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.

No, it can't. How can you account for convective heating, expansion of the bio-mass as a carbon sink, air density and humidity, ocean temperatures from other causes, weather fronts distributing air masses, varying adiabatic lapse rates, un-measured natural sources of carbon dioxide, other GHG's in the atmosphere that are not factored into the experiment, and thousands of other contributing factors...? You cannot. Hell we can't even predict the weather, if tomorrow will bring rain or sun. It is too complex. Educated guess is the best we can hope for.

Directly stated my position in general My position directly in relation to the topic in hand Offered yet another view to my positions My end game position on the current methods of fighting pollution Had to put this one in text, a direct response to the ignorance being displayed. I offered up the links in response to the claim that all other aspects beyond Carbon Dioxide have nothing to do with the theory of global warming. I mean come on: :lol: The continual increase in solar activity has nothing to do with the climate of the planet? Really? I'm sorry but I burst out laughing when I read that. More than possible, I did my very best to spell it out plainly. The links were posted in response to wyly asking for a link proving him/her incorrect. What's being displayed is pretty much a shining example of this: But enough of this, it's gone far off topic. If it's to continue then in warrants another thread.

Did you even read anything that I just wrote? Now you're laying assumptions on what my beliefs are? Where the hell do you come up with that? I'm not searching for an alternate hypothesis, an acceptable hypothesis is yet to be reached. It will only be a matter of time before that conclusion is publically drawn, by the scientific community, even if it's true or not. Damage control from group think necessitates that regardless. I'll put it in big letters for you so it's easier. I AM NOT REFUTING THE CARBON-GREENHOUSE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY. Is that a little bit easier?

You sound like a Mormon zealot preaching. NO! NO! NO! I Have what I believe! You're wrong! I am not in any way shape or form trying to deny that we are changing the physical environment. What I am trying to explain to you, like anything else in the dynamic atmosphere, there is no way to empirically prove or disprove anything. It is not possible. There is no way to claim that global warming is directly linked to CO2 alone, just as there is no way to claim that it is directly linked to solar activity alone. It isn't physically possible, is that so hard to understand? There are too many contributing factors, to many variables. It is an infinite number of permutations, we cannot control that in an experiment. It seems clear though, that you are only interested in re-posting what everybody knows, and not considering all aspects. One of the fundamental problems we're experiencing trying to deal with this mess. What everybody knows has also been derived from cooked books, that doesn't make it any more or less true. In the early 20th century they talked of closing the patent office, because everything worth inventing was evidently invented. Striking correlation to what you sound like right now. If you like, I can post links from 100 different scientists, it seems that will make you feel it to be more true.

The dogmatism expressed is unparalleled. Just stunning.

You are honestly trying to say, that by adding heat to a closed system, it is not going to get warmer? Are...you...serious? The key factor here, is that to blame rising temperatures to solar activity alone, is as foolish as trying to blame them on carbon dioxide alone. The earth is a complex, dynamic system, the answers cannot be found in one sentence.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/093097sci-sun.html Does your car not get hot when it sits out in the sun?

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark That took 3.5 seconds. Just an increase in solar energy alone. That doesn't even account for variations in the kinds of radiation arriving, variations in magnitude of said radiation, variations of the earth's atmosphere to reflect it.....

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0

In my view, the science of it is irrelevant. Even to return to 1990 levels of pollution, there are two billion additional people on the planet. Every single one of those people has energy requirements to one extent or another, to even consider removing the last two decades of pollution there has to be a drastic reduction in standard of living for everybody on the planet, or brand new miracle technologies to move forward. Neither of those things are happening, standard of living is going up just about everywhere, and true 'green' technology is in infancy. Until one of those things changes, everything we're doing right now is a waste. Well, not entirely a waste, but trying to bail out a sinking ferry with a thimble isn't going to change the result in the long run. I've long suspected that the group of persons responsible are profiting handsomely, I'm waiting in earnest to find out if that is true.