[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

There is a long term warming trend of about 0.7 of a degree over the 20th century. So far in the 21st century global temperatures we're in a seeming plateau, then started to dip after 2001. It's looking like 2008 will be the coldest year so far this century. So, there was a long-term trend until about 1998 of slight warming, then there's been a short term trend of either plateauing, or cooling temperatures after that. Two distinct things, and they point towards the earth's natural climate cycles.

2008 the coolest year "this century." Do you mean in the last 8 years or the last hundred years? Heck why stop there. Why not say 2008 is the coolest year THIS MILLENIUM!!!!!

$1:

What Zip is playing with is a thing skeptics say about the hysterics in the warmist camp. Those alarmist guys claim the warming is still happening except you can't tell because it's getting so damned cold out. I kid you not. They've also said warming causes cooling. I can't remember exactly how that one works, but I can find it if I have to.

I'm just stating the consensus position that most scientists in the area claim. They might be wrong. Apart from my pride, I've got no vested interest in the results. But I'm not playing at anything.

$1:

A lot smart scientists don't buy the anthropogenic CO2 argument, and that's healthy. But most of them do.

$1:

There's no proof most of them do, other than stuff politically motivated policy makers from scientific organizations say. There's a lot of support for the idea a much larger section of actual scientists are skeptical than what the warmists would have us believe. An upcoming US Senate Minority Report will show evidence of 650 scientists dissenting over man-made global-warming claims.

Well it may be your opinion that the vast majority of scientific assocaitions that support AGW are politically motivated, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Even when folks like the Conseravtive government and the oil companies state their opinion that AGW is real, you say that they are just putting on a false front. But at some point the reaspnable person has to ask himself, "Why are all these people saying this?" For research dollars? That's a pretty weak argument.

$1:

True, but not precisely true. The reasons politicians find playing the AGW game expedient are many-fold but the main one probably is most Canadians (and Americans too for that matter) believe what the mainstream (I call it lamescream) media tells them. The problem with that is the mainstream media is as lazy with research as most of the rest of us are, and simply pick up the crumbs of information activists, agenda-bent politicians, and NGO plants in scientific organizations tell them. Also have you noticed the amount of public relations people there are lately pulling the strings in the back of all these global warming news releases (Hi James Hoggan). I have.

I have a little more faith in the intelligence of Canadians, perhaps. I don't think they autmatically believe everything they read or see. I think they are capable of drawing their own rational conclusions.

$1:

Little known fact - The models used to create the man-made, catastrophic, global-warming fantasy are the same family of models the financial wizards were using which created the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

The fantasy of man-made climate manipulation may not have caused the current economic crisis, but it is currently poised to deal a death-blow to any hope of pulling out of it in the same shape we went in.

One of the geniuses in Obama's camp recently made a statement saying she believes the war on Mother Nature's thermostat will serve the same purpose WWII did when it pulled America out of the depression. I personally think that's nonsense.

I agree with you there. That is nonsense. We're going to have a lot of more immediate problems to deal with before teh climate change roosters come home to roost (if indeed they do).

Always a pleasure Infidel! You are an excellent debater. You may not have changed my mind completely, but you've certainyl swayed my viewpoint over the last couple of years, and I thank you for that.

[N_Fiddledog]

poquas poquas:

Climate change is a fact.

Of course it is. Human caused, catastrophic, global warming however is a hypothesis, and not a very well evidenced one.

$1:

Whether we’re responsible for it is debateable, and I wouldn’t claim to know with any certainty.

So the question is would you be prepared to threaten the economy of the western world, and trust shady power merchants to restructure the current social and political constructs into we don't know exactly what based on something you don't know with any certainty. Dion was. I worry Ignatief may share that desire.

$1:

There’s no question that our various forms of pollution are going to, or have contributed to the process speeding up.

Which process? You mean warming? There's a very big question about that one. If you just mean pollution sucks. Yes pollution sucks. But CO2 is not pollution in the quantities man is capable of putting into the atmosphere. It's just natural plant fertilizer.

$1:

I don’t give a damn whether it’s our fault or if it’s getting warmer or colder. It does however, seem completely and utterly insane that we would continue to dump the same crap into our environment knowing it’s not good for us (at best), or that it’s modifying the planet’s biosphere too fast for it to recover (at worst).

Certainly doing nothing or just pretending nothing is happening is insanely stupid, as is defending either side while doing nothing.

Makes sense to me, unless you're saying CO2 is pollution. It's not. But yeah, we should put this man-made global warming hypothesis to the side until we see some sort of real world evidence warming and human released CO2 are connected. So far we haven't, in spite of putting billions of dollars each year into finding it.

I suggest we pass on investing the trillions of dollars being demanded by those with questionable motives to finance some unlikely fantasy they can move the world's thermostat up or down, and put some of that money into fighting or adapting to actual problems we know exist. Like say controlling the real pollution problems caused by actual pollutants we know exist for example.

