Copenhagen...we're sorry our PM is a dick.
Siobhan Medeiros
We know our prime minister is an asshole. He's a small-minded, petty
individual who's under investigation for trying to bribe an MP. He
hides out from the media, makes an ass of himself on the world stage,
practices American-style attack politics, and doesn't really give a
damn about our country except for Alberta. Most of us pray to God
every night that he never gets a majority government, because if he
does he will make George Bush look like a rank amateur in the fine art
of wrecking a country.
Unfortunately, as many of you know, in a parliamentary democracy it is
quite possible for a prick to become Prime Minister even though 2/3 of
the country think he's a jerk. And it doesn't help that our chief
opposition party can't seem to find a leader with a spine.
Also, although the leader of our third party does have a spine, he
doesn't have the votes. Because they're being split by a party of
tree-huggers whose sole accomplishment has been to get Conservatives
elected. And then of course, there's a bunch of separatist whiners
who aren't interested in doing anything but wrecking the country - on
purpose.
In short, of our two main opposition parties, one has the votes but
not the spine, and the other has the spine but no votes.
Most Canadians know that global warming is real and caused by human
activity. We hate that our PM is trying to sabotage the process of
finding a solution, so his friends in Alberta can keep driving around
in their gas-guzzling Hummers and SUVs. But he's managed to convince
one-third of Canadians that he's the lesser of two evils, so we're
stuck with him.
So once again, Copenhagen...we're sorry. If it's any consolation,
there's an election due before long, and we'd be just as happy as you
to be finally rid of the jerk. Keep your fingers crossed.
Crap Detector
***
Every Canadian should be proud of the fact that Stephen Harper is
skeptical of the dirty leftists' global warming scam. It is a scam
intended to undermine capitalism and make successful people feel
quilty.
f. barnes
What don't Canadians want a warmer Climate. It's cold up there.
Canuck57
> On behalf of Canada...we're sorry, Copenhagen.
Nope. Our PM did well. But he should have told them to *u** **f.
We have enough grredy at home for the money. Time for Canada to take a
step back and get it's own fiscal house in order and let the
international consortium or mostly poor dictatorial facist countries and
eco terrorists go a begging.
Canuck57
Evidence up here, hard evidence, not the junk crap science from Gore or
Susuki strongly suggests we are in a cooling period.
Too many stupid sheep following the pied piper on this one. Just con
artists and fraudsters looking for government money.
fost...@gmail.com
>
> Most Canadians know that global warming is real and caused by human
> activity.
You live in the shittiest country in the world!!
Your opinion doesn't matter!!
simplicity
Gore is profiting enormously from that scam. But what do SM like
characters get from that?
Actually... correction. Gore is profiting like no one else because
there is enough SM like idiots out there.
None4U
"ma...@merde.com" <fost...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:51a48f3b-2659-43ba...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 16, 7:48 pm, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Most Canadians know that global warming is real and caused by human
> activity.
And it will make Canada the center of global food production as the US bread
basket moves north.
But it in fact is doing no damage at all. 1938, and 1940 were the coldest
years in history, and the glaciers melted faster in 1040 then now.
Thats the part you dont want to accept.
Because you are a buffoon.
You live in the shittiest country in the world!!
Your opinion doesn't matter!!
Donrt be an asshat hoser.
Butteye_Jest
<5818d596-32e6-4e91...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Harper and the Conservatives are just as good at blowing up and
exploiting others weaknesses, as they are at hiding their nefarious
scams. Harper is not to be trusted -period.
--
Ole Butteye
chingang
>Evidence up here, hard evidence, not the junk crap science from Gore or
>Susuki strongly suggests we are in a cooling period.
>
>Too many stupid sheep following the pied piper on this one. Just con
>artists and fraudsters looking for government money.
Well the Innuit had to incorporate three new words into their
vocabulary. Robin, chickadee and bumblebee! Yes that's right!
They have never seen these creatures before in their lives. Why would
these criiters migrate so far up to the Innuit lands, just so they
could get a name? Are they "Lefty Liars" What say you? As your mentor,
O'Reilly says? The Arctic tundra is melting! Oh its mushy now and the
natives also have never seen that before! What a bunch of liars huh?
That tundra has trillions of tonnes of "methane" gas. And that stuff
is ten times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Yeah, but
you're right, theys all lyin' varmits! I'll rely on your sources which
are? You have to have more evidence to be a skeptic other than your
visceral "evidence". Oh, by the way, the polar bears are getting
smaller and lazier because they drown now trying to reach multilayer
ice. You do know from your evidence what multilayer ice is,
comprendez? What name would you give the robins if you could name
them?
I'd probably just tell the Innuits to name them all one name...
Deadducks. Seems fitting, right naysayer?
chingang
Never trust a man who would take his kid to school on opening day and
shake his hand formally. Wow! What sense of feeling that man has
especially when it was photo-op. Methinks a hug would have been better
for the lad but Harper probably thought it would look "gay".
Chom Noamsky
> What don't Canadians want a warmer Climate. It's cold up there.
It could actually get a lot colder in parts of Canada. The ocean
currents that bring warm water north are already showing signs of
change. Those oceanic conveyor belts are a huge influence on northern
climate. Parts of Europe could get a lot colder as well.
And if you are like me I enjoy winter. I like the fact that I can bike
or walk to the local hill and ski and board. I haven't been able to for
the last 20 years, except for last winter... a real La Nina year for
those close to the Pacific.
My pine forests are also gone, 13 million hecares of them. Killed off
because the vermin that like to eat the soft parts of trees thrive when
the winters are warm.
"f. barnes", as they say, ignorance is bliss.
Chom Noamsky
> But it in fact is doing no damage at all.
Not true... 13 million hectares of dead pine forest and my bare little
ski hill beg to differ. It's raining right now and I can see bare lawn,
20 years ago it would have been cover in two feet of snow.
Viceroy Monckton
> Every Canadian should be proud of the fact that Stephen Harper is
> skeptical of the dirty leftists' global warming scam
> I get my science from Michelle Malkin.
Rightists don't need science, that's why most of them aren't scientists.
They believe that AGW is a big socialist conspiracy, most of them say that
it's a bigger conspiracy than the big Obama birth certificate cover up and
how the Apollo 11 landing was faked to distract the world from Ted
Kennedy's chappiquiddic accident.
Karl Rove once said that the more education people have, the less likely
they will be candidates for voting Republican. That's why many of them
are creationists and think that you can get AIDS from a toilet seat. Some
even believe that petroleum comes from rocks, and in the old days (6,000
years ago), man saddled up dinosaurs and used them as beasts of burden.
"Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll
A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is
alienating scientists to a startling degree.
Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as
Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By
comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself
Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.
The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists
said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as
"liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures
for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.
Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher
than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were
considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and
Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%)
than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.
"These results were not a complete surprise," said Scott Keeter,
Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the
Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to "the
difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to
issues."
The wide ideological and partisan gap among scientists may have been
exacerbated by the Bush administration, which often disputed broad
scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and climate change.
Keeter acknowledged this factor, but said that "many of these disputes
probably predate the Bush administration," noting that scientists have
favored liberal views in numerous past studies.
Religion also plays a role. Republicans tend to promote the centrality
of religion more often than Democrats, and while 95 percent of the
public said they believe in "God" or "a higher power," only 51 percent
of scientists claimed either.
"Many Republicans, especially the Evangelical wing of the party, are
skeptical of evolution, and have argued for the teaching of
creationism and intelligent design in school," said Keeter.
The results could merely be a reflection of how scientists see the
world, rather than of partisan loyalties. In a series of questions
posed, the study found that the answers of scientists were
consistently more in line with liberal viewpoints than those of the
general public.
"The Republican Party has a number of leaders within it who have
challenged the accuracy of scientific findings on issues such as
climate change, evolution and stem cell research," Keeter told the
Huffington Post.
"It suggests that scientists who are Republicans might feel some
dissonance from the party's position on some things that are important
to them. And while there are Republicans in the scientist sample,
there are really not that many," he said."
Roy
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:54:06 -0800, Butteye_Jest
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><5818d596-32e6-4e91-972a-40819150c...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
==
To show warmth for Harper IS a formality as I'm sure that it is not a
spontaneous thing for him. If my father had ever shook my hand, I'm
sure that I would have wondered about him flipping out. Besides, if my
Dad ever grabbed me by the hand it would have been to hold me from
getting away while he beat the crap out of me.
