B. Max

Wrong, the people of alberta own the resources within the province. In fact, in 1930 all interests in natural resources were transfered from the fed to the provinces of AB. BC. SK. MB. http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/...sh/ca_1930.html No, I am sorry, but ut is yu who is wrong. You'll find nothing anywhere that says the people of a province own the resources. What you fnd is that the provincil crowns have administrative authority over them. Look it up. No you are wrong. This is what you claim doesn't exist, and obviously it does. The province, meaning the people. Try and tell aberta that it doesn't own its resources and you will be met with arms. Transfer of Public Lands Generally 1. In order that the Province may be in the same position as the original Provinces of Confederation are in virtue of section one hundred and nine of the Constitution Act, 1867, the interest of the Crown in all Crown lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom with the Province, and all sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall, from and after the coming into force of this agreement and subject as therein otherwise provided, belong to the Province, The word belong, means to own in anyones interpretation.

I note only that Layton prefers to ignore why this is a controversial issue. It is controversial because many Canadians are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage. uncomfortable would be an understatement. The idea that filth could be elevated to marriage and that that somehow makes it equal is down right sickening.

Wrong, the people of alberta own the resources within the province. In fact, in 1930 all interests in natural resources were transfered from the fed to the provinces of AB. BC. SK. MB. http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/...sh/ca_1930.html The feds now try to control natural resources within the provinces using the environment as a guise and means to control. Even though the environment its self is a provincial matter. Constituting more lawless government. We want nothing to do with the crackpot and corrupt ideas they sign onto at the cesspool of corruption known as the UN. As far as albertans are concerned, the east needs to keep their federal government on a leash, like any vicious dog would be restrained.

Yes a knife registry sounds good. Would ten billion be enough to make it as successful as the failed gun registry.

If you would look at the equalization process Oh i have, and like everyone else who has looked at it, except for those on the dole end, it should really be called an extortion process and a stick to keep the provinces in line. However theft by any other name is still theft.

What this country needs is a federal government that respects the constituion, not the lawless federal government it has. That there are two remaining contributing provinces left is testiment to the failure of centralized government that oversteps its authority. The sooner it disintegrates the better off we'll all be. See the canadian cow for eureka's version of centralized government. http://www.truckspeaker.com/img96.gif COLUMNIST Wed, January 19, 2005 Milking the Canadian cow By JANET L. JACKSON -- Calgary Sun With Newfoundland flying the Canadian flag again, should we be happy to see the Maple leaf re-hoisted and continue to be upset that Premier Danny Williams dared defy an arrogant Ottawa by using our national symbol? ** Remainder of post removed due to copyright infrintment **

Sounds like global cooling to me.

I don't have to prove anything of the kind. It is up to the chicken littles to prove that it does. So far they are batting zero.

It would seem that there are those that do know. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/englund5.html please name the source of financing for the 'tree huggers' It is actually big business, who's revenues come largely from the everyday uninformed willing dupes of the country or their taxes which are first extorted, and then handed over to the likes of the UN.

Please prove three things. Global warming, climate change, and that man has, or ever will cause either of the two.

Inorganic crude: much ado about nothing That's putting in mildly. Abiotic oil: science or politics? So as long as your admonishing others to "deal in facts, not assumtions, myths or outright lies that are used as attempts to gain power", you might want to start by setting an example. Like those damned pinkos in the Pentagon? I put forward no lies or made no assumptions. If these wells are indeed refilling, they are refilling, regardless of the source. Also if they are refilling, why would one have to drill a new hole that was deeper. The article you posted makes that assumption. Nor did i, or the article i posted make any assertions as to what rate oil might or might not be created. All oil regardless of how it is created does not always contain the same makeup. For instance. Oil found in placeses like texas contains little or no H2s, where as in alberta, it is found in deadly concentrations that have to be extracted and dealt with. Even in alberta those concentrations differ from area to area. Oil is also found at different depths. Some oil is deep, some is not. Much of the oilsands is near the surface, but not all. Some is a depths of eleven hundred meters. The greatest threat at this time to up and down stream production are the treehugger whacos who are doing everything they can to cause a production crisis. These watermelons need to be fully exposed for what they are. Green on the outside and red on the inside. I'm also aware of the pentagon report that was produced by clinton appointments and turned out to be a scenario, and just another despot tactic and legacy from the years of clinton treachery.

