B. Max

That's simply not true. http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html Yes they have an agenda. To get the truth out. The truth of scientific facts. As opposed to those who fear monger with their chicken little man made global warming which is based on junk science, misleading information and outright lies. When it comes to a technical science area Ill trust a scientist group over a political policy group (especially one with an agenda, that isnt about truth, and everything about the economy and profits). As far as misleading information I took a direct example from the site you gave. The site tries to mislead people into thinking an increase in CO2 doesnt matter because water vapour is the most abundant in the atmosphere. An increase in CO2, against constant water vapour, is still an overall increase in gas. What does water vapour being more abundant have to do with anything? The policy group does not do the science they display the research of others that do. On the other hand those that run around claiming the sky is falling are those who have a vested interest in keeping the reasearch grants coming. Water vapour is the major green house gas. Not Co2. There is no correlation between Co2 and temperature losses and gains. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i...mblings-of.html The policy group chooses scientists that will get them the results they want. Im not going to argue that not all scientists agree with global warming. But your unwillingness to accept bias in the group you cite is ridiculous. "Those that run around claiming that the ski is falling" will get research grants from universities, museums etc no matter what they are saying...theres always money for research grants. "Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas" Yes it is, but the total greenhouse effect is the result of the total gases in the atmosphere...which is the most abundant is not relevant. It doesnt matter which gas is added to the atmosphere there is still more gas in it and the result is a higher greenhouse effect. Ill make an easier example for you. There is a parking lot with 100 spots....95 spots are flled with honda civics the other 5 with ford mustangs. The parking lot is full. Now I could jam cars in there and not put them in stalls and create a mess. Does it matter if I jam in a mustang or a civic? No it just matters that I jam in a car. "There is no correlation between Co2 and temperature losses and gains." Now find me one scientist who doesnt believe that there is a greenhouse effect. Dont forget that it is an effect that is very necessary for our survival...we'd all be in parkas if it wasnt for it. It is a naturally occuring effect. The intensity of the effect, however, can be changed. When you take CO2 from the earth and throw it into the atmosphere you change the intensity of the greenhouse effect. Scientists will argue over how large the effect will be, how much gas is necessary for how large an effect, but there is an effect. No they choose the scientists with the best factual research. I think all scientists agree Co2 has some greenhouse effect but they don't agree it is driving any unnatural climate change. Nor has it been proven to. Did all of the greenhouse gases suddenly disappear and cause the last ice age. The correlation I referred to, is the non correlation between historic Co2 levels and historic temperature levels. That in its self is probably some of the best evidence you can come up with. Your car analogy is just as removed from the subject at hand as the computer models they use to predict global warming. Models that can't be made to correlate with the known historical temperature records, or of even last year will have zero credibility predicting the future.

They are slowing down yes, but there is still plenty to do. Drilling continues to this day in most of the first fields that were discovered in Alberta. It is the oil companies who are cutting back budgets for various reasons. Some of it due to inflation and some of it due to government foot dragging with permits. The oil companies are getting pissed off and I don't really blame them. The permit thing has become ridiculous. The environment department along with the rest of this government needs a real good house cleaning. You can't compare the cost of conventional oil recovery and the cost of oil sands recovery. The difference in the royalty rate is due to the high initial start up costs for oil sands before production starts. Investors are not going to lay out billions of dollars to build an oil sands plant and then when it comes into production watch the government take the money before they recover their costs. We have a government again, who's spending is out of control and who is spending like drunken sailors on feel goods while at the same time have no money to complete the road projects which is one of their main areas of responsibilities. Highway 43 and 63 being two good examples.

That's simply not true. http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html Yes they have an agenda. To get the truth out. The truth of scientific facts. As opposed to those who fear monger with their chicken little man made global warming which is based on junk science, misleading information and outright lies. When it comes to a technical science area Ill trust a scientist group over a political policy group (especially one with an agenda, that isnt about truth, and everything about the economy and profits). As far as misleading information I took a direct example from the site you gave. The site tries to mislead people into thinking an increase in CO2 doesnt matter because water vapour is the most abundant in the atmosphere. An increase in CO2, against constant water vapour, is still an overall increase in gas. What does water vapour being more abundant have to do with anything? The policy group does not do the science they display the research of others that do. On the other hand those that run around claiming the sky is falling are those who have a vested interest in keeping the reasearch grants coming. Water vapour is the major green house gas. Not Co2. There is no correlation between Co2 and temperature losses and gains. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i...mblings-of.html

That's kinda like predicting the weather in Alberta. The Oil sands are only a part of the oil patch. There are billions invested every year in conventional oil. Take Grande Prairie for instance. It is a boom town / city and there isn't an oil sands plant within about 500 miles of it as the crow flys. I tell you things are starting to slow down and people are just now beginning to talk about it. This winter will tell the tail. As for the oil sands, the government made a good deal as far as royalties are concerned. The ones that have been raising all the fuse about it are the same ones trying to kill off any new plants.

betsy What's more of a public service than... well... a public service ? That is - a civil wedding ? I support the right of the taxi drivers to not drive booze, but the company is within its rights to demand that any new drivers they hire agree to carry booze in their cabs. And JPs who have been performing weddings throughout their careers should be allowed to decline a same-sex ceremony. Now THAT is consistent. Well at least they don't chop your neck for having booze. At least not yet. I wonder what would happen if a couple of same sex perverts tried getting in their cabs.

I remember when Kennedy sent the first group of 100 troops to vietnam. If fact, I remember when Eisenhower was still president.

