Does John Baird have an education?

[Michael Bluth]

Grow up conservatives!

You can dish it out, but you can't seem to take it... friggin' babies.

Here are some examples: Out of politeness I will not name the poster(s)

...spewing your communist propaganda.

...you Socialist replace our traditions & cultural beliefs with your Communist Diarrhea....

...Global Warming it's now a religion for the feeble minded.

Grow up and take it or leave the forum.

1. Calling people babies is not really conducive to intelligent debate.

2. Leaving your examples unnamed isn't 'politeness'. Tarring all 'conservatives' with a brush of a poster you won't name isn't fair at all.

3. Don't believe you are a moderator, so pardon me for not taking your admonition to 'group and take it or leave'.

Edited December 28, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Drea]

So it's perfectly ok for conservatives to use vile language and insults but not ok the other way around.

Like I said, it's time to grow up -- we are not in grade 5 and the moderators are not your babysitters. "She said a meeeaaaan word!".

Did the "left" report the poster when she spewed her vile crap? No.

Frig.

Anyone even one millimetre from the right is labelled a commie and yet you freak out when you are told to grow up or when innocuously called a "republican"?

Friggin baby.

[Michael Bluth]

So it's perfectly ok for conservatives to use vile language and insults but not ok the other way around.

Never said it was ok for anyone to use vile language and insults.

Did the "left" report the poster when she spewed her vile crap? No.

I'm not sure if the post you are referring to was reported. If not, it probably should have been. How do you know it wasn't?

Anyone even one millimetre from the right is labelled a commie and yet you freak out when you are told to grow up or when innocuously called a "republican"?

You consider this to be innocuous?

"Canadian Republicans" are nothing but American wannabes who would easily sell their soal for a place in Bush's good book.

[capricorn]

Grow up conservatives!

You can dish it out, but you can't seem to take it... friggin' babies.

Here are some examples: Out of politeness I will not name the poster(s)

"...spewing your communist propaganda. "

"...you Socialist replace our traditions & cultural beliefs with your Communist Diarrhea.... "

"...Global Warming it's now a religion for the feeble minded."

Grow up and take it or leave the forum.

edited to add... and that is just from ONE post! Holy Cow the rightwing suure gets in a tizzy eh!

Since you provide the comments of a previous poster in reply to my post, you are leaving the impression with readers that I am the author.

Those comments were not made by yours truly and I request that you acknowledge this fact.

BTW since when where you authorized to direct traffic here?

[Drea]

Since you provide the comments of a previous poster in reply to my post, you are leaving the impression with readers that I am the author.

Those comments were not made by yours truly and I request that you acknowledge this fact.

My apologies.. I was quoting Moxie's post but I am sure I could find tons more of these insults by other "rightwingers" but I am done, my purpose has been served. I pointed out the hypocrisy(and whining) of the rightwingers...

BTW since when where you authorized to direct traffic here?

Who said I was the one banning or threatening to ban or warning or whatever...? I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy (and whining) of the rightwingers. Pointing out the fact that they can dish it out but cry like babies when it comes back at them.

Happy New Year!

[capricorn]

My apologies..

Happy New Year!

Thank you.

Happy New Year to you too Drea.

[BubberMiley]

You consider this to be innocuous?

You don't? If not, what exactly do you consider to be so sinister about the Republican party?

[Michael Bluth]

You don't?

No, I don't consider being called an American wannabe who would easily sell my soul innocuous.

[BubberMiley]

No, I don't consider being called an American wannabe who would easily sell my soul innocuous.

Sounds like you (and a few others) are more interested in proving a point about name-calling on this forum than actually debating, so any possible slight gets beaten to death for days and days. Have you considered the suggestion of using the PM function instead?

[jbg]

Baird isn't doing anything except obstructing.

*********

The Liberal Kyoto action was failure. The Tory Kyoto response is a step back from even that. They simply don't believe in the science and approach the subject from that point of view.

More propaganda. Try here.

