Goat Boy©

,

The poll is meaningless, especially 3.5 years prior to election. The NDP just can't help but shoot themselves in the foot. More Moe for B.C. NDP as Sihota named president That, is not going to fly well around here. The last election should have been served on a Solid Gold platter, but they just can't pull it together.

I will be far more likely to offer help to that which lacks the means to help itself. (Domesticated or injured animals) Human beings have the capacity to pick themselves back up and try again, that's life, and a big part of it. We have millionaires in Canada that used to be homeless, and most people that think they need help have more resources available to them than they realize.

Apologies, that lacked clarity. You could say I was speaking figuratively, the intent was not specific.

Yeah that too.

I'd prefer not to say.

I am speechless that my Liberal MP isn't on that list, if he didn't make it those folks are serious offenders. In response to the question, my opinion is a very big NO. I was collecting them from the junk mail box beside my mail box for a while. Sent them all back, the Liberals got a note asking them to recycle and be 'green', couldn't think of a good line for the Torys.

What are the odds that Afghanistan becomes Iraq in fact as well as colloquialism by the time the yanks are finished? I don't believe for one second that Obama Afghanistan-Pakistan will fare any better than Bush Iraq. Get the F out now, while we still can.

Agreed, quotes are nestled backward. And the quote has nothing to do with the suns effect on earth, it simply refutes the statement that "The suns output has been very low," as incorrect. That is all. Anyways, once again, enough. I don't wish to derail this topic any further with rubbish.

Let there be no misunderstanding, the disputed point is this: The Sun increases in both size and intensity every year. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980218c.html And this alone. Excuse me for trying to shake the common sense tree, I've mentioned my wish to take this back on topic several times.

That was my post, the link was a C & P typo. The text holds true. Since edited to the correct link. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15419&view=findpost&p=486337

I've been holding this back for courtesies sake.....you're an idiot. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif You're graph proves me correct. Solar Iradiance, as I stated, is always trending on the rise. If you expand that many thousands of years you'll see a graph of something on the order of Y=(.00001)X, it's estimated to be an increase of about .05% per decade with variance as is evidenced. Factoring the 11 year cycle, expand that graph to today and you will see quite an increase above the 1970 level, but regardless, measured intensity remains above 1970 levels anyways. But hell, here's a claim for you: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/nationalscience/093097sci-sun.html Enjoy you last laugh, I'm shaking my head.

Already been cases of it happening, check this: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15419&view=findpost&p=486337 I have no idea who the 3rd party should be, I'm in no position to be the judge of that. All I offer are my opinions. I think though, we should all agree, that this warrants an investigation.

Who are you to say what plays a role and what doesn't? Why the tunnel vision? Why not look at the grand scope of things? There are thousands of factors that impact the worlds climate, why carbon dioxide alone? What about methane, H2O, natural sources of carbon, the level of biomass on the ground? All of these things play an important role. Without question, CO2 by all present data appears to be the most important, but what have we missed? We've missed something in just about every human endeavor in history, why is there no fear now? What are the consequences if we're wrong? The only thing there is a consensus of opinion on is that the world is warming and we are the cause. What the specifics are, how, why, what can be done.....lots of disparity. Science doesn't prove, it predicts: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_notwrong.html One of many thousands of articles, even the scientists will agree on that one.

That is exactly the point of this thread, and this controversy. It's alleged that the perpetrators subjugated the peer review process to continue the use of incorrect data. Consider the worst case scenario. For samples sake, say 1000 scientists are studying climate change, using data collected from 15 scientists. If the raw data from those 15 scientists is cooked, all of the work becomes useless. Absolute worst case scenario, and certainly alarmist, but given the stakes involved, without question warrants 3rd party investigation IMHO. This CRU was on the forefront of climate data collection.