==
Siobhan Medeiros
That's right, the scientific bodies of practically every nation on
Earth, including NASA, are in on it. Meanwhile, those climate
scientists are living high on the hog, driving around the arctic in
limousines smoking Cuban cigars.
Siobhan Medeiros
Obviously, you've never been up here in the summer.
Siobhan Medeiros
Really? What evidence would that be? I guess I've been listening too
much to those Inuit elders who've been watching the glaciers retreat
throughout their lives.
Siobhan Medeiros
Suuuuuuurrrrrrreeeee, and there's no money to be made from fossil
fuels, no siirrreeee.
I wonder how much Al Gore profited from his Nobel Prize?
Siobhan Medeiros
> "ma...@merde.com" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:51a48f3b-2659-43ba...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 16, 7:48 pm, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Most Canadians know that global warming is real and caused by human
> > activity.
>
> And it will make Canada the center of global food production as the US bread
> basket moves north.
Do you think you can just plop oranges onto land previously growing
wheat? It takes years, perhaps decades to determine what grows well
on what land. Meanwhile, the US bread basket will be struggling under
increased drought.
> But it in fact is doing no damage at all. 1938, and 1940 were the coldest
> years in history, and the glaciers melted faster in 1040 then now.
>
And how would you know what was happening in 1040, moron? And where
do you get your claim that 1938 and 1940 were the coldest years in
history? From out of your ass?
> Thats the part you dont want to accept.
>
> Because you are a buffoon.
>
Because I wasn't educated by a buffoon.
> You live in the shittiest country in the world!!
>
How are you enjoying your financial crisis, retard?
> Your opinion doesn't matter!!
>
It matters more than yours does, idiot.
> Donrt be an asshat hoser.
I'd tell you not to be a moron, but that would be like telling grass
not to be green.
f. barnes
Something will replace those pines; they weren't always there: they
came with climate change One species dies and another arises.
That's what happens on a living evolving planet. Embrace climate
change for the new kinds of life it will bring forth. After all,
climate change helped to create us, and climate change may someday
destroy us, or change us into something else. But that's how the
cookie crumbles. Only dead worlds don't have climate change.
Chom Noamsky
Nobody is denying that climate change isn't a cyclical and natural
phenomena. What some people are objecting to is contributing to the
severity of it. We do a lot of things to make our environment more
stable, damming rivers would be a good example. Are you saying we
shouldn't dam rivers because flooding is natural and cyclical? That's
the logic you are using here.
SaPeIsMa
"chingang" <mopa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mvrii5pcdq1r9sugb...@4ax.com...
Still doesn't prove that humans are causing the warming
A warming process that also took place on the other planets in the system
Are you suggesting that it's human activity that's causing the warming on
Mars ?
Charlie Yankee
Apologizing to a city? What's up with that?
You don't speak for Canada, only for those Canadians who have drunk
the Gore/Suzuki kool-aid.
> We know our prime minister is an asshole. He's a small-minded, petty
> individual who's under investigation for trying to bribe an MP. He
> hides out from the media, makes an ass of himself on the world stage,
> practices American-style attack politics, and doesn't really give a
> damn about our country except for Alberta. Most of us pray to God
> every night that he never gets a majority government, because if he
> does he will make George Bush look like a rank amateur in the fine art
> of wrecking a country.
Scaling back the state and protecting key industries aren't "wrecking
a country". Wrecking a country is placing it under the control of a
multi-national gang of central planning freaks who are using fear
tactics to get people to give up their freedom to decide how to live
their lives.
> Unfortunately, as many of you know, in a parliamentary democracy it is
> quite possible for a prick to become Prime Minister even though 2/3 of
> the country think he's a jerk.
It certainly worked for Chretien.
> And it doesn't help that our chief
> opposition party can't seem to find a leader with a spine.
The issue isn't skeletal. It's one of credibility, or rather lack
thereof. The Liberals believe in making the "right noises", but not
following through. At least the Conservatives are willing to openly
defy the fearmongering AGW mob and their junk science.
> Also, although the leader of our third party does have a spine, he
> doesn't have the votes.
In other words, the vast majority of Canadians don't want social
democrats running Canada. Smart folks, us Canadians.
> Most Canadians know that global warming is real and caused by human
> activity. We hate that our PM is trying to sabotage the process of
> finding a solution, so his friends in Alberta can keep driving around
> in their gas-guzzling Hummers and SUVs. But he's managed to convince
> one-third of Canadians that he's the lesser of two evils, so we're
> stuck with him.
Of course, Canada would have never even shown up at Copenhagen or
signed on to Kyoto years back if the oil had been under the feet of
Quebecers instead of Albertans. There wouldn't have been a National
Energy Program back in the 70's either.
> So once again, Copenhagen...we're sorry.
Canada has nothing to apologize for. We are defending our right to
develop our resources. It's people like the Internet-inventor and the
CBC science guy who should be apologizing for getting everyone so
scared. We also deserve an apology from those scientists who chose
using "tricks" to fudge the data over admitting that they don't know
what the hell they're talking about. And finally, we deserve an
apology from the left-of-centre politicians and bureaucrats who saw
this so-called "crisis" as their last shot at getting us to accept
statist central planning.
> If it's any consolation,
> there's an election due before long, and we'd be just as happy as you
> to be finally rid of the jerk. Keep your fingers crossed.
What, you mean Jack Layton's leaving?
SaPeIsMa
"f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:37da33fc-0949-4f53...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 17, 7:37 am, Chom Noamsky <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote:
> f. barnes wrote:
> > What don't Canadians want a warmer Climate. It's cold up there.
>
> It could actually get a lot colder in parts of Canada. The ocean
> currents that bring warm water north are already showing signs of
> change. Those oceanic conveyor belts are a huge influence on northern
> climate. Parts of Europe could get a lot colder as well.
>
> And if you are like me I enjoy winter. I like the fact that I can bike
> or walk to the local hill and ski and board. I haven't been able to for
> the last 20 years, except for last winter... a real La Nina year for
> those close to the Pacific.
>
> My pine forests are also gone, 13 million hecares of them. Killed off
> because the vermin that like to eat the soft parts of trees thrive when
> the winters are warm.
>
> "f. barnes", as they say, ignorance is bliss.
# Something will replace those pines; they weren't always there: they
# came with climate change One species dies and another arises.
# That's what happens on a living evolving planet. Embrace climate
# change for the new kinds of life it will bring forth. After all,
# climate change helped to create us, and climate change may someday
# destroy us, or change us into something else. But that's how the
# cookie crumbles. Only dead worlds don't have climate change.
1) If it wasn't for "climate change" aka "global warming" Canada would
still be under a mile or more of ice
2) The planet has also been quite a bit warmer than it is now
The stupid luddite greens are dumb enough to belive that this planet should
remain at a constant temperature level, and that if the damn thing dares to
diverge from that, then clearly it's the fault of the humans.
Too bad that there is ample evidence that this planet has been much
colder and much warmer in the past, when humans weren't around
Chom Noamsky
> Still doesn't prove that humans are causing the warming
> A warming process that also took place on the other planets in the system
> Are you suggesting that it's human activity that's causing the warming
> on Mars ?
Out of a hundred large bodies in out solar system only six have been
observed to be warming. What is causing the observed cooling trend on
Uranus, for example?
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf
(hint: it's not because you have a fetish for shoving icicles up your ass)
Dave Smith
>
> Still doesn't prove that humans are causing the warming
> A warming process that also took place on the other planets in the system
> Are you suggesting that it's human activity that's causing the warming
> on Mars ?
I live in an area that at the edge of the glacier movement at the end of
the last ice age. Glaciers have been retreating north (and south) for
thousands of years. Personally, I am not witnessing global warming. In
fact, last summer was the coolest one I can remember in my entire life.
I have not used my air conditioner for three years.
Chom Noamsky
This time of year we'd normally have a couple of feet of snow. It
rained this morning.
I want my snow back.
Chom Noamsky
That's what you call a classic strawman fallacy.
Chom Noamsky
Would it kill you to give credit where credit is due? Gore's policy
opened up the Internet to commercialization and as you are (probably)
aware of it was something spectacularly popular and successful. Gore
certainly didn't invent the Internet but he had a big hand in what it is
today.
Dave Smith
I thought you were in BC. I have a friend in Kelowna who emails several
times a week and has been talking about the cold. It is below normal
here in the Niagara area.
f. barnes
So we spend trillions and trillions, destroy the worlds economies, and
rather than the oceans rising x cm. in 20 years they rise x cm. in 22
years. But nevertheless the oceans rise. It doesn't seem like much
bang for the buck.
