[Newsbot]

Title: Can Iggy Transform Liberals?
Category: Political
Posted By: uwish
Date: 2008-12-10 07:45:51
Canadian

[N_Fiddledog]

That's a good article. Both sides are presented.

When I was reading I was actually starting to like the Igster, until I read that bit about him supporting a carbon tax.

[bootlegga]

I'd say that's a pretty fair assessement of him. The only real question is can he lead the party?

[Freakinoldguy]

$1:

Ignatieff thinks it might be prudent to wait to see what is in Harper's budget. When Ignatieff advanced that view in the closed-door caucus meeting last week, his colleagues shouted him down.

Nice to see that the people who approved his being annointed leader, don't have enough faith in him to actually let him get on with his job.

When it comes to the Liberal Party, it's like they say about putting lipstick on a pig.

The LPofC, despite whom they put in as their leader seem to be completely focused on achieving power and in the process out socializing the NDP.

It's kind of a shame since Mr. Ignatieff appears to be the only voice of reason in their completely disfunctional party.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That's a good article. Both sides are presented.

When I was reading I was actually starting to like the Igster, until I read that bit about him supporting a carbon tax.

Well, then I hope he is going to be applying his carbon tax to the COAL-ition. Ha ha ha. I slay myself sometimes.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That's a good article. Both sides are presented.

When I was reading I was actually starting to like the Igster, until I read that bit about him supporting a carbon tax.

Well, then I hope he is going to be applying his carbon tax to the COAL-ition. Ha ha ha. I slay myself sometimes.

No kidding, the amount of hot air from the coalition supporters on this site alone guarantee us a few million extra in revenues.

[ziggy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That's a good article. Both sides are presented.

When I was reading I was actually starting to like the Igster, until I read that bit about him supporting a carbon tax.

Well, then I hope he is going to be applying his carbon tax to the COAL-ition. Ha ha ha. I slay myself sometimes.

That would kill Canada's coal exports which is happening as I speak anyways,sell your elk valley coal corporation share's folks,and BC export's all it's coal to China and it looks bad right now.Canada's biggest exporter of met coal is BC so dont laugh too hard as I saw what northeast coal did to the industry back in 85,thousands laid off,bankruptcy's,guys with 40 years getting 1 cent on the dollar on pensions they paid into for 40 years 20 years after the bankruptcy.

Laugh,BC isnt exempt.

[poquas]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That's a good article. Both sides are presented.

When I was reading I was actually starting to like the Igster, until I read that bit about him supporting a carbon tax.

Like it or not, it's going to happen. It sounds like the US is going that route and I doubt we going to be able to go it alone.

At least he's not talking Green Shift.

[N_Fiddledog]

Is it going to happen though? If Harper retains power for the length of his term it probably won't.

If he can hang on to power long enough that the sheep up here can learn from the Americans' bad example, as they head down that road to climate-management stupidity, we may dodge the bullet.

Plus the globe continues cool. It's conceivable it may eventually get so cold even the mainstream media might notice. That's a long shot I know, (they'd have to be freezing in the dark under 5 feet of snow in Florida before they'd notice) but if they do somehow wake up some morning, look at a temperature graph, and go "hey, wait a minute, you're right. It is getting colder" Harper is going to look like a hero for being one of the few world leaders who didn't let himself get hornswoggled by the climate cabal which is now rubbing their hands together, chuckling at the mass insanity they created where people can't tell hot from cold, and waiting to cash in.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Plus the globe continues cool.

Well the majority of scietnists doing research in relevant fields would disagree with you. Actually even the "skeptics" you tout so often disagree with you. Most notably, Richard Lindzen readily admit a warming trend.

$1:

It is getting colder" Harper is going to look like a hero for being one of the few world leaders who didn't let himself get hornswoggled by the climate cabal which is now rubbing their hands together, chuckling at the mass insanity they created where people can't tell hot from cold, and waiting to cash in.

Hmmm. You may want to read the Conservative government's policies on climate change. The Conservatvies readily admit (a) the climate is warming, (b) the casue is the build-up opf greenhouse gases in teh artmosphere due to the activities of humans and (3) there is a need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

$1:

Climate change is a shift in long-term average weather patterns, which can include changes in temperature and in precipitation amounts. The international scientific community agrees that there has been a significant change in global climate in recent years, particularly in the polar areas, due largely to the burning of fossil fuels for transportation and industrial processes. These activities emit greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

Canada's climate is changing too: temperatures are rising, particularly in the Arctic, where permafrost is thawing and the ocean's ice cover is shrinking. Even greater changes are expected in the future, including a continued rise in temperatures, shifts in rainfall patterns, and increases in certain types of hazardous weather, such as heavy spring rains and heat waves. As a cold northern country, Canada will be one of the most greatly affected countries in the world.

You're probably right; Harper doesn't buy it. He strikes me as an idealogue, so facts don't have that much relevance for him.