[Who's Doing What?]

What a freaking joke.

Same BS, in every thread. There is no debate on these boards. Only insults and veiled antagonistic innuendo.

Liberals are lying, theiving power drunk lawyers who only pretend to actually get things done.

The Democrats are so far in Left field they might as well adopt the hammer and sickle for a symbol.

The Greens are a bunch of pot heads who know nothing about government.

The Conservatives are really a secret branch of the ultra Right wing Christian conservative movement of the USA, determined to undermine Canadian values and freedoms.

There you go. No need to read any other threads because that is all you will find in any of them. Sad, but at times worth a laugh.

[jbg]

What a freaking joke.

Same BS, in every thread. There is no debate on these boards. Only insults and veiled antagonistic innuendo.

******************

There you go. No need to read any other threads because that is all you will find in any of them. Sad, but at times worth a laugh.

Exactly. I try to start interesting threads, but even if I write them myself, someone with a like mind to yours shuts it down by referring to it as a "crosspost".

[Topaz]

I think parliament should 10 minutes and watch a video produced by a US high school science teacher says about global warming. You can get a link through www.CTV.ca

[jbg]

I think parliament should 10 minutes and watch a video produced by a US high school science teacher says about global warming. You can get a link through www.CTV.ca

Why not post the link yourself rather than force us to guess which piece of propaganda you wish us to view?

[noahbody]

Why not post the link yourself rather than force us to guess which piece of propaganda you wish us to view?

[noahbody]

I think parliament should 10 minutes and watch a video produced by a US high school science teacher says about global warming. You can get a link through www.CTV.ca

The point the guy is making is that you need to consider the 'catastrophic consequences' of action/inaction. This is a staple in problem solving. If you take out your pencil and chart the consequences of the world acting without the major emitters, you should see that the government's position is dead on. Also chart the pros and cons of joining a carbon trading market. Just for fun.

[jdobbin]

The point the guy is making is that you need to consider the 'catastrophic consequences' of action/inaction. This is a staple in problem solving. If you take out your pencil and chart the consequences of the world acting without the major emitters, you should see that the government's position is dead on. Also chart the pros and cons of joining a carbon trading market. Just for fun.

And yet the Washington Post reported yesterday that Bush looks to sign on to a carbon trading bill in the new year. That thread is in the U.S. politics section of the forum.

[noahbody]

And yet the Washington Post reported yesterday that Bush looks to sign on to a carbon trading bill in the new year. That thread is in the U.S. politics section of the forum.

Yes, with "reasonable timetable and economic safeguards."

[jdobbin]

Yes, with "reasonable timetable and economic safeguards."

I thought Harper was against carbon credits trading though. If the U.S. comes aboard on that in the new year, he will change that policy?

[Slavik44]

I think parliament should 10 minutes and watch a video produced by a US high school science teacher says about global warming. You can get a link through www.CTV.ca

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun --

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

I don't know about you but I find that kind of ironic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyways while I appreciate his efforts we must realize that such logic is best saved for those annoying chain e-mails that tell you to forward a message to ten people or <insert travesty here> will happen. When we think rationally most of us realize that we need to establish the evidence. We need to prove there is a threat, that the threat can be stopped, and the measures undertaken to stop the threat will not cause more harm then the threat itself. We need to establish such things before we take major action. We cannot just assume those things and draw a fancy little table and say we must take action...by that logic I would be forwarding e-mails on a daily basis in order to save my dogs life. We still must focus on the evidence, not the threat.

[jbg]

Thank you.

I watched that garbage, and have the following reaction.

The globe has ranged from Ice Ages to Interglacials (many far warmer than now) and back again repeatedly. These are "long term" cycles, i.e. over thousands of years. Shorter cycles include certain sunspot cycles (believed to have caused the Younger Dryas (an extremely cold period), the Vikings' warm period (also called "Medieval Optimum"), another cold period that created the snow that Dickens referred to in his works (the "Maunder Minimum").