That's simply not true. http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html Yes they have an agenda. To get the truth out. The truth of scientific facts. As opposed to those who fear monger with their chicken little man made global warming which is based on junk science, misleading information and outright lies.

That's simply not true. http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

They all thought it was a great deal when Alberta was going to be screwed but now the chickens are coming home to roost. http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...c54&k=41963

Maybe we better have a look at Frist's e-mail too. Some one should tell Frist that we've already been down the appeaser road and it led to 911.

The glaciers have been melting since the end of the last ice age. That can't be changed unless we have another ice age. You are only buying into all the fear mongering Get a grip on yourself.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...379&k=79240 Given that he's assisting Rona Ambrose that's pretty disturbing. Actually he sounds like he could be prime minister material. Is this what they mean by the science of global warming. A fictional movie. The media has been part of campaign to hype global warming through fear mongering of outright lies. I have to agree with the CP member who earlier this year said that journalists who tell lies should be sent to jail. http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264308

Translation: "Russians are coming, the Russians are coming...". We lived through a period of insane paranoia and fear in the 50s and 60s. The soviet empire collapsed under its own weight without us lifting a finger. The same will happen to Mulsim theocracies in a generation or so. Actually the Russians were coming. Thanks to the US and at the last, the determination of Reagan the soviet union did collapse, but it took the lifting off many fingers. Although I believe under Poutin that is beginning to to reverse.

Christians were as bad - if not worse than Muslims during Medieval times. Christianity has only become a civilized religion in the last 200 years or so as Christian societies became more secular. So references to medievil Islam means nothing. If you are so convinced that Mulsims want to take over the world then give me one example (other than Isreal) where a Mulsim country has invaded a non-Mulsim country in the last 50 years? I exclude Isreal because Isreal was a majority Muslim country until the British/UN decided carve out a new state. Just about every western country has been invaded within the last thirty years by Muslim fifth columnists who have already been causing trouble proportionately to their numbers. Historical Islam has changed very little over time. The only thing that has kept them relatively at bay is the last good ass kicking Christians gave them when their ivasion of Europe was turned around. Unfortunately secular humanism has corrupted western countries and the Christian church.

That link presents a one-sided interpretation of medieval history, jumps to talk about how minority groups are treated poorly within muslim societies today and then makes the assertion without proof or evidence that Muslims want to take over the world. It is proof of nothing. Other than the fact it is factual history and the fact they have said they are intent on world conquest the only other option is denial.

And do you have any facts to back up this paranoid vision? Random rantings of some Mullah taken out of context do not consititute proof of anything. You can't take this out of context, you can only be in denial. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24592

Or what, we'll invade them. he he he

I noticed that many posters on this forum seem to think that Muslims all want us dead. Such a view is so absurd and unsupported by any facts that I find it difficult to to believe that a rational person would truely believe it. People who insist on holding such beliefs are, IMO, more dangerous to our socity than any terrorist. Where did someone say all. Not that it matters, Jack taliban wants to negotiate with the type that do.

Saddam Hussein planned, financed and executed September 11? Did he. I didn't know that.

CTVWhat makes this one disturbing is that drivers noticed falling cement about an hour before the collapse and notified Transport Quebec. This is what Transport Quebec did: Blogue---- This will turn into a scandal in Quebec concerning deteriorating infrastructure, public sector cuts, taxes and what government does. Sadly, I don't think it will force a re-examination of why Quebec is the highest taxed jurisdiction in North America and yet it has government bridges that fall down and kill people. Instead, it will eventually turn into a debate about sovereignty. They are saying on the news this morning that this overpass had a life expectancy of seventy years. Right off the bat I'm inclined to suspect corruption during some phase of construction. How many others are waiting to fall down.

In all likelihood, yes. When you have guys like Jack Taliban ready to hoist the white flag and negotiate the terms of surrender with people that either want us dead or converted you have to wonder what he would negotiate. How many buildings they can blow up or crash planes into before we retaliate.

You have a sexual predator of children as chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus and another guy who is chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public works who calls Global Warming a hoax. What the H is wrong with Republicans? Is it a failing of the rightwing brain? It is a hoax. What's wrong with liberals. http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issue...sing-school.htm

This will be seen for what it is in Alberta for sure. It is about catering to votes in Quebec as far as the oil and gas industry is concerned. Ambrose has said no buying of the phony foriegn carbon credits, but she didn't say anything about the same phony credits with in the country. Quebec already has one of these phony markets set up and just waiting for this federal legislation. This how I see it, Quebec companies bleed Alberta companies through these phony markets. Hopefully the oil companies begin to fund Alberta secession rather than be sucked into the red tory/ Quebec extortion racket.

Like before Alberta has a spending problem not a revenue problem. There won't be anybody moving here because the jobs have already started to disappear.

Emissions controls and taxation are very controversial in Alberta. They will make this an issue about Alberta being stuck with the bill. The proper word is betrayal. It is one of the strongest motives for murder. This will be seen in Alberta as the selling out of Alberta to cater to Quebec. Albertans would likely put up with catering to Quebec, but they will not stand for the destruction of Alberta's economy to cater to Quebec. The oil companies don't have to do anything, they will simply cut back operations which they have already begun to do. In the north Apache has cut it's drilling budget for this year by 30%, Encana cut theirs by 100%. If i were a new comer in Alberta, say with in the last ten years and had a house with a big mortgage on it. I'd be putting a for sale sign on it today and moving back to where I came from and where the welfare is likely better.