The NDP has a problem......................

[Stoker]

It displays on mine. There are hundreds of others that you can reference yourself. There are none by the naysayers that are scientifically valid: that is, that have been peer reviewed. All those who oppose the truth of Global Warming are beholden to economic interests, except for a few contrarians and some seeking publicity.

How do you know that?

Also, are people that don't share your views in all things beholden to economic interests? Are they all "contrarians" and seeking to become famous?

Couldn't all this said about people that share your views?

I have followed this issue for a few years in discussions with real scientists. I am not one myself so I simply read and judge.

So " real scientists" can not be wrong?

There is not the slightest doubt of the fact of climate change or of the prime causes now.

Yes, and If I put on a couple of grams of weight, does that mean I will become morbidly obese?

As for the causes, can you prove it? (It's a rhetorical question, since you can't prove it, because your "real scientists" have not)

There is no doubt that calamity is looming.

Head for the hills

There is no scientific body that disagrees

Prove it.

I've provided links that state that some "real scientists" due infact disagree.

There is no nation that does not support Kyoto and, at the same time, says it may not be enough.

How many nations have ratified it?

There is only this US administration that reneged on its committment at Rio to accede to the world's agreements when they should be reached as they were at Kyoto.

Does Kerry support it? And if so, what makes you think he will follow through?

I am opposed to the death penalty except for those who would deny climate change. They are dooming untold millions to a dangerous world - including their own children and grandchildren. The danger is a thousand times greater than is the risks of Iraq and terrorism.

So those that disagree with you should be put to death? Even though you provide no real proof, you want people to put their faith into your hands..........it's good to see that Ingsoc is still practiced today...and in of all places a thread that pretains to the N-D-P.

Big Brother, and Mother Nature are watching you

[caesar]

Soooo.....as this thread is about the NDP, does anyone think the recent win by the BC NDP is an indication that they are on the rebound?

Well, I think British Columbians have enough of Gordon Campbell; he makes any other choice look good. Better a government that spend our money unwisely in and for BC than a government that gives away all our assets and jobs to foreign interests.

[Guest eureka]

The NDP has been drawn away from its constituency by the demands of political success. Indeed, the success that they seemed to be achieving some years ago came through the idea that they were "too Fabian." Broadbent won the leadership with just that platform. He gave a speech at the Couchicing Conference aying that and it was the prime reason for the victory.

Now, the NDP is a party too much like the others and the success was short lived. It now competes with the other parties for the same constituency in the middle. Union members are a good indicator when many actually vote Conservative. Broadbent's home turf is, and has been for two elections, Conservative both federally and provincially. That is in spite of a strong union presence.

I think that the NDP must get back to a modern version of its social and economic principles if it is to again be relevant. Its natural constituency is growing with the new orders of society brought by the shift to the right and the shrinking middle classes. It needs to get its old idealism back into the gutters and the union halls.

[Guest eureka]

Stoker! If you ever show the slightest sign that you know what you are writing about, then I will happily "debate" you in a proper venue.

Read some of the information available to you so that you can do more than post links to a few sites that, apparently, you cannot see through. Read about the ratification and the two tiers in that, Read that Kyoto has now achieved its numbers in countries and proportions of nations.

[Stoker]

eureka, thats just it, I don't claim to know vast sums of knowledge in the mater relating to climate change........thats why I ask you for a source to back up your claims. Now your reluctance lends be me to beleive that you also don't know what your talking about.

Now if you wish to continue this topic, I suggest you start a new thread (so as not to hijack this one further) and provide proof to your claims.

[caesar]

And how was their Consensus measured? Did businessweek commission a poll amongest the worlds scientific community?

Also, define "growing".

And has it been proven that mankind is the cause of climate change? Did we not have droughts before? What about the ice age?

Okay Stoker, bury your head in the sand and carry on with your agenda of denial.

[Stoker]

Okay Stoker, bury your head in the sand and carry on with your agenda of denial.

You, like eureka , can also provide some sources that climate change (if it's true or not), is the fault of man and not somethig that the Earth does on it's own every few hundred years and that this cycle that we are in today is going to destroy the world's economy in the coming decades. Remember though, opinions don't count, we want facts.........

[Guest eureka]

For heaven's sake, open your eyes and mind. Every reputable scientific authority in the world has espressed the certainty of climate change. I told you of the National Academy of Science in the US and its report. Bush asked that organization for a report in order to bolster his, and the energy interests in the US, opposition to acting. NAS gave a report that was contemptuous of Bush and categorically stated that Climate Change was real and man made.

That is only one of hundreds. And every nation on the planet has agreed. The US, too, agreed. Bush has reneged on the committment by refusinfg to ratify Kyoto.