Canuck57
http://www.livescience.com/environment/071030-tree-stumps.html
It was a farce from day one.
Besides, we could use it warmer. But sadly the evidence suggests we
have been cooling for the last 50-100 years.
Canuck57
And how many know most of the worlds glacieries and 2/3rd of the polar
ice is less than 10,000 years old?
Have the green knobs explain that.
Dave Smith
The evidence is that it has been warming for thousands of years.
Canuck57
No evidence exists of that at all. For each beach sinking, I can come
up with a beach a rising.
If anything, some studies consclusively state the ocean will retreat if
global warming is in fact true. Citing the following:
- warm air holds billions of tons of water, fridged cold air holds near
zero.
- water in clouds rain on places like NWT causing more vegitation which
soaks up more water in plant life and higher water tables.
- water as it thaws shrinks in volume releasing trapped gases as well.
- equatorial regions will not heat up as much as polar regions as the
cooling effects of evaporation.
Thus, green farce, as we could use the NWT to feed the real problem of
CO2, more humans, especially in places like Africa, Hindu and Muslim
countries with population growth out of control.
Greenies are knobs. Sort of like a solution looking for a problem that
does not exist.
M I Wakefield
"Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:5818d596-32e6-4e91...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On behalf of Canada...we're sorry, Copenhagen.
Climate change is a giant problem. I don't see how giving money to China
solves it.
Canuck57
Pine beetles #1 killer is forest fires as it removes the dry wood
breading ground they spawn in. Extra cold winters only works for a few
weeks as the critters have more breading space after cold winters damage
trees, and soon bread to even higher numbers.
Forest fires in old dry forests is a natural event man prevents for $$$.
Warmer is better, Toronto under 3km of ice, raries under km of ice does
not sound like Canada will be habitable at all. For this reason, junk
scientiest fruit fly specialists should be so fired, and replaced with
ahrd core, open to the public pure scientific research to determin which
is in fact true. There is very serious evidence of cooling in the last
50 to 100 years.
People who fear warming are nuts, if Canada was like Costa Rica, I sure
would not complain. But if Canada was under 1km of ice, I would be
certainly dead as would all Caandians.
Canuck57
> On Dec 16, 10:19 pm, "None4U" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
>> "ma...@merde.com" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:51a48f3b-2659-43ba...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 16, 7:48 pm, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Most Canadians know that global warming is real and caused by human
>>> activity.
>> And it will make Canada the center of global food production as the US bread
>> basket moves north.
>
> Do you think you can just plop oranges onto land previously growing
> wheat? It takes years, perhaps decades to determine what grows well
> on what land. Meanwhile, the US bread basket will be struggling under
> increased drought.
You mean you damn up big rivers, redirect them to California and wonder
why there is a water shortage in the interior.
LMAO.
>> But it in fact is doing no damage at all. 1938, and 1940 were the coldest
>> years in history, and the glaciers melted faster in 1040 then now.
>>
>
> And how would you know what was happening in 1040, moron? And where
> do you get your claim that 1938 and 1940 were the coldest years in
> history? From out of your ass?
Alberta this year, just 3 or 4 days ago broke a 116 year old record for
cold. We haven't broken any all time highs in anyones lifetime either.
What does that tell you?
Tells me global warming is bullshit. And if it si not, I welcome it.
>> Thats the part you dont want to accept.
>>
>> Because you are a buffoon.
>>
>
> Because I wasn't educated by a buffoon.
People making it a concern out of proportion are in fact the buffoons.
>> You live in the shittiest country in the world!!
>>
>
> How are you enjoying your financial crisis, retard?
I am enjoying it immensly. The defunct liberal-debtors running
government made an excellent buying/market opportunity with this
unstability. And realists all over are cashing in as we saw it
coming.... I used to be happy with 8% year over year return, closing
2009 as a banner year about 4 times that.
Much more than I lost in 2008...as in April 2008 I went cash high
because governmetns were ignoring the debt crisis. In fact, one could
argue they caused it deliberately.
Always think like a cynic with government and investing.
Chom Noamsky
We had a cold snap in BC for about a week but it warmed up.
Dave Smith
>>> This time of year we'd normally have a couple of feet of snow. It
>>> rained this morning.
>>
>> I thought you were in BC. I have a friend in Kelowna who emails
>> several times a week and has been talking about the cold. It is below
>> normal here in the Niagara area.
>
> We had a cold snap in BC for about a week but it warmed up.
What what I have been hearing from my friends out there, you have had
several cold winters in a row.
Gord Proudfoot
> "Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
If it was all about things predictably getting warmer and not climatic
extremes (which is the real deal), perhaps more people would think
that it was happening. It's also things like the Rhine River, the
Danube, most of the Columbia or The Bosphorus River systems running
so low because of glacial melt that it destroys the key waterways that
people not only rely on for fresh water, but shipping and hydro
electric power for as well.
And about China. Has Harper put a stop to the $millions in foreign
aid that we've been sending them since the days of Trudeau? I don't
think he has.
Siobhan Medeiros
> "chingang" <mopan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
What's going on on Mars is completely different from what's happening
on Earth, doofus. Try to keep up.
Gord Proudfoot
How about those floods! And the unnatural blizzards?
A few years ago the water in Vancouver from the tap wasn't drinkable.
It was brown and smelled awful.
Vancouver was under a heap of snow a few years back.
It's not about it getting hot, it's about wacky shit like that.
Manchester UK has the same latitude as Edmonton, but is much warmer
because of the Gulf Stream.
Take away the Gulf Stream by changing it's path, and suddenly the
whole UK becomes a frozen pile of shit in the Winter.
That's what global warming can do. It certainly won't make the UK
warmer.
Gord Proudfoot
It's been explained by planetary wobble. The sun's radiation has
been proven to be completely blameless. This according to NASA. And
when it comes to stuff like that, I'll go with NASA. Not some chump
writing for www.prisonplanet.com who says "they have global warming on
Mars!"
Siobhan Medeiros
That's the Kelowna climate. Hot in summer, cold in winter.
But we've also lost huge numbers of pine trees because the winters
aren't getting cold enough to kill off the pine beetle. In Mission
Creek, there's huge areas of trees which have had to be removed
because of the infestation.
Tell me the bright side of that.
Siobhan Medeiros
Yes, and several hot summers. It's the AVERAGE temperature that's
going up, idiot.
Siobhan Medeiros
But during the last century it's been warming ten times faster than it
had been.
Siobhan Medeiros
You are completely clueless as to how a glacier works, aren't you?
A glacier MOVES, dumbass. You get accumulation at one end, and
melting on the other. The glacier moves from the point of
accumulation to the end, where it melts. Whether the glacier is
advancing or retreating, the ice is only going to be as old as the
time it takes for it to get from the head to the foot.
Got it now?
Siobhan Medeiros
> Mars!"
That and the cyclical nature of dust storms. The fact is, none of the
"warming" on any of the planets observed has to do with solar
radiation.
What's more, if the sun WERE getting warmer, the effects would be
easily measurable on the moon. There's no atmosphere, no weather, no
other real heat source, and a rise in temperature would be easy to
detect.
So if the sun were getting warmer, the moon would be getting warmer.
But it isn't. End of story.
Dave Smith
Several hot summers and several cold winters and the AVERAGE is going
up? They average out.... Duh.
Siobhan Medeiros
You're an idiot. There's an epidemic of pine beetles in the province
right now which is destroying more timber than forest fires. You
saying that there haven't been enough fires recently? Ask anyone
living in the Okanagan during last summer.
The fact is, forest fires have been getting WORSE, not better. But
the winters have been getting milder, that is not in dispute.
>
> Forest fires in old dry forests is a natural event man prevents for $$$.
That hasn't been done for years, idiot. Nowadays they only fight them
if they're a threat to homes, otherwise they let them burn out.
>
> Warmer is better, Toronto under 3km of ice, raries under km of ice does
> not sound like Canada will be habitable at all.
Are you on drugs?
> For this reason, junk
> scientiest fruit fly specialists should be so fired, and replaced with
> ahrd core, open to the public pure scientific research to determin which
> is in fact true.
They did that. The next group of scientists would find the exact same
thing, and you'd be calling for their heads as soon as they told you
what you didn't want to hear.
>There is very serious evidence of cooling in the last
> 50 to 100 years.
