B. Max

Evidence of what? I'll give you there is no proof of man-made global warming. But I do think there is evidence. It's not like owl-made global warming, which truely does have no evidence going for it. Here is something to actually compare. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/warming_by_design.htm

Evidence of what?

September 11 happened on Bush's watch. Iraq is totally mismanaged. Three U.S. soldiers die each day. And for what? A civil war? 911 would have been planned on Clintons watch. More Americans died in one day, the 911 day. They are fighting to see that the Islamic terrorists don't take over Iraq and then bring the war back to the US like they did on 911.

Shown you that many a time. The satellite data was corrected after it was found to be inaccurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernme..._Climate_Change Actually the lastest satellite data shows no atmospheric warming that match any observed ground warming. The stated aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to: human-induced climate change, the impacts of human-induced climate change, options for adaptation and mitigation. The stated aim should read to prove man made global warming where no evidence exists.

We couldn't do it at the time, never mind now. Without destroying the economy then or now.

If you read the woldnetdaily, you would see they have a report that the U.S. shot down their own plane Flight 93. You believe that? Republicans can claims there own financial and sexual scandals. It is Iraq though that has them on the ropes. Maybe they do so what. If the dems get power then what. The war will over. What nonsense. The war was on for years while Clinton was running the show but he wouldn't admit it or fight it and the result was 911. If the dems get power the only difference will be is battle field will once again return to the US.

That data was incorrect. What data, the satellite data. How so?

Is this the same worldnetdaily that says that the U.S. shot down Flight 93? Did they. As if that would have anything to do with it. So far the dems can claim convicted felons, illegals and now the Islamic terrorists as their base of support. Oh yeah I left somebody out. The easily duped.

It is the accepted chart. Might not be accepted by you it is the one the majority of scientists believe is correct. Funny they never mention it. All they talk about are their models. Those who are not of the doom and gloom industry us the US temperature records because they know they are reliable, and because since 79 the satellite data show a closer match to the US records.

You must live in cave not to have known about it. It's been all over both fox and cnn. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52775

I have posted that graph before and it is disputed. This is the US temperature record for the same period and it differs. As you can see there is actually a cooling since about 1940 and since 1980 no increase just a leveling. http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif Then this one which shows no correlation between co2 and temperature. http://www.john-daly.com/soi-msu2.gif

Where is the evidence CO2 is causing global warming. It's a simply question. With all the fear mongering and scare tactics going on, this board should be full of the proof. Yet not one shred of it has made it's way here. That's because it doesn't exist. What does exist are temperature records that show the temperature actually cooling while CO2 was going up.

Bush probably should have done a better job fighting the war in Iraq then, don't you think? I don't know, define a better job.

The Islamic terrorists certainly hope so. They are saying they hope the dems win. They want the dems to pull the troops out of Iraq so they can get on with destroying the US. Like Bush said, you are either with us or you are with the terrorists. Now the terrorists have confirmed that.

Because it's a waste of time.

Prove there isn't. And show some actual science rather than some discredited journalist. No you make the claim you must provide the proof. In fact there is no proof. No scientific justification means no proof. http://greenspin.blogspot.com/ The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." [Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, joint author of the new research, as quoted in The Copenhagen Post (October 4)] The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." [Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, joint author of the new research, as quoted in The Copenhagen Post (October 4)]

Prove there is man made global warming.

Probably about half the people involved in the drilling industry and that is thousands who are directly involved, and those that supply all the materials. Then on the production side, wells that aren't drilled are never brought into production. So now that goes into the area of pipeline and those who do the pipeline work, those who make the pipe and those who build the sub stations and all those who make the electrical pannels the pumps, the valves and gages and those who operate them. Investment creates jobs, and this will result in lost investment. The income trust were created to spur investment in the larger risk side of the oil business. That side of the business has grown in leaps and bounds as a result of the income trusts.

Who will foot the bill on this one? With the gains in the trust index on Friday it appears the dramatic losses about the announce have been reversed in large measure. The lowest 50% of income earning seniors are better off due to income splitting and raising the age credit. After that point there's a large chunk of seniors that break even. Maybe the top 5% of income earning seniors are truly hurt by this... What income are they going to split. Harper just grabbed that At least the income from the trusts. In fact what Harper has done is tax money twice. Once in the hands of the company, and then again in the hands of the investor. A short term gain for long term pain. This isn't about seniors it's about jobs. The people who depend on pay cheques. Who don't even qualify for income splitting. Even if they did, splitting zero in two is still zero.

It's not the rich who will foot the bill on this one. The real damage hasn't even hit yet.

Yeah if they can pick up about 28 seats in Quebec. To live in this country you have to be able to carry six knifes. One in each hand and four in the back.

Tell it to the hundreds of thousands that are going to lose their homes. Harper had better move to Quebec. He can move in beside Joe Clark on traitor street. The income trusts were created to create new junior oil companies. Companies that would go out and do exploration where the big oil companies wouldn't go anymore. When they found new reserves they sold their finds to the bigger companies to bring into production. Those that are all gloating right now likely don't remember the NEP. When it all came to a stop back then it created a recession right across the entire country. I would estimate that all the people who moved here in the last four years will soon be heading back to where they came from. Couple that with the lay offs they are going to have in Ont. most especially and it will likely take that province down.

Believe it or not he turned into a watermelon.

No we are being screwed now and that's something we know all to well. Maybe that's why you can't recognize it.

I see a lot of conservative voters staying home next election. There was no need to do this. They are running surpluses, what the hell is wrong with them. They should have been cutting the size of government. Conservatives win when they act like conservatives. What a bunch of idiots.