Apparently ever well does not run dry. Possibly another echo scare tactic debunked. We nead to deal in facts, not assumtions, myths or outright lies that are used as attempts to gain power. Liberals continue to claim global warming even though there is no evidence let alone proof of any of their claims. Sustainable oil? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: May 25, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Chris Bennett © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana lies a mostly submerged mountain, the top of which is known as Eugene Island. The portion underwater is an eerie-looking, sloping tower jutting up from the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, with deep fissures and perpendicular faults which spontaneously spew natural gas. A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late '60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil. By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s. Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a "deep fault" at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source. SPONSORED LINKS The New York Times Home Delivery Your exclusive source for the most current political, national and international news, including Campaign 2004. Now have The New York Times delivered to your home starting at just $2.40/wk. www.nytimes.com/sb-subscription Subscribe to USA Today Subscribe to daily delivery of USA Today and get up to 8 weeks free and an online discount rate as a low as $2.00 per week, 47% off the newsstand price! Act now and get one free bonus gift. www.bestmagsdirect.com Similar results were seen at other Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Similar results were found in the Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska. Similar results were found in oil fields in Uzbekistan. Similarly in the Middle East, where oil exploration and extraction have been underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves have doubled. Currently there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 680 billion barrels of Middle East reserve oil. Creating that much oil would take a big pile of dead dinosaurs and fermenting prehistoric plants. Could there be another source for crude oil? An intriguing theory now permeating oil company research staffs suggests that crude oil may actually be a natural inorganic product, not a stepchild of unfathomable time and organic degradation. The theory suggests there may be huge, yet-to-be-discovered reserves of oil at depths that dwarf current world estimates. The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows: Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system – huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth. At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil. Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas." In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs. In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes. Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan. Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil. There are a number of observations across the oil-producing regions of the globe that support this theory, and the list of proponents begins with Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements) and includes Dr.Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas. In his 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Dr. Gold presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation. He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated fossils or even current surface life. He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry – oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil. Where then did it come from? Another interesting fact is that every oil field throughout the world has outgassing helium. Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product. Even more intriguing is evidence that several oil reservoirs around the globe are refilling themselves, such as the Eugene Island reservoir – not from the sides, as would be expected from cocurrent organic reservoirs, but from the bottom up. Dr. Gold strongly believes that oil is a "renewable, primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs." Smaller oil companies and innovative teams are using this theory to justify deep oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, among other locations, with some success. Dr. Kenney is on record predicting that parts of Siberia contain a deep reservoir of oil equal to or exceeding that already discovered in the Middle East. Could this be true? In August 2002, in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US)," Dr. Kenney published a paper, which had a partial title of "The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum." Dr. Kenney and three Russian coauthors conclude: The Hydrogen-Carbon system does not spontaneously evolve hydrocarbons at pressures less than 30 Kbar, even in the most favorable environment. The H-C system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with that environment. He was quoted as stating that "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century." Deeply entrenched in our culture is the belief that at some point in the relatively near future we will see the last working pump on the last functioning oil well screech and rattle, and that will be that. The end of the Age of Oil. And unless we find another source of cheap energy, the world will rapidly become a much darker and dangerous place. If Dr. Gold and Dr. Kenney are correct, this "the end of the world as we know it" scenario simply won't happen. Think about it ... while not inexhaustible, deep Earth reserves of inorganic crude oil and commercially feasible extraction would provide the world with generations of low-cost fuel. Dr. Gold has been quoted saying that current worldwide reserves of crude oil could be off by a factor of over 100. A Hedberg Conference, sponsored by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, was scheduled to discuss and publicly debate this issue. Papers were solicited from interested academics and professionals. The conference was scheduled to begin June 9, 2003, but was canceled at the last minute. A new date has yet to be set.

