B. Max

The climate has been changing for ever. The fact remains there is no proof man has, had, or will ever have anything to do with it.

Actually it would require shutting down 1/3 of the economy. That is a mathematical fact.

Clearly it's name and identity are Canadian. Move to Canada and save your self.

Common sense has nothing to do with science. Common sense would only ask to produce the science to back up the claims. But then again, common sense isn't so common.

Must be on the right side. It started out as a majority of scientists, then it was 2500, now it's only 400.

Laughable to say the least. I guess when you eliminate those that disagree, you will have a consensus. So now rather the science, which they haven't produced, they substitute consensus for science. It's not surprising to see Suzuki involved in leftist corruption up to his neck. Dr. Freidrich Seitz, President emeritus of Rockefeller University, and former President of the National Academy of Sciences, said: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. Nearly all the changes worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard global warming claims." A hundred distinguished scientists, meeting in Leipzig, Germany, released a joint statement on July 10, 1996 which said: "There is still no scientific consensus on the subject of climate change. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever." From that point forward, any scientist who dared to offer research results that did not affirm the conclusions of the IPCC, has been denied invitations to participate in the IPCC studies, denied funding, and/or denigrated publicly by politically motivated scientists and/or the media. Any scientist who dares express skepticism is at once denounced as a pawn for the oil and coal industry. http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2007/hl_02051.shtml

So citing the fact that the site you yourself linked to apporvingly was using made-up figures from a neo-fascist magazine is a "smear tactic"? Dude.... Boy you got me there on the front groups. By the way: i'm still awaiting a reference to Steven Milloy's "scientific" work. George Monbiot is one of the biggest leftist liars going. I guess you didn't look that well. As usual you missed the forest for the trees. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Arti...bal_warming.pdf http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Quick: how many peer-reviewed scientific papers has Steven Milloy published on climate change? Thought so. He doesn't have to. He reports on established scientific facts. Not the mysterious so-called scientific evidence of man made global warming that they can't seem to produce. About the hockey stick: Now there's a lot of stuff in there that's quite inaccessible to the layperson, which explains the appeal of the nay side: all they have to do is stand around yelling "bullshit!" and have no obligation to present any thing themselves. But I am curious about the paucity of peer-reviewed articles definitively refuting the climate change consensus. Why, if the evidence is so clear cut, do the naysayers feel they can bypass the standard means of scientific auditing? http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734 Dr. David Legates, Delaware state climatologist and director of the Center for Climate Research at the University of Delaware, said, "The 'hockey stick' picture of dramatic temperature rise in the past 100 years following 1,700 years of relatively constant temperature has now been proven false."

An excellent example of the smear tactics of the global warming alarmists. A perfect ilustration of the phenomenon I mentioned above. Now lets take a look at the real illusion created by leftist front groups. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../17/wglac17.xml

Do you have that backwards. Millioy's sight is nothing but scientific facts. While the climate alramist have produced nothing. Well there was the hocky stick. Which was later determind to be fraud.

The only thing made made about global warming is the man made global warming hoax. Which was conjured up at the alter of politcial correctness in the cesspool of corruption. There is still no scientific consensus on the subject of climate change. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever." From that point forward, any scientist who dared to offer research results that did not affirm the conclusions of the IPCC, has been denied invitations to participate in the IPCC studies, denied funding, and/or denigrated publicly by politically motivated scientists and/or the media. Any scientist who dares express skepticism is at once denounced as a pawn for the oil and coal industry. http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2007/hl_02051.shtml

A rather ridiculous statement. If you want to live in a hermit kingdom move to north Korea. Where they are fully in compliance with kyoto and dark ages thinking. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...k/dprk-dark.htm

Gore doesn't tell you a lot of things. Like the fact that glaciers have also been growing around the world. http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

I guess they'll have to wait a few months or maybe never to analyze the science behind the report. If they indeed ever release it. The report is nothing but fraud and another political document. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...9a-94da29b65178

http://inhofe.senate.gov/floorspeeches.htm As it turns out, Kyoto's objective has nothing to do with saving the globe. In fact it is purely political. A case in point: French President Jacques Chirac said during a speech at The Hague in November of 2000 that Kyoto represents "the first component of an authentic global governance." So, I wonder: are the French going to be dictating U.S. policy? Margot Wallstrom, the EU's Environment Commissioner, takes a slightly different view, but one that's instructive about the real motives of Kyoto proponents. She asserted that Kyoto is about "the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Addition : The treaty would have required the U.S. to reduce its emissions 31% below the level otherwise predicted for 2010. Put another way, the U.S. would have had to cut 552 million metric tons of CO2 per year by 2008-2012. As the Business Roundtable pointed out, that target is "the equivalent of having to eliminate all current emissions from either the U.S. transportation sector, or the utilities sector (residential and commercial sources), or industry."

As this article points out. If the science is so solid and humans are causing global warming. Drag it out. http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/241518,...STEYN04.article The stern report was a bunch of nonsense.

The CBC and bilingualism have a lot in common. They both cost us billions a year for nothing.

The CBC has about as much credibility as the UN.

Every scientist who has looked at the so called evidence has concluded the global warming alarmists are full of crap. Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...06fef8763c6&k=0

So what. Those numbers don't change. The stern report was another political document and had nothing to do with science.

"...there will be consequences." Now that's a scary political party. Has Dion been getting political advice from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez? They are cut from the same cloth.

Mark Holland eastern liberal MP let the cat out of the bag earlier this week live on Adler. When he announced the Liberals plan to impose what would be the NEP 2 under the guise of environmental protection. The Liberals were worried that if Alberta and the West became too rich, Ottawa would lose some of its ability to dictate national policy. Ideas other than the Liberals' might become influential and that would never do. http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...14-f9bf33b29e24

Actually here are the numbers. As opposed to the myths dreamed up by the global warming alarmists. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

As some scientists have put it, the UN's fourth assessment is not a scientific paper, but rather a political document. Which the global warming alarmists will add to rest of their junk science, misleading information and out right lies and fabrications. Example the Mann and Jones hocky stick. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734