>
You've shown yourself to be scientifically illiterate, so why should
we care what you think?
> People who fear warming are nuts, if Canada was like Costa Rica, I sure
> would not complain. But if Canada was under 1km of ice, I would be
> certainly dead as would all Caandians.
Yeah, that's really likely. Retard.
Siobhan Medeiros
Tell me, have you ever taken a math class in your life?
They average out ONLY if the summer temperatures rise and the winter
temperatures fall by the EXACT same amount.
If the summer temperatures rise more than what the winter temperatures
fall by, the average temperature goes up.
Got it now, moron?
Siobhan Medeiros
> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 10:19 pm, "None4U" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
> >> "ma...@merde.com" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:51a48f3b-2659-43ba...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Dec 16, 7:48 pm, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >>> Most Canadians know that global warming is real and caused by human
> >>> activity.
> >> And it will make Canada the center of global food production as the US bread
> >> basket moves north.
>
> > Do you think you can just plop oranges onto land previously growing
> > wheat? It takes years, perhaps decades to determine what grows well
> > on what land. Meanwhile, the US bread basket will be struggling under
> > increased drought.
>
> You mean you damn up big rivers, redirect them to California and wonder
> why there is a water shortage in the interior.
>
Redirect them to California. Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt. Tell you what,
give me the name of one BC river which has been diverted all the way
to California. List it right here ____________-.
> LMAO.
>
> >> But it in fact is doing no damage at all. 1938, and 1940 were the coldest
> >> years in history, and the glaciers melted faster in 1040 then now.
>
> > And how would you know what was happening in 1040, moron? And where
> > do you get your claim that 1938 and 1940 were the coldest years in
> > history? From out of your ass?
>
> Alberta this year, just 3 or 4 days ago broke a 116 year old record for
> cold. We haven't broken any all time highs in anyones lifetime either.
Let's see your cite, retard.
>
> What does that tell you?
>
That you're another retard who doesn't understand the difference
between climate and weather.
> Tells me global warming is bullshit. And if it si not, I welcome it.
>
Tells me your head is made out of bullshit.
> >> Thats the part you dont want to accept.
>
> >> Because you are a buffoon.
>
> > Because I wasn't educated by a buffoon.
>
> People making it a concern out of proportion are in fact the buffoons.
>
In any words, people who tell you what you don't want to hear.
> >> You live in the shittiest country in the world!!
>
> > How are you enjoying your financial crisis, retard?
>
> I am enjoying it immensly. The defunct liberal-debtors running
> government made an excellent buying/market opportunity with this
> unstability. And realists all over are cashing in as we saw it
> coming.... I used to be happy with 8% year over year return, closing
> 2009 as a banner year about 4 times that.
>
Figures that a rightard would celebrate other people's misery.
> Much more than I lost in 2008...as in April 2008 I went cash high
> because governmetns were ignoring the debt crisis. In fact, one could
> argue they caused it deliberately.
Surrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeee you did..(bullshit detector going off)
Gord Proudfoot
> > Mars!"
>
> That and the cyclical nature of dust storms. The fact is, none of the
> "warming" on any of the planets observed has to do with solar
> radiation.
>
> What's more, if the sun WERE getting warmer, the effects would be
> easily measurable on the moon. There's no atmosphere, no weather, no
> other real heat source, and a rise in temperature would be easy to
> detect.
>
> So if the sun were getting warmer, the moon would be getting warmer.
> But it isn't. End of story.
Bbbbut! When NASA discovered viable water on the Moon, I was reading
posts from the usual anti-global warming kooks who said "C'mon?"
And of course Oral Roberts died yesterday, the guy who said he could
raise the dead and cure disease through faith.
Many of them believed that guy, yet stand against legitimate health
coverage in the real world when it comes to the needs in the USA.
Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Gord Proudfoot
I wonder how he thinks the Finger Lakes of Western New York State were
caused?
Some of them think that snow means cold. As in Antarctica when there
is snow reported.
They can't grasp that it means that it's actually warming.
Anyone who skis alpine knows that it only snows on the warmest of
days, not the coldest.
To them, there is no difference between the idea of ice covering the
Arctic that's permanent, and ice that is seasonal.
They say that the polar bear population has risen since the 1970's,
but forget that it was because there were more restrictions on hunting
polar bears following the 1970's, when they were almost hunted to
extinction in some places. So the population grew in those areas once
restrictions were imposed.
It's always a "1 dimensional" approach. Science takes into account
the factors and the reasons why.
And those who tend to take the "1 dimensional approach", often refer
to themselves as "realists" "common sense"
A sad joke. They couldn't be more ignorant of reality.
Gord Proudfoot
And you probably think that the Tundra's permafrost will one day make
great wheat fields!
When in fact it will become a bog.
> - water as it thaws shrinks in volume releasing trapped gases as well.
Methane gas. Another major GHG, but though worse than CO2, it
doesn't have the stamina and doesn't represent as much as a threat.
> - equatorial regions will not heat up as much as polar regions as the
> cooling effects of evaporation.
Words from you. No legitimate cite.
Is there a reason why you just spouted that off? Or do you have a
source?
Let's just say that there isn't a legitimate climatologist in the
world who agrees with you.
Find one. Just do that and get back to us.
The onus of proof is on you.
Chom Noamsky
I used to live on Mission Creek up towards Rutland, moved away to
another parts a couple of years ago, but not too far. Speaking of
beetle, I am now the proud owner of 160 acres of dead pine. It was
mature enough to start logging and I would have netted about $4K per
acre. If I had logged the whole property I could have pocketed (before
taxes of course) well over $500K... easily. I was going to leave most
of it for wildlife, selectively cut a few loads here and there every
year, not level the place, but now it's just so much rotten wood. I can
push trees over with my bare hands, so rotten they just snap at the
butt. Sometime they just fall over when the breeze picks up. It's a
total fucking mess. Climate change cost me my retirement loot.
General Lee
We were under over a mile of ice in Toronto once. But before that,
the Arctic was a warm sea and Alberta was a shallow sea with a
jungle. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any oil.
Sure! Shit happens!
It's the pace that matters.
The Rockies were once plains.
If anyone really believes that Global Warming is beneficial to Canada,
why haven't they invested in property up in Moose Factory for a
resort?
Well, I used to say that, until I read recently that with the melting
of the Arctic, the harbor in Churchill Manitoba has been purchased
along with the railway, the Canadian and Manitoba government has
invested, along with Russian interests, because once things have
melted, moving goods from Russia will be easier to do through Siberia,
across the Arctic, into Hudson Bay to Churchill, and by rail into the
interior of the USA and even down to Mexico and west to the port of
Vancouver.
All to avoid that pesky St. Lawrence Seaway.
Which proves that Global Warming is for real, and extremely high end
corporate interests are involved in perusing the benefits.
So, anyone who says that it's not happening, is a jerk.
Siobhan Medeiros
Actually, it might. If all the methane in Russia's permafrost gets
released at once...
Then there's the methyl hydride ices along the continental shelf. If
they were to melt, it would release massive amounts of methane, which
would create a chain reaction and climate change an order of magnitude
more severe than what we're experiencing now. A methyl hydride
release is believed to be what caused the Permian-Triassic extinction
which wiped out 90% of Earth's species.
> > - equatorial regions will not heat up as much as polar regions as the
> > cooling effects of evaporation.
>
> Words from you. No legitimate cite.
>
Don't hold your breath waiting for one either.
> Is there a reason why you just spouted that off? Or do you have a
> source?
>
> Let's just say that there isn't a legitimate climatologist in the
> world who agrees with you.
>
> Find one. Just do that and get back to us.
>
> The onus of proof is on you.
Well, there's Richard Lindzen, but he's hardly legitimate.
Dave Smith
> Tell me, have you ever taken a math class in your life?
Probably more than you dir.
> They average out ONLY if the summer temperatures rise and the winter
> temperatures fall by the EXACT same amount.
If you weren't such a moron you would have provided the data to show
that the higher temperatures in summer counter balanced the lower winter
temperatures. All you did to rebut my comment about friends in BC
reporting colder winters was to assume that the hotter summer averaged
out higher than normal. You failed to provide the details that would
prove that there is a trend toward higher averages. It would probably
surprise you to learn that the average temperature varies every year.
Sometimes the average temperature is a little higher and sometimes it is
a little lower. Sometimes it edges up and then slips back down.
> If the summer temperatures rise more than what the winter temperatures
> fall by, the average temperature goes up.