No. The main debate is over whether the phenomenon of climate change is caused or facilitated by human activity. So when global warming fails the test of science you trot out climate change. Well the climate has been changing since day one. Everyone knows that. However climate is something that can only be measured over thousands of years, and those thousands of years have to pass, not be predicted in order to be able to make a measurement. Now according to measurements over the last 40 years we are in a cooling trend. Not a warming trend like the fearmongers would have us believe. That throws the entire greenhouse gas think out the window. Of course some are still pushing the old faultiy computer models for the more easily fooled. Cover Story Global warming through the crystal ball by Judi McLeod, Canadafreepress.com January 18, 2005 With the world looking at the wake of South Asia’s devastating tsunamis, Canadian geographers are looking at warmer summers they claim are headed our way--50 years from now. A new study published by Dan Scott, a University of Waterloo geographer, says even the most cautious projections indicate that climate change will bring a major boost for tourism in the Land of the Maple Leaf. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The boost could even erase Canada’s $1.7 billion international tourism deficit, largely created by people fleeing long Canadian winters. "If we’re slightly above zero in average temperatures for half the winter, then I’m not out of here to someplace south," Scott, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Change and Tourism," told the Toronto Star. The global changes of half a century away are slated to create perfect conditions. Not only would Canada’s "snowbird" population melt away like a summer afternoon’s ice cream cone, sweltering hot summers south of the border would drive more American "sunbirds" over the Canadian border in search of our relatively cooler and less humid conditions. According to some geographers, global warming can cure anything, and even melt away the frosty anti-Americanism that thrives in socialist dominated Canada. The local weatherman might often be off the mark. But Scott used technology, basing his analysis on computer-projected changes in seven climate variables important to tourists–maximum and average daily temperatures, minimum and average daily humidity, precipitation, sunshine and winds–combined into overall rating. Under a more extreme climate change scenario for 2050, only two U.S. cities had "desirable tourism climates" in July, while 17 Canadian cities still rated ideal or excellent. By 2080, however that number dropped to nine as Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa all became too hot and muggy for comfort with average temperatures as much as 9C higher. Big benefits will also be headed Canada’s way by virtue of stretching out the summer tourism season, as the "very good" climate line for April is pushed 1,200 kilometers north across a large swath in central North America. At that time, the tourism climate in May and June becomes reliably welcoming across most of the country. Guess some geographers have never read Fight Kyoto author Ezra Levant’s explanation of global warming. "Using computers to predict the future is simply a high-tech veneer over the plain fact that climate modeling is sheer guesswork," Levant wrote. "Dr. Vincent Gray, one of the expert reviewers on the UN’s IPCC climate science panel, points out that no UN climate model has ever successfully predicted any climate sequence. How could a model possibly predict the climate one year–or one hundred years–into the future, if it cannot predict tomorrow? "Future forecasts presented by the IPCC are nothing but informed, but heavily biased guesses, processed by untested models. The forecasts are therefore easily manipulated to comply with current political expectations or demands." Yet Scott insists that his study provides an economic perspective for governments dealing with climate change. The predicted warmer summers coming our way 50 years from now are not the worry of the masses. It’s the estimated more than $1 billion cost of meeting Kyoto greenhouse gas targets creating sleepless nights. Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the media. A former Toronto Sun and Kingston Whig Standard columnist, she has also appeared on Newsmax.com, the Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and World Net Daily. Judi can be reached at: [email protected].

A good insight into the thinking of the crackpots that drive all the environmental nonsense. These people are all in the same league as the paul pots of the world. Environmentalists don't really have a problem with CO2 (what tree hugger could object to plant food?) but rather with energy and humanity's use thereof. Misanthropist quotes are abundant in the movement, here's a few from The Environmentalists' Little Green Book, U.S. Chamber of Commerce (ISBN:0-615-11628-0): "Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." -- Paul "Population Bomb" Ehrlich. "Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover the source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." -- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute. "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (the so-called Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro. "We've already had too much economic growth in the US. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." -- Ehrlich again. "The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles." -- Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary to the Smithsonian Institution. "The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world." -- John Shuttleworth, FoE manual writer. "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S.. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." -- Michael Oppenheimer, senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund. "People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this (ban of DDT) is as good a way as any." Charles Wurster, Environmental Defense Fund. "Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape." -- John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club. "The world has a cancer, and the cancer is man." Alan Gregg, former longtime official of the Rockefeller Foundation. They don't like people and they are quite prepared to use any excuse to inhibit enabling technology, chemicals and affordable energy. Why are we pursuing a course set by people haters?

Many of the posts on this topic show the pure selfishness of the human race. Nonsense, those of us who do not buy into the global warming fear mongering, do so based on the facts. Global warming and all the resulting cataclysm is a hoax. The claims of the global warming crowd have all been debunked and proven to be total frauds, leaving them to attack the messenger rather than defend their claims with science and fact. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260

You really don't know what you're talking about. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm The two greatest breakaways in researchable history have happened in the last five years: one is now going on. Yes natural breakaways because the ice is always moving until it reaches a point where it can nolonger support its own weight. How does that bear on what the oil fields are doing to the climate? The oilfields are doing nothing to the climate. They are however driving much of the economy in the country.

Why would should we have to pay blackmail to a bunch despot run third world backwaters for our existance. There won't be any going back. Once business and the jobs leave they won't be coming back. Who's going set up a business in a country where failure is a certainy and the ones that already exist are moving out. That's the business side. The people without work and who have lost everything they've worked all their lives for, only to lose it to a bunch of traitorous nonsense won't be sitting around starving to death like a buunch of good little sheep.

