B. Max

This is also a new one to me. Not surprising though. It's typical of the fraud and corruption with the anti smoking industry. http://www.forces.org/evidence/ets-whop/files/finn.htm

I read your link. Not sure if you read mine. Your link (which I've never heard of, and therefore has questionable credibility) claims to refute an EPA report from 1992. My link references studies much more recent, which to my knowledge have not been refuted. The National Cancer Institute is a very reputable source, and they claim the following: Do you have any evidence that the National Cancer Institute (or for that matter the refrences contain within) is presenting facts that are not correct? They are part of the anti smoking industry, what would one expect them to say. I see they are still quoting in part at least the link I posted about the EPA. In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen. The fact is there is no such way and no such study that has or can determine that.

That shouldn't be much of a problem.

There are enough legitimate studies out there that prove it is harmful. There is enough information out there that there's not much more I can contribute. I thought it was pretty much common sense. Here's a link to get you started: Link . I'm sure you can find lots more on Google. It's not a matter of legitimate studies, the studies are all the same studies. It's a matter of what the anti smoking industry claim they say. The WHO hid their first study until the british news papers found out about it and hounded it out of them. I guess you didn't read the link I posted. The judge threw out the EPA claim that tobacco smoke was a class A carcinogen. The fraud continues to be perpetrated that it is. Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification. Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long. Fact: Osteen used the term "cherry-picking" to describe he way the EPA selected their data. "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."

If the studies have been misrepresented it doesn't change the fact that second hand smoke is harmful. If the studies don't indicate that how can it be harmful.

You don't think that second hand smoke is harmful? Wow, now that's denial! Actually the anti smoking industry has history of misrepresenting the studies and out right fraud and corruption. http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

People leave Manitoba because Alberta and Saskatchwen have the oil fuelled jobs and they are not that far away from home and family. It is impossible for any gov't to compete with that no matter how enlightened. The BC ndp did exactly the same thing, and sask. biggest export was its people. Both have resources coming out their ears. Before they were thrown out the BC ndp actually bragged how they had turned BC into one big park. What they did was to park the economy.

I can't think of one province that the ndp have been allowed to set up shop in that they haven't managed to destroy. It's always the same story, people fleeing. http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists...17/2390880.html

So you are running in the next election as a separatist? No.

Is that how you create a socialist.

There is no proof that anything can be done for a problem that doesn't exist. Rewarding failure by punishing success is nothing but socialist theft.

I couldn't agree more, I fact I have the same for a long time now. It is in fact a dysfunctional country, and a country in name only. To put a different slant on a well known saying. The sins of this country can only be purged by secession.

Red my emphasis. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ Here is the home page of CRU from: School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ I am calling Bob Carter a LIAR! I don't think you know what you're talking about, I did go to the east anglia site. LOL, I just provided the link to their home page and what would you see there right there on the front page? A chart that absolutely explodes Both you and your visually impaired friend Carter. You have as yet showed what Bob was referring to that supports his claim.When will you or him? I just reread Bob Carters article and there is ZERO links in it and only one full source ( CRU at East Anglia ) mentioned.But ZERO SOURCED DATA! You really got suckered by your dear friend Bob. Man are you really paying attention here? The pummeling will continue............. I guess you don't understand to well. I have no idea what Carter looked at, but it really doesn't matter. There are plenty of graphs to back up what he says by GISS and the like. That's what is important. What ever dead horse argument you want to flog is not with me, it's with Carter.

Red my emphasis. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ Here is the home page of CRU from: School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ I am calling Bob Carter a LIAR! I don't think you know what you're talking about, I did go to the east anglia site.

Oh, is it only me saying that Global Warming is happening and if left unchecked the results will kill millions? Sorry, I hadn't realized that. A ridiculous statement no matter who makes it.

Constitution Act, 1867 Which is one of the reasons I support Ted Morton.

I must have missed the reference that he is a Communist. You can call your self little boy blue, but if you associate with communists or spew communist dogma you are a communist. Monbiot was with Respect, a party that advocates communist type policy, the politics of envy and cultural marxism. Which is economic marxism translated into cultural terms. Thanks B. Max for your definition of a communist. In support of your claim that "...to associate with communists..." makes Monbiot a communist, the wikipedia link points out: "In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement." And consistent with your logic, here's the view of one Conservative MP about Nelson Mandela: "[Honouring Nelson Mendela is a] total political-correctness poster-boy thing... He was a Communist. He was a terrorist... The Liberals always deprive us unanimous consent on all sorts of provisions. They wouldn't allow us to honour the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen with regard to their wedding anniversary..." - Conservative MP Rob Anders, explaining why he voted against a resolution to make former South African president Nelson Mendela an honourary Canadian citizen, June 6th, 2001. And here is Conservative MP Rob Anders again: "I don't think that, you know, anybody would argue that if Nelson Mandela was saying, you know, 30 years ago, that you should go around with matches and necklaces and strangle people or burn them out of their homes, that is not terrorism." - Conservative MP Rob Anders after blocking a resolution to declare former South African president Nelson Mandela an honorary Canadian citizen, June 11, 2001. Anders also implied that South Africa was better off during Apartheid than it is today. And Stephen Harper's view of Conservative MP Rob Anders: "Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work." - Stephen Harper endorsing Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders. What's your point. Are you saying there is, or is not any evidence of Monbiot being a communist. If one is elected does that then NOT, make them a communist. Monbiot suggests being elected, and then advocates global governance based on communist type ideology. With the lines blured between economic and cultural Marxism, now a days calling themselves progressives.

That is the graph I was referring to. Of course I know, but there are also others that show no warming. I simply pointed out the connection. What seems to exist is a number of climate organizations that are in large part the same people and brings into question who is really producing what for who and why. I don't really see anything to comment on. What plot is the data associated with. However I will tell you this, I asked Carter about the differences. He said it depends on how they are plotted and the difference have never been explained. But like I said there are many plots that show no warming since 98 and with different +/-. This Hadley is another one. Global near surface. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.png

Not at all Gerry. Holdly cow. Suncor said it expects capital spending of $5 billion a year for the foreseeable future. http://calsun.canoe.ca/Business/2006/11/15/2364531-sun.html

The fact is we don't know the conditions around this mine. The rest can say what they want, each mine will likely be accessed on the basis of its own conditions.

They show a lot of uncertainty and best guess. LOL, Funny that you say that since the chart you keep posting is from them. My link: HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2 Your link: HadCRUT3 Global Monthly Mean Temperture Anomolies Both are found at this single link: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm#CRUG Do pay any attention to the link addresses? Near surface. Current relative to peak recorded: -0.19 °C Source? The source is here. Why does East anglia data differ from GISS http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GISSglobal.png I see the University of East Anglia makes reference to the Tyndall Centre, a questionable outfit, http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/index.shtml making the two a questionable connection. The Tyndall Centre with connections to the British government, and who wrote much of the Stern report that was then rebuked by the UN its self. http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Document....81-687746BE6F0A

They show a lot of uncertainty and best guess. LOL, Funny that you say that since the chart you keep posting is from them. My link: HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2 Your link: HadCRUT3 Global Monthly Mean Temperture Anomolies Both are found at this single link: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm#CRUG Do pay any attention to the link addresses? Near surface. Current relative to peak recorded: -0.19 °C

It looks flat with no increase and no decrease. Just put a line through the middle from 98. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! It is mostly RED! Red means increase. Blue means decrease. You are losing this debate easily. That's not what you look at. You put a line through the middle to get the average. The average did not increase.

It looks flat with no increase and no decrease. Just put a line through the middle from 98.

They show a lot of uncertainty and best guess.