Yet shorter cycles are the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (about 20-30 year cycles in North Pacific) that cause bias to La Ninas during "Cold Phase" (last one 1947-77 or El Ninos during "Warm Phase" (last one 1977-date, but probably breaking up around now). Even shorter is the El Nino Southern Oscillation (the famous "El Nino-La Nina Cycle), typically over a year or two.

Overlaying all of those is the North Atlantic Oscillation (which was frequently in negative or "blocking mode" during 1950's and 60's, thought of as "cold winter" decades) or "zonal" or "postivie" mode during 1980's through early 1990's. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/NAO/

The power of these cycles is enormous. It is almost beyond credibility that human activity has much of an impact on this. If it does, what about the frequent burnings done by Native Americans and Africans, pre-Columbian era?

Thoughts?

[charter.rights]

Thank you.

I watched that garbage, and have the following reaction.

The globe has ranged from Ice Ages to Interglacials (many far warmer than now) and back again repeatedly. These are "long term" cycles, i.e. over thousands of years. Shorter cycles include certain sunspot cycles (believed to have caused the Younger Dryas (an extremely cold period), the Vikings' warm period (also called "Medieval Optimum"), another cold period that created the snow that Dickens referred to in his works (the "Maunder Minimum").

Yet shorter cycles are the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (about 20-30 year cycles in North Pacific) that cause bias to La Ninas during "Cold Phase" (last one 1947-77 or El Ninos during "Warm Phase" (last one 1977-date, but probably breaking up around now). Even shorter is the El Nino Southern Oscillation (the famous "El Nino-La Nina Cycle), typically over a year or two.

Overlaying all of those is the North Atlantic Oscillation (which was frequently in negative or "blocking mode" during 1950's and 60's, thought of as "cold winter" decades) or "zonal" or "postivie" mode during 1980's through early 1990's. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/NAO/

The power of these cycles is enormous. It is almost beyond credibility that human activity has much of an impact on this. If it does, what about the frequent burnings done by Native Americans and Africans, pre-Columbian era?

Thoughts?

GW............| ..Yes - Take Action ......|.....No -Take No Action...

__________ ____________________ ____________________

False..........| Economical Costs ........|.....

__________ ____________________ ____________________

True...........| ..... Some Costs.......| Catastrophes - Economic, social, political, environmental, health

You missed the point. It absolutely doesn't matter what if anything has caused climate change. It only matters if we take action NOW, or not. The outcome of not taking action are far worse than if we do something and are wrong. There is not a good reason to do nothing and risk that in the next decade catastrophic events will change the world way beyond anything we will be able to recover from.

IN the note on the page he says DON'T WATCH THIS VIDEO and then points to this one and the following series that takes in consideration some of the objections presented. The bottom line is the same but the reasoning is more complete.

Edited December 30, 2007 by charter.rights

[bush_cheney2004]

...You missed the point. It absolutely doesn't matter what if anything has caused climate change. It only matters if we take action NOW, or not. The outcome of not taking action are far worse than if we do something and are wrong. There is not a good reason to do nothing and risk that in the next decade catastrophic events will change the world way beyond anything we will be able to recover from.

Far worse than what? Of course there is a good reason to do nothing, and there is no evidence that any such "catastrophe" would be unrecoverable. Reductionist thinking is fun on You Tube, but a poor approach to making complex choices.

We have the right to choose inaction, whatever the consequences.

[Who's Doing What?]

Exactly. I try to start interesting threads, but even if I write them myself, someone with a like mind to yours shuts it down by referring to it as a "crosspost".

"a mind like yours"

Please explain what you mean by this. 'Cause right now it looks like what M. Bluth would refer to as a "personal attack".

[BubberMiley]

Exactly. I try to start interesting threads, but even if I write them myself, someone with a like mind to yours shuts it down by referring to it as a "crosspost".

Do you know what a crosspost is? It means you must be posting these interesting threads more than once. That's against the forum rules for a very good reason (see Socred's complete works for an example why).