SCIENTISTS must get a little angry at POLITICAL SCIENTISTS like Bjorn Lomborg who misrepresent stuff. I guess it comes down to who you trust, Scientific American or a guy with a Phd in political science. Do you believe the AMA or Tom Cruise when it comes to medical decisions ? " Bjørn Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned a Master's degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen in 1994. "

I am really think logic is lost on you. You complain about the AGW movement being based on "lies and half truths". You then fill this forum with exactly that. Then you respond to my post about your half truth and lies by posting more lies and half truths. He has received prizes for his work. (Heinz award and the Dan David Prize) These are similar along the lines of the Nobel prize and have gone to all sorts of different people. Thats because he has been a decorated scientist for years. He is recognized by other scientists. He was asked to brief Cheney and the Bush cabinet on (until he turned on them) These types of prizes are all over the place, there is a big difference between that and getting a secret "consulting fee" under the table. I might also point out that these prizes are public record. The junk science guy you quoted in the other post connections were only reveled when secret documents were exposed. Ball's funding was revealed only by an investigation by the U of Calgary. While I am at it, I might also point out that I have not brought up Dr Hansan - you did. AGW theory is about the work of 1000's of scientists. Anti-AGW is composed of a handful of scientists, and as I pointed out, many of their motives are questionable. This is a lie. Show me a REAL source that states Hansen got $750 000 from Soros. Not a blogger who quotes another blogger who quotes another blogger. Not someone who says "he could have got up to $750 000. A charity funded by Soros has a program that helps protect whisteblowers. Hansen states the he got free legal advice from them - do you any evidence to prove him wrong? Lets not forget what started this either. An effort by Bush political appointees to censor science at NASA. NPR was denied interviews because it was "liberal". One Bush appointee demanded that the word "theory" be placed before every occurance of the word big bang. The NASA inspector general found compaints of political interferance to be waranted: http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf What exactly are you objecting too ? The "high crimes" comment ? It is a bit over the top, but think of it this way. Tobacco executives stated that cigarettes were good for you even when they knew they would kill you. The objective of these statements was to encourage people to smoke. Many of the people who followed that advice died because of the lies of the tobacco industry. Many people have also likely died because of Milroy's denial of the effects of second hand smoke. Now, on some moral level, lying to make a profit that results in someone dying is immoral. The same applies to global warming. If Exxon knows that current policies will result in the death of a million people in Bangledesh but pay people to lie in order to hide the fact, you could argue that is a crime.

I am really trying to get away from this debate, but this link made me cringe. Is there a less credible guy in the whole AGW world than this guy ? This is the guy who did not disclose he was a paid advocate for the tobacco industry WHILE he was appearing as a expert of junk science on Fox and discussing the junk science of second hand smoking. Not only that, he allowed the tobacco companies to edit his website (the one you quoted). He also discussed his upcoming articles with them. The only way this was ever discovered was that the connection was in that hoard of legal documents that came out as part of the tobacco settlement. Exxon gives large amounts of money to foundations that happen to be run out of this guys basement. You really need to find better sources of information.

Few more terms of Bush policies, you might not have to carry the superpower burden anymore.

I am going to have to look at those sites....but while I am here... You and fellow posters speak of half truths and lies, but half truth and lies is all I get out of you and the whole anti-AGW movement. I get "hey there is no consensus, look at the senate list of 400 prominent scientists". It turns out almost none are "prominent", a good hunk don't even have Phd's at all. Many of those who do don't have them in science. I get "hey, there are plenty of peer-reviewed anti-AGW papers and as proof I get a link that contains A) Pro AGW papers, Papers that are submitted to journals that no one recognizes in the scientific community and C) papers written by people lacking the proper background. I get post calling Dr Ball Canada's greatest climate scientists. They I find out why you don't like to quote from him anymore. I go to anti-AGW websites and I find information to confuse the uneducated. I find people trumpeting meaningless correlations. I find long debunked studies been shown to an audience that does not know they have been debunked. Almost the entire anti-AGW movement is based on lies and half-truths. Oil money does not automatically taint everything. But it seems rather disturbing how many global warming skeptics can be tied to oil companies. It is even more disturbing that they go to great lengths to hide their ties to big oil Furthermore this money seems to be spent on publicity rather than science. If I found out that the bicycle industry was behind a study, I would be more suspicious of it. You have to realise, however, that most of the core AGW theories were developed long before it became an issue. Most of the basic science supporting this came about long before it became a political issue. It continues to amaze me how you can figure all this stuff out yet it fools all those guys with Phds can't. Do you ever consider that maybe you are falling victim to the "lies and half truths". They had a point in the 50's ? The "junk science guy" was working for them in the in the 80's, and the climate scientist you listed said it much later than that. Do you really think you should be trusting such people ? I really think I would have a better chance getting an honest answer out of a politician than an anti-AGW "scientist"

