B. Max

Actually we should get out of the UN and we be better off.

I'm not surprised given that there is nothing wrong with the environment. There was a poll in the Calgary sun a while back that had radical environmentalists as one of the biggest threats to the country as the first choice. Ahead of Islamic terrorists.

Most of the scientists who report of global warming don't work for the U.N., are not paid by the U.N. not have anything to do with the U.N. That can't be said about climate change deniers and the oil industry. Yeah just like the UN has nothing to do with kyoto.

And again you back up your claim with Steve Milloy, and his discredited website. It is well known fact by those who know the facts.

He's on the lamb from US authorities for tax fraud apparently, or maybe the Oil-For-Food scandal. Not sure on details. The UN climate panel what a joke. Lets review their credibility. : Oil for palaces scandal A couple of genocides Numerous sex scandals Questionable accounting practices Some of the worst human rights abusers countries and on human rights commission.

No scientist finds your hacks credible. Your guy gets paid as a PR guy for the benefits of global warming. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/27/1738/42872 "Michaels is infamous among climate change scientists for arguing that global warming could be beneficial. In a 2004 editorial available on the Cato Institute website, he argues that "scientists exaggerate global warming [and] ignore its positive aspects." As an example, Michaels claimed that "global warming is likely to increase winds, several kilometers aloft, that actually destroy hurricanes," a pleasant fantasy that has been blown apart by numerous studies, including this one from the National Center for Atmospheric Research." I see we have us a liar here. BTW, I reserve the right to take back everything I said here if Mr. Michaels ever authors a paper stating that global warming is impossible, because the exra CO2 simply falls off the edge of the planet before any warming can occur. http://www.junkscience.com/jan99/singer.htm The carbon dioxide-warming connection: cause and effect? It has become an article of faith that CO2 increases are the cause of the warmings marking the end of the ice ages observed in the climate record in the past million years. Now comes news from precise Antarctic ice-core data that while warmings and CO2 increases are indeed correlated, the CO2 increases lag the warmings by about 1,000 years. So much for the cause-effect relationship so dear to the hearts of global-warming promoters. by idahoooo at 10:49 AM on 29 Jul 2006

If you had any science that wasn't discredited, I might not be questioning where your material comes from. The fact is it hasn't been discredited. It is the scare mongers who have been discredited.

I wish them God's speed.

What's not in B.Max's post but ought to be is the ties of the "global warming" fraud to Maurice Strong, the currently on-the-lamb financier. Or, based on the thread title, Harper should be performing the kind of forensic work Frasier did on the sponsorship program on INAC, the prison system, the gun registry and other black holes. Agreed. A warrant for his arrest should be issued to try and get to the bottom of it all.

Oh yes, Wikipedia is full of leftists. And so are any other sites who who point out that someone works for the Cato Institute and receives money from oil and gas. You don't think that oil and gas might have an ax to grind when it comes to the environment? So you yourself don't work for coal, oil or gas? No I don't and what if I did. You don't get it. It's about the science not who one works for. On the other hand the dippers are into the taxpayers for millions on this one. With the only thing green about them being their envy of oil company profits which they want to get their hands on. So far the scare mongers have nothing to back up their claims.

This is not about who works for who. Although that seems to be about the extent of the scare mongers science. That and the smear game. So if you want to play that game instead of countering the argument that arise from the facts, so be it. Your source seems to be corrupt. I've often wondered about Wikipedia because they seem to have leftist slant to them. So I did a little checking. Seems there is a class action law suit. Or will be. Much controversy anyway. http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2005/12/12/wi...action-lawsuit/

He'll get back to you. He has to check with the oil and gas industry for the proper response. Is that what your computer models are telling you these days.

I dispute that there is any proof that man made CO2 has any real connection to global warming or global cooling. There is a greenhouse effect but CO2 is minor player. So small that it can hardly be measured. Apparently the debate is not over, not that there has ever really been one. Nor have the merchants of doom and gloom ever wanted one. Their computer models which all the global warming scare mongering is based on don't even match current observations. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...global-warming/

Maybe that's why they could even get the roads built. While the size of government and spending increased out of control.

I'd prefer responsible government. Something Edmonton hasn't had for years. The latest proof came when they refused to do one of their main jobs last week and not plow the streets. Well that was until the phones started ringing off the wall at the aldermans homes. Suddenly they found responsibility.

There are five coal fired power plants in the area and six if you count inland cement. Yet there is no smog. If you take a look right at the top of one those stacks you can't see anything coming out short of some steam. They are equipped with scrubbers. C02 is not a pollutant, and as far as a greenhouse gas it hasn't been doing a very good job around here. Nah.

Ted Kennedy, who will tell people he's a "green" Senator, has blocked wind farm development off his beloved patrician Hyannis home. Hypcorisy, anyone? I wouldn't want them around me either.

Thankfully we will never see either one of these jokers get their hands on the levers of power. Every now and then they pop up like a couple of jack in the boxes and then disappear just as quickly. Reminding their voters they are still on the job and sparing the rest of us the minimum of embarrassment. http://www.630ched.com/news/news_local.cfm...=news_local.cfm

I would say they are factors in, but not in control of.

He agreed there was global warming. He didn't agree there was increased hurricanes. Everyone agrees there has been global warming and cooling throughout history.

"However, Christopher Landsea, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) National Hurricane Center in Florida, says the results are ambiguous. "We agree the potential is there for hurricanes to get worse due to man-made global warming, but the big issue is by how much," he said. " Seems that he agrees that global warming is happening. He's just not convinced about hurricanes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4751577.stm However there is one big problem. There is no proof of man made global warming, and why did they give the guy the boot.

It just keeps getting better. Remember this. FALSIFYING EVIDENCE TO WIN SUPPORT "Accurate information" and "analyzing issues" are two of many seductive euphemism that deceive the public. Truth and facts matter little. What counts are stories and "scientific" arguments that evoke the "right" response: a willingness to submit to unthinkable controls in order to save the earth. For a glimpse at the twisted data used as evidence for environmental risks, ponder the following comment by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy of Sciences: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth's climate, released "The Science of Climate Change 1995".... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process.... http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...c3-60343f461cac

Did, done but you missed it. The only thing you've proven so far is that you don't like the facts.

I guess you don't understand to well. The capacity factor is a crude but important measure of efficiency. A generating plant (whether coal, gas, nuclear or hydro) running at a 100-per-cent capacity factor means it's pumping out the juice 24/7 with no down time to fix technical glitches, and no transmission problems. Running flat out all the time is impossible. But the wind farms -- running at about a fifth of their theoretical capacity, at least in the Energy Probe analysis -- are at the low end of the scale among generators. A wind farm in Quebec, called Le Nordais, had a capacity factor of only 18 per cent in its first five years of operation. Ontario's coal plants generally run at a 70- to 80-per-cent capacity factor, the nuclear plants somewhat higher.

It's this kind of nonsense that the greems would have government throw millions of dollars at. http://www.globeadvisor.com/servlet/Articl...61130/RREGULY30