[N_Fiddledog]

Pretty much all skeptic scientists I've read (and there's more every day) recognize a long term warming trend as we come out of the Little Ice Age period of increased glaciation 1400 to 1800 (thereabouts). I've heard some say the trend goes back to the 1700s, and one said 1600s. Lindzen, or course knows about that long term trend, but he also knows about the recent plateauing of temperatures since about 97 or 98, and the cooling since 2001.

Lindzen says no warming since 97, and no statistical warming since 95.

Graph showing cooling global temperatures since 2001

Also, I suggest you're flat out wrong if you're saying the majority of scientists don't recognize similar long and short term trends. You're also flat out wrong if you're saying there aren't skeptic scientists (and again there's more every day) doing research in relevant fields. You've heard of Spencer, and Christy no doubt. Want some more names?

Political expediency necessitates some politicians who don't necessarily swallow the whole AGW cock and bull story put up a false front of acceptance. Their actions however suggest otherwise. Harper appears to be among those as is constantly pointed out by eco-activists when Harper refuses to destroy the economy by tilting at climate chimeras. It isn't just politicians. Even energy companies such as Shell and Exxon have found ways to live with, and even profit from wasteful climate-hoax related government spending. Shell and I think BP have been vocal proponents of cap n trade pretty much since the talk of a C n T gold rush began.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Pretty much all skeptic scientists I've read (and there's more every day) recognize a long term warming trend as we come out of the Little Ice Age period of increased glaciation 1400 to 1800 (thereabouts). I've heard some say the trend goes back to the 1700s, and one said 1600s. Lindzen, or course knows about that long term trend, but he also knows about the recent plateauing of temperatures since about 97 or 98, and the cooling since 2001.

Oh I see, so it's warming AND cooling. That's a convenient position to have. That way you're always right, no matter what happens.

$1:

Also, I suggest you're flat out wrong if you're saying the majority of scientists don't recognize similar long and short term trends. You're also flat out wrong if you're saying there aren't skeptic scientists (and again there's more every day) doing research in relevant fields. You've heard of Spencer, and Christy no doubt. Want some more names?

I never claimed there weren't sceptic scientists. Most good scientists are sceptics in the general sense. A lot smart scientists them don't buy the anthropogenic CO2 argument, and that's healthy. But most of them do.

$1:

Political expediency necessitates some politicians who don't necessarily swallow the whole AGW cock and bull story put up a false front of acceptance.

Again--a convenient position. If anyone politically aligned with you publicly accepts the AGW argument, then they are putting up a false front.

Harper knows--as Bush finally learned--that accepting the AGW is indeed politically expedient. The reason is that most Canadians believe science over politicians.

Accepting the AGW theory does not equate to wanting to destroy our economy. Certainly not in my case. Right now the economy seems to be doing a good job of destroying itself without any help whatsoever from the global warming crowd.

[karra]

It's doubtful Count Iggy can do much if anything for the party of entitlement, beer, popcorn, brown paper bags, napkin receipts, chewing gum, and;

this is why...

$1:

Michael Ignatieff’s campaign aide, Warren Kinsella, is threatening to sue me for writing about his involvement in Adscam. You can see a copy of his libel notice here.

Justice John Gomery, who chaired the Judicial Inquiry into that scandal, named Kinsella more than a dozen times in his full report. Or you can read the relevant chapter here – just search for the word “Kinsella” to get to the point. On page 160 of the report, in a chapter called “Who is responsible?” Justice Gomery noted that Kinsella, then chief of staff to Public Works Minister David Dingwall, tried to steer lucrative government advertising and polling contracts away from their proper course and towards Chuck Guite instead. Guite was later convicted of five counts of fraud.

Justice Gomery called Kinsella’s conduct “a highly inappropriate attempt by political staff to interfere in the internal administration of [Public Works]”.

Folks, that’s not an allegation. That’s a judicial finding of fact. And true facts are a defence to libel.

it seems the Natural Governing Party du Canada just can't break away from the penumbra of carpetbaggers, thieves, fraud artists, embezzlers, cheats, crooks and serial suers,

not to mention the Liberal's very own and breaking EI Scam. . . .

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Pretty much all skeptic scientists I've read (and there's more every day) recognize a long term warming trend as we come out of the Little Ice Age period of increased glaciation 1400 to 1800 (thereabouts). I've heard some say the trend goes back to the 1700s, and one said 1600s. Lindzen, or course knows about that long term trend, but he also knows about the recent plateauing of temperatures since about 97 or 98, and the cooling since 2001.

Oh I see, so it's warming AND cooling. That's a convenient position to have. That way you're always right, no matter what happens.

Nice try at trying to turn the skeptics position around on them.

Let me explain what Zip's trying to do there, just in case anybody is actually dumb enough to fall for it.

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.

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.

$1:

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

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.

$1:

Harper knows--as Bush finally learned--that accepting the AGW is indeed politically expedient. The reason is that most Canadians believe science over politicians.

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.

$1:

Accepting the AGW theory does not equate to wanting to destroy our economy. Certainly not in my case. Right now the economy seems to be doing a good job of destroying itself without any help whatsoever from the global warming crowd.

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.

[poquas]

Climate change is a fact.

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

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

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.