>
> Got it now, moron?
No... moron.... you did not provide any proof that this is what has
actually happened. I have seen several sites that indicate that our
average temperature has actually dropped. I have also seen several that
deal with the long term trends in climate, and they often directly
reflect solar and volcanic activity. You should try looking up some of
that stuff instead of just making up claims about average temperature
changes as if you thought you knew what you were talking about and
calling other people morons.
Chom Noamsky
> cooling effects of evaporation.
>
> CO2, more humans, especially in places like Africa, Hindu and Muslim
> countries with population growth out of control.
>
> Greenies are knobs. Sort of like a solution looking for a problem that
> does not exist.
You remind me of the proverbial fool dancing on the edge of a cliff.
Chom Noamsky
CLIMATE EFFECTS ON MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE DISTRIBUTION
Over the past decade, British Columbia has not experienced the extreme
cold winter temperatures that curtailed previous outbreaks. Warming in
British Columbia over the twentieth century (to 1995) was approximately
equal to the global average of 0.6�C on the coast (British Columbia
Ministry of Environment, 2002; IPCC, 2001), but two or three times
higher in the interior (Figure 1).
Chom Noamsky
> We were under over a mile of ice in Toronto once. But before that,
> the Arctic was a warm sea and Alberta was a shallow sea with a
> jungle. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any oil.
>
> Sure! Shit happens!
>
> It's the pace that matters.
>
>
> The Rockies were once plains.
>
>
> If anyone really believes that Global Warming is beneficial to Canada,
> why haven't they invested in property up in Moose Factory for a
> resort?
>
> Well, I used to say that, until I read recently that with the melting
> of the Arctic, the harbor in Churchill Manitoba has been purchased
> along with the railway, the Canadian and Manitoba government has
> invested, along with Russian interests, because once things have
> melted, moving goods from Russia will be easier to do through Siberia,
> across the Arctic, into Hudson Bay to Churchill, and by rail into the
> interior of the USA and even down to Mexico and west to the port of
> Vancouver.
>
> All to avoid that pesky St. Lawrence Seaway.
>
> Which proves that Global Warming is for real, and extremely high end
> corporate interests are involved in perusing the benefits.
>
> So, anyone who says that it's not happening, is a jerk.
If you want to get a sense of global warming economic activity just
follow insurance industry news. They already consider it a serious
material threat. People like Canuck57 have their heads firmly inserted
up their asses and are completely lost to reality and reason. Not much
you can do to convince them... just remember who they are when they come
looking for compensation for damages.
Dave Smith
>
>
> If you want to get a sense of global warming economic activity just
> follow insurance industry news. They already consider it a serious
> material threat. People like Canuck57 have their heads firmly inserted
> up their asses and are completely lost to reality and reason. Not much
> you can do to convince them... just remember who they are when they come
> looking for compensation for damages.
Economic activity seems to be what it is mostly about. In the Kyoto deal
the western countries were being expected to make major commitments to
reduce emissions and to give billions to poorer countries, but the major
contributors to the pollution problem were exempted. One thing that we
really don't need to do is to funnel billions of dollars into all those
little countries whose governments as so notoriously corrupt that the
money will only end up in the pockets of the government officials.
Chom Noamsky
You need to take CO2 production into historical content. The developed
nations had a big head start, they started heavy industrialization
before the Chinese had even begun to wade out of rice paddies. Even
though China has overtaken the US in CO2 production, China's historical
output of CO2 is far less. Per capita they STILL only produce 1/4 what
a Canadian or an American does. How do we know this, you ask. Well,
things like oil and coal, almost and commodity, leave paper trails. The
accounting records of buyers and sellers of fossil fuels are quite
comprehensive, and the accounting history goes back to the dawn of
industrialization. If you dump waste into the lake for 10 years, and
your neighbour only 2 years, should he be accountable for half the
cleanup cost? China has a case here, they are being held accountable
for historical pollution they did not produce. The rationale behind
Kyoto recognized this, and the plan was for the industrialized nations
to take the initiative, and then the developing nations could easily be
pressured in compliance with Kyoto II. Would have worked, except the
"unfairness" of it all kaiboshed it, except it wasn't actually unfair.
Dave Smith
>> Economic activity seems to be what it is mostly about. In the Kyoto
>> deal the western countries were being expected to make major
>> commitments to reduce emissions and to give billions to poorer
>> countries, but the major contributors to the pollution problem were
>> exempted. One thing that we really don't need to do is to funnel
>> billions of dollars into all those little countries whose governments
>> as so notoriously corrupt that the money will only end up in the
>> pockets of the government officials.
>
> You need to take CO2 production into historical content. The developed
> nations had a big head start, they started heavy industrialization
> before the Chinese had even begun to wade out of rice paddies.
I don't need to take CO2 production into account other than to know that
the western world started to realize more than 40 years ago that
pollution was a problem. The western world cleaned up its act while
Chine played revolution games, and while we spent a lot of money to stop
polluting and paid workers decent wages, China has enjoyed an economic
boom with cheap wages and a total lack of environmental concern.
> though China has overtaken the US in CO2 production, China's historical
> output of CO2 is far less. Per capita they STILL only produce 1/4 what
> a Canadian or an American does. How do we know this, you ask.
They may be using producing less per capita than we are, but there are
more than a billion of them and their production is rapidly increasing.
> things like oil and coal, almost and commodity, leave paper trails. The
> accounting records of buyers and sellers of fossil fuels are quite
> comprehensive, and the accounting history goes back to the dawn of
> industrialization. If you dump waste into the lake for 10 years, and
> your neighbour only 2 years, should he be accountable for half the
> cleanup cost? China has a case here, they are being held accountable
> for historical pollution they did not produce.
They are not being expected to clean up our old waste. We have recently
accepted, or been asked to accept that there is a problem, and we have
to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and stop contributing to the
problem. Bear in mind that China had to shut down its industry to clear
the air for the Olympic games.
I remember the the dirty buildings and air of the 50s when we burned a
lot of cheap coal. We cleaned up our act a long time ago. We developed
and employed the technology to reduce pollution. Now we are shifted
production to places like China, where they can produce goods cheaper
because they don't have to spend the money to operate clean production.
> The rationale behind
> Kyoto recognized this, and the plan was for the industrialized nations
> to take the initiative, and then the developing nations could easily be
> pressured in compliance with Kyoto II. Would have worked, except the
> "unfairness" of it all kaiboshed it, except it wasn't actually unfair.
The rationale behind Kyoto was more likely the acceptance that this
rising giant would simply not clean up its act.
Siobhan Medeiros
> Ministry of Environment, 2002; IPCC, 2001), but two or three times
> higher in the interior (Figure 1).
>
> ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0670e/i0670e04.pdf
The sound you just heard was Dave stuffing his foot in his mouth.
Canuck57
I think he means your are full of bullshit.
The average temperature is not up. Certainly not where I live. It was
a noticably cooler sprint, top temperatures hardly happened at all,
certainly the rasperries and straw berrys thought so too as they were a
month late.
Don't need a math degree to smell bullshit.
Canuck57
>>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>> Still doesn't prove that humans are causing the warming
>>>>> A warming process that also took place on the other planets in the
>>>>> system
>>>>> Are you suggesting that it's human activity that's causing the
>>>>> warming on Mars ?
>>>> I live in an area that at the edge of the glacier movement at the end
>>>> of the last ice age. Glaciers have been retreating north (and south)
>>>> for thousands of years. Personally, I am not witnessing global
>>>> warming. In fact, last summer was the coolest one I can remember in my
>>>> entire life. I have not used my air conditioner for three years.
>>> rained this morning.
>> I thought you were in BC. I have a friend in Kelowna who emails several
>> times a week and has been talking about the cold. It is below normal
>> here in the Niagara area.
>
>
> But we've also lost huge numbers of pine trees because the winters
> aren't getting cold enough to kill off the pine beetle. In Mission
> Creek, there's huge areas of trees which have had to be removed
> because of the infestation.
>
> Tell me the bright side of that.
Study upon study confirms forest fires kill pine beetles far more
effectively. Another eco tax-me-silly BS line.
Reason is simple, freeze kills a few but given their reproductive rate
it is squat as food is pletiful. Destroy their food supply, and they
die by the tonnage. They bread well in old dry timber where the sap is
low and doesn't gue them down.
By interfering with natural forest fires in old growth we leave much
more dry and ideal timber for them to multiply.
It isn't the only way we humans destroy the forest.