I don't claim to be expert and I have said so. But, I am neither blind nor deaf.

[Stoker]

Has climate change been proven without a doubt that it is an occurance caused by man alone? Has the theory of climate change being a natural event been disproven? What about the ice age(s)? Is the Bush administration responsable for that also?

[Big Blue Machine]

Climate change is caused by all people, not just the Bush adminstration. We must stop global warming.

[Stoker]

Climate change is caused by all people, not just the Bush adminstration. We must stop global warming.

Prove it. Was the ice age caused by mankind?

[caesar]

Stoker; you are a pain in the butt. If you want "proof" ask 90% of the posters on line.

[Stoker]

caesar, was mankind responsible for the ice age? Is not an Ice Age climate change?

And how do you know that 90% of internet users agree with you?

[Big Blue Machine]

Why don't we ask scientists everywhere? I firmly believe that mankind is causing global warming. We need to stop it.

[Stoker]

Prove it.

Was the ice age caused by mankind?

Is not an Ice Age climate change?

[August1991]

Stoker, here you go:

US National Academy of Science

[Stoker]

And how does that prove that the rise in tempature is not natural? Was the ice age natural?

[Stoker]

And look at the following page Augest:

Climate change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming in the last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases, which accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community, the committee said. However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales, and the degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years based on evidence from tree rings or ice cores.

The report urges the establishment of a vigorous program of basic research to reduce uncertainties in future climate projections. In addition, a global observing system that monitors long-term climate predictions is needed.

Then notice the following page to that:

Climate change

The Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, and surface temperatures have risen at a substantially greater rate than average in the past two decades. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely because of human activities, for the most part. But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities, the report says. Climate models do not adequately represent all the processes that contribute to variability of the climate system. A Research Council report, Improving the Effectiveness of Climate Modeling, identifies the lack of a coherent national climate modeling program and sufficient computing resources and suggests areas for improvement.

So even this report can't offer concrete proof that we are the sole cause of climate change.

This brings me back to the ice age. Did mankind cause it?

[Bro]

The ndp have their head in the sand,I totally agree with that!The liberals have their head up anybody's ass who will vote for them.The block have their head totally entrenched in the taxpayers of CANADA's purse.The green party has their head floating around cloud nine.

That leaves Canadians with only one choice to choose for a legitimate party that will govern in the best interest of Canadians,that party is lead by Mr. Harper.

[caesar]

Bro; we saw what Harper had to offer and rejected it soundly. We don't need a leader with his head up Bush's butt. Thanks but no thanks.

[caesar]

Stoker is in a state of denial. Anything that inferes with his greed is uncomprehensible. deny, deny deny,

He must be cleopatra shw was de queen of de nile

[Stoker]

Stoker is in a state of denial. Anything that inferes with his greed is uncomprehensible. deny, deny deny,

He must be cleopatra shw was de queen of de nile

caesar, what or who caused the ice age?

[Guest eureka]

Stoker! This is an excerpt from a New York Times editorial of March, 1st. 2003. Ignoring technical articles, this may give you some indication of what is thought and what is thought of the Bush "strategy."

Rebuked on Global Warming

Nothing so far has shamed President Bush into adopting a more aggressive policy toward the threat of global warming. He has been denounced by mainstream scientists, deserted by his progressive friends in industry and sued by seven states. Still he clings stubbornly to a voluntary policy aimed at merely slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, despite an overwhelming body of evidence that only binding targets and a firm timetable will do the job.

Now there is fresh criticism from sources Mr. Bush may find harder to ignore. Last week Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Mr. Bush's most loyal ally in the debate over Iraq, gently but firmly rebuked the president for abandoning the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global climate change and for succumbing to the insupportable notion that fighting global warming will impede economic growth.

That was followed by another salvo, from an expert panel assembled by the National Academy of Sciences to assess Mr. Bush's proposals for further research into climate change. Though polite, the panel could hardly have been more contemptuous. It described Mr. Bush's plan as a redundant examination of issues that had largely been settled, bereft of vision, executable goals and timetables — in short, little more than a cover-up for inaction

[Stoker]

And eureka, here is a key word in your post: editorial

Now eureka, in your opinion, was the Bush administration the cause of the last major ice age?

[August1991]

Now eureka, in your opinion, was the Bush administration the cause of the last major ice age?

Neither mankind nor the Bush administration caused the ice age. And Ossama bin Laden didn't start World War II either. And smoking cigarettes doesn't cause deafness. And radiation doesn't cause heart failure.

What's your point Stoker?

[bTW, the Bush Administration has not rejected Kyoto because the science is wrong but rather because the economics are wrong.]