[Scattered]

Wow. I had to go back to check what the subject of the thread was.

[poquas]

Yeah, I know.

One more time.

Yes, CO2 is a pollutant. The fact it’s a “natural gas” has nothing to do with nature. It’s a by-product of a lot of the things we do. Without us “doing whatever”, there would be a lot less in the environment, therefore our impact cannot be ignored, and producing less of "whatever" is probably a good thing. That of course applies to many “natural” gases and compounds we produce.

Standing on a soapbox claiming it’s all a conspiracy is lunacy.




Back to the topic, of Can Iggy Transform Liberals? I doubt it.

[karra]

$1:

Back to the topic, of Can Iggy Transform Liberals? I doubt it.

What's that mean?

You don't think Princess Iggy can transform,

or;

you don't think this thread will stay on topic?

[poquas]

Yes!

[N_Fiddledog]

poquas poquas:

Yeah, I know.

One more time.

Yes, CO2 is a pollutant. The fact it’s a “natural gas” has nothing to do with nature. It’s a by-product of a lot of the things we do. Without us “doing whatever”, there would be a lot less in the environment, therefore our impact cannot be ignored, and producing less of "whatever" is probably a good thing. That of course applies to many “natural” gases and compounds we produce.

Standing on a soapbox claiming it’s all a conspiracy is lunacy.




Back to the topic, of Can Iggy Transform Liberals? I doubt it.

And one more time back at you. No C02 is not a pollutant. There's nothing you can say about it in that context you can't say about water.

You know that smoke coming out of the smoke stacks in the poster for Al Gore's polemic, An Inconvenient Truth? That's not CO2. CO2 is invisible. That's steam. Even if you want to talk about CO2 in terms of being a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas by far.

Water vapor as a greenhouse gas

Standing on a soap box, trying to rewrite the dictionary by bleating back indoctrinated, false statements like a sheep, such as CO2 is a pollutant, is just pitiful.

And...Back to the topic, of Can Iggy Transform Liberals? I don't know, but I think he's got a better chance than Dion ever did. He'd have an even better chance if he lost that talk of a carbon tax swindle.

[Terence]

One of the core strengths of our parliamentary system is that the leader defines the agenda. This change of leadership is normally followed by serious change in focus and some core ideals.

Stephen Harper has kept the idiots like Stockwell Day, who believe dinosaurs walked the earth with humans, quiet. If the wing nuts in the Tories were allowed to speak, the Tories would be polling like the NDP.

Look at the change in the Liberals from socialist authoritarians under Trudeau to fairly pro free market Chretien/Martin Liberals. In the U.S. the party primary system poisons their politics into the same tired battles ad infinitum over abortion and issues that really are minuscule when you factor in the fact that the Supreme Court trumps the politics.

[Terence]

I hope he doesn't just fine tune existing programs, I want substance. Canadian politicians are so incremental and boring. No big idea program or ideas since Free Trade.

[ridenrain]

Considering he's going to have to share the coalition stage with a socialist and a sepratist, I can't see them comming to any agreemnts that benefit Canadians.

[Terence]

I'm talking about when he wins his majority, and puts conservative MPs on the unemployment line.

Coalition? I don't see no stinkin' coalition!

[ridenrain]

..but the cats out of the bag now.
If the Libs win the next election with anything less than a Mulroney style majority, the CPC and Bloc could still team up against them.
Will this still be a legitimate and parlimentary correct way to take power?

[Terence]

I thought almost every Conservative claimed they would NEVER do such a thing. Despite press releases and media evidence showing they actually did work with the Bloc in 2004 and try to subvert democracy in the same way Jack and Dion did.

I think it is obvious that most Canadians reject the idea of a coalition like this one.

Just to remind you, it was Ignatieff who ended the possibility of it being inevitable. You can thank him here.

I am a card carrying Lib and activist. I actively campaigned against the coalition with Liberal MPs and workers, I would say half were strongly against it from the formation. Many of the those polled against it nationally - WERE LIBERALS!

[ridenrain]

subvert democracy? Strong words.
Too bad a great number of you're party were quite happy to sign that document, along with Iggy. It's strange that something that was so rejected is still kept though.


This is off topic but I hoped Iggy would reject this out of hand, rather than be a part of it.

[HyperionTheEvil]

InternetChatter InternetChatter:

I thought almost every Conservative claimed they would NEVER do such a thing. Despite press releases and media evidence showing they actually did work with the Bloc in 2004 and try to subvert democracy in the same way Jack and Dion did.

I think it is obvious that most Canadians reject the idea of a coalition like this one.

Just to remind you, it was Ignatieff who ended the possibility of it being inevitable. You can thank him here.

I am a card carrying Lib and activist. I actively campaigned against the coalition with Liberal MPs and workers, I would say half were strongly against it from the formation. Many of the those polled against it nationally - WERE LIBERALS!

Beg your pardon?

Exactly where has he said and can be quoted and linked that he will never form another coalition?