Just get the facts straight and don't listen to the bullshit. Trouble
is too many stupid non-scienticic iddiots out there don't think, they
react. Illogicial, none scientific eco BSers being manipulated like
dumb sheep.
Canuck57
No, your stupidity did.
If you torched it, then let the new growth grow up there would not be a
problem. Trees are like fruit, pick when rip or let the bugs have it.
Trouble is government is tax greedy, companies are cheap and people are
stupid.
If you want trees and forrest harvesting, you have to do a lot more than
what is currently being done. For example, harvest when rip, leave the
brush, tips and all, scatterd. Even leave some real trees. Then torch
it as if hit by lightening and let the ash hit the shole slope. The ash
will help the soil go for another forrest cycle, bugs and beetles gone
as there is no food. It starts as grass and seedlinings, then 50-150
years later more harvestable trees.
There is a reason why McMillian does not want to harvest 50 year old
replants, the growth is stunted, the soil is erroded and tree denisity
sq/lm sucks. Simply putting some summer student to plant 25 cent
seedlings didn't and does not work to this day.
At least you have lots of good firewood!
Canuck57
> Canuck57 wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still doesn't prove that humans are causing the warming
>>>> A warming process that also took place on the other planets in the
>>>> system
>>>> Are you suggesting that it's human activity that's causing the
>>>> warming on Mars ?
>>>
>>> I live in an area that at the edge of the glacier movement at the end
>>> of the last ice age. Glaciers have been retreating north (and south)
>>> for thousands of years. Personally, I am not witnessing global
>>> warming. In fact, last summer was the coolest one I can remember in
>>> my entire life. I have not used my air conditioner for three years.
>>
>>
>> It was a farce from day one.
>>
>> Besides, we could use it warmer. But sadly the evidence suggests we
>> have been cooling for the last 50-100 years.
>
>
> The evidence is that it has been warming for thousands of years.
And a hell of a lot colder before that. And before that, a hell of a
lot warmer. In fact, the most bio diverse and propserious life on the
planet coincides with it's warmer periods. And we are currently on the
colder side of things.
Warming isn't hurting anything, if it is happening as the evidence
suggests a reversal has occured in the last 100 years. It was warmer in
medevil times.
Eco freeks, go back to the sky is falling like a good little pupet. The
who eco crap think is to keep your low IQ minds off of bad government,
bad economy and sing the government line... tax 'em silly under the name
of green.
Canuck57
> On Dec 17, 2:22 pm, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>> "chingang" <mopan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:mvrii5pcdq1r9sugb...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Susuki strongly suggests we are in a cooling period.
>>>> Too many stupid sheep following the pied piper on this one. Just con
>>>> artists and fraudsters looking for government money.
>>> vocabulary. Robin, chickadee and bumblebee! Yes that's right!
>>> They have never seen these creatures before in their lives. Why would
>>> these criiters migrate so far up to the Innuit lands, just so they
>>> could get a name? Are they "Lefty Liars" What say you? As your mentor,
>>> O'Reilly says? The Arctic tundra is melting! Oh its mushy now and the
>>> natives also have never seen that before! What a bunch of liars huh?
>>> That tundra has trillions of tonnes of "methane" gas. And that stuff
>>> is ten times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Yeah, but
>>> you're right, theys all lyin' varmits! I'll rely on your sources which
>>> are? You have to have more evidence to be a skeptic other than your
>>> visceral "evidence". Oh, by the way, the polar bears are getting
>>> smaller and lazier because they drown now trying to reach multilayer
>>> ice. You do know from your evidence what multilayer ice is,
>>> comprendez? What name would you give the robins if you could name
>>> them?
>>> I'd probably just tell the Innuits to name them all one name...
>>> Deadducks. Seems fitting, right naysayer?
>> A warming process that also took place on the other planets in the system
>> Are you suggesting that it's human activity that's causing the warming on
>> Mars ?
>
> on Earth, doofus. Try to keep up.
Are you that stupid to think Mars operates independant of the Earth?
Seriously? Are you that stupid not to understand that external forced
not in our control are actually behind it?
Even though the worlds consiracy to defraud others wants to hid it:
(Google cache recovers naked truths once again)
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:dp_8tzziuvwJ:www.newscientist.com/article/mg14119132.700-science-ios-water-ice-melts-away.html+io+ice+melt&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk
It isn't just Mars, IO and others. Turn your brain on and stop being a
dumb sheep. Lets see the fruit fly specialist explain this!
Trouble is they can't. No profit in the truth, just in fear mongering
and mass hysteria to lossen up the wallets.
Canuck57
> been proven to be completely blameless. This according to NASA. And
> when it comes to stuff like that, I'll go with NASA. Not some chump
> Mars!"
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
Read something other than Suzuki/Gore fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD).
Canuck57
>> Mars!"
>
> "warming" on any of the planets observed has to do with solar
> radiation.
All the planets just warmed up on their own?
> What's more, if the sun WERE getting warmer, the effects would be
> easily measurable on the moon. There's no atmosphere, no weather, no
> other real heat source, and a rise in temperature would be easy to
> detect.
You are missing a key ingredient, atomosphere.
> So if the sun were getting warmer, the moon would be getting warmer.
> But it isn't. End of story.
I repeat, you are missing a key ingredient, atomosphere.
Second thing you are missing is that our temperature histor of the moon
is so shart it is irrelivant.
Canuck57
>>>> Susuki strongly suggests we are in a cooling period.
>>>> Too many stupid sheep following the pied piper on this one. Just con
>>>> artists and fraudsters looking for government money.
>>> much to those Inuit elders who've been watching the glaciers retreat
>>> throughout their lives.
>> And how many know most of the worlds glacieries and 2/3rd of the polar
>> ice is less than 10,000 years old?
>>
>> Have the green knobs explain that.
>
> You are completely clueless as to how a glacier works, aren't you?
>
> A glacier MOVES, dumbass. You get accumulation at one end, and
> melting on the other. The glacier moves from the point of
> accumulation to the end, where it melts. Whether the glacier is
> advancing or retreating, the ice is only going to be as old as the
> time it takes for it to get from the head to the foot.
>
> Got it now?
Shit for brains, higher altitude it gets colder. And last I checked tre
stumps don't move uphill with glaciers. So be the stump from the
current point of r 5km up the slow/ice flow, doesn't mater at all to my
point.
You just reinforced what I said. LMAO. So even at a higher altitude
and the source of the flow of ice is where it was tropical some little
as 7000 years ago.
7000 years ago, right about when mankind was learning language skills
and firs real civilizations were prospering it was much WARMER than
today. LMAO.
Neil K
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eJXWm.5654$eH1....@newsfe16.iad...
=====================================================================================
People just found it that way, It got hot in those suits of armor.
==================================================================================================
Canuck57
Parts might become shallow lakes with fish that grow in 2 years instead
of 30. Quite a bit will be swamp until the land is cleared. But over
time, it will grow taller trees, more grass for cattle to graise and
some surely would in a warmer environment grow wheat.
Ferns used to grow on the north slop of Alaska at the peek of the
dinosaurs who also roamed the area. The type of ferns found don't grow
where there is snow and frost.
Carbon dating of polar caps in fact indicates most of the ice is rather
new in the historical record of the earth.
> When in fact it will become a bog.
Until it is drained....
>> - water as it thaws shrinks in volume releasing trapped gases as well.
>
> Methane gas. Another major GHG, but though worse than CO2, it
> doesn't have the stamina and doesn't represent as much as a threat.
So? Methane and CO2 are recyclable by nature and are biproducts of
life. In the meziasoic with 6 times today's levels of carbon the world
did well supporting the creatures that roamed the earth.
>> - equatorial regions will not heat up as much as polar regions as the
>> cooling effects of evaporation.
>
>
> Words from you. No legitimate cite.
No need to cite, you would read and think before replying. Start by
clicking on http://google.com. Don't type sky is falling, start at wiki
with climate history, 10,000 years ago and farther back.
> Is there a reason why you just spouted that off? Or do you have a
> source?
See the internat ass hole. Or go to the public libary or museum of
natural history in Chicago.
> Let's just say that there isn't a legitimate climatologist in the
> world who agrees with you.
I know, junk scientists don't agree with real scientists. The reason is
simple, mix a little fear into the stupid and they will follow the pied
piper of eco nuts to greater taxation and less freedoms.
> Find one. Just do that and get back to us.
>
> The onus of proof is on you.
See my previous posts if you are too stupid to click on google and do
appropriate searches.