This memorable quotation is from Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian, he was widely known in his time and was professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University in the late 18th century. The quotation is from the 1801 collection of his lectures: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

When armed with the truth that come froms knowing the facts, there is nothing to fear. The fear mongers and alarmists who use scare tactics in stead of sound science to force their agendas do so because there is no science based in fact to back up their claims. Filling their pockets depends on the uninformed sheepeople who would bah with puppy dog eyes even at thought of the return of PET. Now that would be something to fear. Otherwise, there is nothing to fear but fear its self. As churchhill once said. Fortunately there are those who won't be led around by the nose or dance the tune of the ehco alarmists and enemies from without or within. http://humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6212

Susuki can add liar to his resume. http://www.john-daly.com/stations/suzuki.htm What leftists trot out as science to prove global warming is nothing more than a collection of chicken little stories based on little else but junkscience, misleading information and outright lies. The socalled scientists who claim global warming, base their theories on faulty computer models. Models which they can't even make match the historical temperature records, but use to predict the future. Whenever you heard them using the word model, that is what they are refering to.

I'm not surprised susuki would be a CBC poster boy. Neither have every produced anything of value. In stead, both have a proven track record of sucking the public trough for their existance. With leftwing lies and slander being their only stock and trade.

What does that have to do with percentages, and while you're at it please tell the class what the socalled global warming has to do with the earthquake and resulting tsunamis. At best it is the worst of the left and their attempt to score political milage at the expense of people suffering a natural disaster.

This wouldn't be another susuki story would it. The lefties sure like that junkscience. http://www.john-daly.com/stations/suzuki.htm

Right.......and the moon is made of green cheese....... Baby, global warming is a FACT pure and simple. Winters for the most part are cooler, less snow is falling, hell I drove to Penticton to visit my mother for Christmas, and there was bugger all snow on the mountains and the roads were bone dry all the way there. This is very unusual for this time of the year and does not bode well for the up coming summer forest fire season in BC. But go ahead, continue denying the evidence, burn fossile fuels like there is no tomorrow, consume and spend at an ever increasing rate.....after all, you probably only have between 40 to 60 years left in your alloted lifespan and should be dead before the real hardcore impacts of global warming hit. Right.......and the moon is made of green cheese....... Yes, no doubt caused by global warming. Fact, there is no global warming which is born out by the historical temperature records. Not by your little trip through the mountains which means nothing. There is not the slightest evidence, never mind proof that fossile fuels have any effect what so ever. Of course you refer to the co2 scare tactics of the junk science crowd. Who fail to inform people that co2 makes up about 2% of all greenhouse gases. With water vapor being the most prevalent of all. That sure doesn't bode well for using hydrogen for fuel. Putting all that greenhouse gas in the air might cause global warming. Jr, not all that long ago, Lake Okanagon would freeze solid in the winter. They used loaded rail barges as ice breakers to create a passage, and when the ice was too thick, they blasted it with dynamite....that was the norm......except in the past three decaded, that lake has not froze...indeed, you are lucky to get freezing along the shoreline. But please, keep denying the evidence......like I said, you most likely will be dead and cold before the full impact hits us....pity your grandchildren and their kids will have to pay the price. Well pops perhaps you have become challenged in your elderly years. The nearest historical records to that area in davenport washington indicated a slight cooling since 1940 as do the overall records. A time when echo whaco's claim global warming. Something they've been unable to prove. http://www.john-daly.com/stations/davnport.gif http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

Right.......and the moon is made of green cheese....... Baby, global warming is a FACT pure and simple. Winters for the most part are cooler, less snow is falling, hell I drove to Penticton to visit my mother for Christmas, and there was bugger all snow on the mountains and the roads were bone dry all the way there. This is very unusual for this time of the year and does not bode well for the up coming summer forest fire season in BC. But go ahead, continue denying the evidence, burn fossile fuels like there is no tomorrow, consume and spend at an ever increasing rate.....after all, you probably only have between 40 to 60 years left in your alloted lifespan and should be dead before the real hardcore impacts of global warming hit. Right.......and the moon is made of green cheese....... Yes, no doubt caused by global warming. Fact, there is no global warming which is born out by the historical temperature records. Not by your little trip through the mountains which means nothing. There is not the slightest evidence, never mind proof that fossile fuels have any effect what so ever. Of course you refer to the co2 scare tactics of the junk science crowd. Who fail to inform people that co2 makes up about 2% of all greenhouse gases. With water vapor being the most prevalent of all. That sure doesn't bode well for using hydrogen for fuel. Putting all that greenhouse gas in the air might cause global warming.