Lets look at your list: Richard Lindzen: Receives money from oil interests and has been associated with groups that recieve money from the oil industry groups. In the past he has questioned the link between smoking and lung cancer. John Christie: He did a study with a number of individuals that "disproved" AGW. This was the one that the science fiction write used. Problem was of course, the study was crap. Most of the people who worked with him on it agree it is fataly flawed. No known connection *yet* to Exxon Spencer No knwn connection to Exxon (that fact that articles written by him have this under his name tells you a lot) Has spoken out in favor of intelligent design. At one time was part of the "it is really getting cooler" movement. Most of his old work is clearly debunked, though it comes up from time to time Pielke I have already talked about him Craig Loehle He is an ecologist. From what I can tell, his only published papers on global warming are in that journal whose editor has not taken a univeristy level science course. I really tire of this. The point is the number of scientists with RELEVANT degrees who are not paid for their opinions who are strong AGW critics is VERY small. There has been a lot more money put into global warming than the cause of ulcers. Every argument put up by anti-AGW types has been shot down by good research. Is there a 0 percent chance that AGW is wrong ? Well ...no..but its getting closer by the day. This was the EXACT argument that the tobacco companies used for years (and would have used for another centure if they could). They had the same small minority of scientists just like you do. Some of them have actually moved on to get into the big buck game of AGW denying. Lets say we take your path....not cut back on carbon output. Then we run out of oil and all the bad things you are talking about happening anyway. Peak oil renders that sort of logic moot. At our current rate of growth, we will have wiped most of our fossil fuels. I tend to post on global warming topics only because most anti-AGW stuff I read insults my intelligence. I really don't see much of a downside for Canada due to AGW (in terms of the economy anyway). We really do not have that much land that will flood, there is huge wealth in the arctic, more land will be open for farming. Peak oil on the other hand will eventually destroy our way of life.

Okay, you are saying that rising fuel prices are causing airlines to operate in an effecient manner ? You are saying it makes them concerned about flying fuel effecient aircraft. THese are good things, are they not ? I really don't like hearing about half empty airplanes flying around. I really don't see the downside here. I don't think this senario will wipe out the gains from ineffecient aircraft that never leave the ground, but if it does, you can simply move to the same system that every interstate trucker has to use. (roughly, you pay the tax where you use the fuel). Problem solved.

I think the chances of something happening are kind of remote. How many times have we heard about "Chatter" regarding a large attack ? How many times has an attack happened ? Would Hezbolah want to risk its fundraising efforts here by doing something like that ? It could be different this time because the chatter does not take media attention from the latest Bush administration scandal.....but still "chatter" has been useless in predicting anything

One good thing about this. It will be the first election in a long time over bold ideas, instead of a "you are sleazier that us" theme that we have had for a while.

I think the absolute opposite is true. This plan has two purposes. One is to address global warming but the other is to shift money from the working to the non-working. People on welfare are going to get huge credits despite the fact they don't even pay for their heating (exactly what happened the last time "energy credits" were given out". I have a friend who lives near a public housing project and he can point out three windows that stay open almost all year. These people will get big bucks, while not giving a dam about energy. It will be just like GST credits. The poor get the money, the middle-upper class pay the bills. There are things right now that would - over the long term- actually save people money. On demand hot water heaters (and/or solar assistance), hybrid cars (for some people), proper insulation, passive solar houses. All of these things would not only fight greenhouse gasses, but actually save people money. This is where the money should have been spent.

Then why are the people who publish it scientists, while the people who publish rebuttles are politicians or other non-scientists ? Why does every major scientific organization support global warming ? Are you better qualified than they are to understand what science is ?