Canuck57
Well lets put it this way. Why you eco freeks really try to do
something really stupid like control the atomopher and really screw it
up, that is the real threat to mankind.
Junk scient is the threat. Fostered by human stupidity and arrogance.
Can't predict the weather for 3 days straight but we can for 1000 years!
You know how dumb this is? Must be a lot of low IQ people out there.
Canuck57
> On Dec 17, 5:45 pm, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>>> "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>>> news:37da33fc-0949-4f53...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> f. barnes wrote:
>>>>> What don't Canadians want a warmer Climate. It's cold up there.
>>>> It could actually get a lot colder in parts of Canada. The ocean
>>>> currents that bring warm water north are already showing signs of
>>>> change. Those oceanic conveyor belts are a huge influence on northern
>>>> climate. Parts of Europe could get a lot colder as well.
>>>> And if you are like me I enjoy winter. I like the fact that I can bike
>>>> or walk to the local hill and ski and board. I haven't been able to for
>>>> the last 20 years, except for last winter... a real La Nina year for
>>>> those close to the Pacific.
>>>> My pine forests are also gone, 13 million hecares of them. Killed off
>>>> because the vermin that like to eat the soft parts of trees thrive when
>>>> the winters are warm.
>>>> "f. barnes", as they say, ignorance is bliss.
Ya, so? And there will be lots of pine beetles this summer even with
the freeze. Your point? If it is that man's interference, I would
agree. Saving old tres from antural forest fires leave them bugs lots
of food to bread and multiply.
> The fact is, forest fires have been getting WORSE, not better. But
> the winters have been getting milder, that is not in dispute.
Nature tends to compensate. Sort of like damning up water and when it
breaks....
Since you were not around 7000 years ago when it was warmer, your
statement is relative to what? 1995?
>> Forest fires in old dry forests is a natural event man prevents for $$$.
>
> That hasn't been done for years, idiot. Nowadays they only fight them
> if they're a threat to homes, otherwise they let them burn out.
>
>> Warmer is better, Toronto under 3km of ice, raries under km of ice does
>> not sound like Canada will be habitable at all.
>
> Are you on drugs?
Well, if it isn't warming it must be getting cooler. Cooler means ice age.
You didn't think Herucules carved out the lakes on the Canadian shield
did you?
>> For this reason, junk
>> scientiest fruit fly specialists should be so fired, and replaced with
>> ahrd core, open to the public pure scientific research to determin which
>> is in fact true.
>
> They did that. The next group of scientists would find the exact same
> thing, and you'd be calling for their heads as soon as they told you
> what you didn't want to hear.
I will know the truth when I hear it, I did quite well in both ancient
and recent history in school. History also shows herds of humans do not
always get it right, in fact often they do not because they are so
historically illiterate and ego bound.
>> There is very serious evidence of cooling in the last
>> 50 to 100 years.
>
> You've shown yourself to be scientifically illiterate, so why should
> we care what you think?
I don't expect you too. But you read my message so I disturbed you
belief in eco bullshit and fraud you think is fact.
>> People who fear warming are nuts, if Canada was like Costa Rica, I sure
>> would not complain. But if Canada was under 1km of ice, I would be
>> certainly dead as would all Caandians.
>
> Yeah, that's really likely. Retard.
Given time, with or without humans both might occur again, and again...
Read some ancient history with a focus on geology, evolution, extinction
and planetary physics.
Canuck57
Probably would except for two points.
First there is no proof that in 10 or 20 years it will be warmer or
colder. They were wrong in 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930...2000 and for the
sakes of raising money the junk scientists will probably chang ethier
ming agian in 2010....
But lets say and hope it is warming. Even if the nut balls are right, I
will be dead 1000 years before I have to worry about Aligators on great
Slave Lake let alone go golfing in January.
Did you know frog populations increase with mild winthers and increase
warm summer percipitation?
> Well, I used to say that, until I read recently that with the melting
> of the Arctic, the harbor in Churchill Manitoba has been purchased
> along with the railway, the Canadian and Manitoba government has
> invested, along with Russian interests, because once things have
> melted, moving goods from Russia will be easier to do through Siberia,
> across the Arctic, into Hudson Bay to Churchill, and by rail into the
> interior of the USA and even down to Mexico and west to the port of
> Vancouver.
Will give the local natives jobs... good to see they are looking ahead
30, 50, 100 years...
> All to avoid that pesky St. Lawrence Seaway.
And the Quebec unions.
> Which proves that Global Warming is for real, and extremely high end
> corporate interests are involved in perusing the benefits.
I am not sure of this, but did see a photo where they navigated the
arctic in North of Canada in wooden boats in winter in about 1903 or
something. Only since then did it close up, and now reopening.
> So, anyone who says that it's not happening, is a jerk.
I am not denying it may be happening.
But some questions I have serious doubts are:
1) My SUV/SUT didn't melt Mars ice caps...
2) Is it so bad? It has happened in recent and distant history that the
earth was signifigantly warmer than today so what is the big deal?
3) Are we fearing something that is actually good for humanity because
most of humanity is too stupid or greedy to understand it?
4) Is it being used to keep peoples minds occupied on bullshit when war,
faine, population control, government corruption and nany-state control
-- you know the real issues governmetns want ignored?
Canuck57
Funny how these "poorer" countries are the worst offenders. Many with
muslim or dictatorial governments where rights violations are no longer
reported as it is a life style of facism, buchary... Somaia type
countries.
Some are adding 20-30% to their population every year, bringing in 4/5
children into starvation because they can't evolve beyond that of a
sub-rat -- rats even limit their population to food and resources.
The West should tell the greedy extorionistic dictators to shove it
high, hard and wide. Even withdraw from the UN if neccessay. Let the
African nations have a 2 billion soul war... it is how they have
controlled their population since recorded history.
Canuck57
China was mining coal and making steel, bronze etc. long before western
industrialization even got started. Ditto Europe. Oil was even used!
The real problem is when you get 7 billion people doing it as opposed to
100 million. And the 7 billion are multipling at an unsustainable
rate... you will have problems.
If Canada and the US can't get population control top front and center,
we should just walk away.
Canuck57
> perspective). The industrialized nations had a big headstart on
> China, that can't be argued and as a result, they've dumped far more
> CO2 into the atmosphere over time. Now, back to historical
> perspective; for most of that time, they didn't know what the hell
> they were doing and what the result 'might' be; China does and has,
> since it's accelerated progress into the industrial world. That, my
> friend, mitigates the Western industrial countries and lays a big
> chunk of responsibility on China, as well as India, Brazil and the
> rest of the nations who want big bucks from the so called 'Rich'
> countries because they have all the information about the 'damage' CO2
> does. They have no excuse and their finger pointing is pure bullshit.
And they will never agree. People in Africa will continue to bring into
the world newboarns that will starve because the parents were too stupid
and selfish to practice birth control. At least China has a policy that
is better than anyone elses.
And Canada's birth rate is 1.58 per family. That is a shrinking
population, and why immigration to Canada is so damned easy. In fact an
open door policy with pay to get started.
No one would live in Canada if they couldn't burn carbon to survive.
Raw fact of life in Canada, you will need burning carbon or you will
die. It is no Fiji here in January.
Canuck57
> The rationale behind Kyoto was more likely the acceptance that this
> rising giant would simply not clean up its act.
In many ways, China is ahead of everyone else. That is why they
rationally see the utter farce of Kyoto and eco freek terrorism.
Simply put, China has a population growth containment strategy when 99%
of the other countries do not.
Tehy ar ein fact hitting the problem head on while the liberal control
and eco freeks side step the real issues for what is a love in of stupidity.
Canuck57
>>>> "ma...@merde.com" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:51a48f3b-2659-43ba...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Dec 16, 7:48 pm, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Most Canadians know that global warming is real and caused by human
>>>>> activity.
>>>> basket moves north.
>>> Do you think you can just plop oranges onto land previously growing
>>> wheat? It takes years, perhaps decades to determine what grows well
>>> on what land. Meanwhile, the US bread basket will be struggling under
>>> increased drought.
>> You mean you damn up big rivers, redirect them to California and wonder
>> why there is a water shortage in the interior.
>>
>
> Redirect them to California. Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt. Tell you what,
> give me the name of one BC river which has been diverted all the way
> to California. List it right here ____________-.
Kootenay/Columbia? I think that was more like flood millions of acres
of Canadian land so to control the seasonal flow of water.
I was thinking of rivers dried up leading into Mexico and the Colorado
River.
>> LMAO.
>>
>>>> But it in fact is doing no damage at all. 1938, and 1940 were the coldest
>>>> years in history, and the glaciers melted faster in 1040 then now.
>>> And how would you know what was happening in 1040, moron? And where
>>> do you get your claim that 1938 and 1940 were the coldest years in
>>> history? From out of your ass?
>> Alberta this year, just 3 or 4 days ago broke a 116 year old record for
>> cold. We haven't broken any all time highs in anyones lifetime either.
>
> Let's see your cite, retard.
>
>> What does that tell you?
>>
>
> That you're another retard who doesn't understand the difference
> between climate and weather.
Under stand the important part, warmer is bette than colder. People die
from cold much faster than a 30C summer day. Especially if they can't
burn carbon.
>> Tells me global warming is bullshit. And if it si not, I welcome it.
>>
>
> Tells me your head is made out of bullshit.
Nope, just smarter than you. I can't tell bullshit from reality.
>>>> Thats the part you dont want to accept.
>>>> Because you are a buffoon.
>>> Because I wasn't educated by a buffoon.
>> People making it a concern out of proportion are in fact the buffoons.
>>
>
> In any words, people who tell you what you don't want to hear.
Sounds like you describe an eco freek.
Just being real. I can assure you global warming due to CO2 will not be
the end of mankind.
>>>> You live in the shittiest country in the world!!
>>> How are you enjoying your financial crisis, retard?
>> I am enjoying it immensly. The defunct liberal-debtors running
>> government made an excellent buying/market opportunity with this
>> unstability. And realists all over are cashing in as we saw it
>> coming.... I used to be happy with 8% year over year return, closing
>> 2009 as a banner year about 4 times that.
>>
>
> Figures that a rightard would celebrate other people's misery.
Nope, just see the stupidity going on and the leaders of the countries
let it happen. And the UN does squat to make it better. Money isn't
the problem, human social evolution, or the lack of it is.
I can't stop it, I am just smart enough to see the irony of it.
If you really want to stem the problem, keep supporting the government.
When they have enough control, just like THX-1038 (??) they will
decide who breads and who does not. Your genetic stock will likely not
be included.
Pretty ugly problem. And not vey many integigent enough to deal with
it. At least China has a policy...far more than 99% of the other countries.
>> Much more than I lost in 2008...as in April 2008 I went cash high
>> because governmetns were ignoring the debt crisis. In fact, one could
>> argue they caused it deliberately.
>
> Surrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeee you did..(bullshit detector going off)
It sells taxes... governments are not benevolent. Read some history.
Siobhan Medeiros
So?
> And last I checked tre
> stumps don't move uphill with glaciers. So be the stump from the
> current point of r 5km up the slow/ice flow, doesn't mater at all to my
> point.
>
What the fuck do tree stumps have to do with anything? Are you going
completely apeshit now?
> You just reinforced what I said. LMAO. So even at a higher altitude
> and the source of the flow of ice is where it was tropical some little
> as 7000 years ago.
>
I'm sorry, was this supposed to be coherent? Did you flunk grammar as
well as science?
> 7000 years ago, right about when mankind was learning language skills
> and firs real civilizations were prospering it was much WARMER than
> today. LMAO.
Surrrrreeeee it was....a few thousand years after the end of the ice
age. Got a source for this, retard, or are you just pulling it out of
your ass like the rest of your stuff?
Siobhan Medeiros
> >> Mars!"
>
> > That and the cyclical nature of dust storms. The fact is, none of the
> > "warming" on any of the planets observed has to do with solar
> > radiation.
>
> All the planets just warmed up on their own?
Is some cases, yes. Jupiter for example, radiates twice as much heat
as it receives from the sun.
>
> > What's more, if the sun WERE getting warmer, the effects would be
> > easily measurable on the moon. There's no atmosphere, no weather, no
> > other real heat source, and a rise in temperature would be easy to
> > detect.
>
> You are missing a key ingredient, atomosphere.
>
Are you brain dead? I just said there was NO atmosphere. That means
that the ONLY variable in determining the moon's temperature is the
sun. Therefore, if the sun were getting warmer, the moon would be
getting warmer. End of story.
> > So if the sun were getting warmer, the moon would be getting warmer.
> > But it isn't. End of story.
>
> I repeat, you are missing a key ingredient, atomosphere.
>
I repeat, you are a retard. As I stated before, the lack of an
atmosphere makes reading MORE reliable, not less.
> Second thing you are missing is that our temperature histor of the moon
> is so shart it is irrelivant.
How stupid are you? Do you think they sent men to the moon without
checking it over with a fine-toothed comb from Earth? They measured
EVERYTHING about it - including the temperature, moron. That's over
fifty years of history. More than enough to measure any rise in
temperature do to increased solar activity.
But there isn't any.
Siobhan Medeiros
Oh, right, pumping millions of tons of CO2 isn't screwing it up, but
us "eco freaks" are capable of doing something that will. And what
would that be, asshole?
>
> Junk scient is the threat. Fostered by human stupidity and arrogance.
> Can't predict the weather for 3 days straight but we can for 1000 years!
>
> You know how dumb this is? Must be a lot of low IQ people out there.
What's dumb is not understanding the difference between weather and
climate, shit-for-brains.
Siobhan Medeiros
Oh, what, the magic CO2 fairies will make the fish grown 15 times
faster? How do you figure that, moron?
> Quite a bit will be swamp until the land is cleared.
>But over
> time, it will grow taller trees, more grass for cattle to graise and
> some surely would in a warmer environment grow wheat.
Oh good, then all we have to do is go on a diet for the 40 or 50 years
that it'll take for that to happen.
>
> Ferns used to grow on the north slop of Alaska at the peek of the
> dinosaurs who also roamed the area. The type of ferns found don't grow
> where there is snow and frost.
Alaska was in a completely different location when the dinosaurs were
around, idiot. It's called continental drift. Fuck, did you ever go
to school at all?
>
> Carbon dating of polar caps in fact indicates most of the ice is rather
> new in the historical record of the earth.
>
You can't carbon date ice, idiot. It only works on matter that was at
one time living. Where are you getting this crap?
> > When in fact it will become a bog.
>
> Until it is drained....
>
And how do you propose to drain several thousand square kilometers of
bog?
> >> - water as it thaws shrinks in volume releasing trapped gases as well.
>
> > Methane gas. Another major GHG, but though worse than CO2, it
> > doesn't have the stamina and doesn't represent as much as a threat.
>
> So? Methane and CO2 are recyclable by nature and are biproducts of
> life.
No they aren't idiot. Methane only lasts 10 years in our atmosphere
before either reacting or escaping into space. CO2 is far more
stable. And it isn't being recycled, otherwise the proportion of CO2
in the atmosphere wouldn't be going UP, retard.
>In the meziasoic with 6 times today's levels of carbon the world
> did well supporting the creatures that roamed the earth.
>
Hey, dipshit. It might have escaped your notice, but we've kind of
got something called a CIVILIZATION here. That requires massive
amounts of agriculture, something the dinosaurs could do without.
And in any case, the issue isn't the amount of CO2 or the
temperature. The issue is the CHANGE in CO2 and the CHANGE in
temperature. Got it now?
> >> - equatorial regions will not heat up as much as polar regions as the
> >> cooling effects of evaporation.
>
> > Words from you. No legitimate cite.
>
> No need to cite, you would read and think before replying. Start by
> clicking onhttp://google.com. Don't type sky is falling, start at wiki
> with climate history, 10,000 years ago and farther back.
>
In other words, you want us to back up your own bullshit for you.
Doesn't work that way. Show us the cite or admit you're making this
shit up as you go along.
> > Is there a reason why you just spouted that off? Or do you have a
> > source?
>
> See the internat ass hole. Or go to the public libary or museum of
> natural history in Chicago.
Oh, thanks, that's real specific. So we'll just go through millions
of websites and books until we find the one that backs up what you
said. Fuck, you're stupid.
>
> > Let's just say that there isn't a legitimate climatologist in the
> > world who agrees with you.
>
> I know, junk scientists don't agree with real scientists.
Yeah, the junk scientists like Richard Lindzen are hoping for a huge
handout from the oil industry for trying to tell us that there's no
problem. Only people like you are stupid enough to listen to them.
> The reason is
> simple, mix a little fear into the stupid and they will follow the pied
> piper of eco nuts to greater taxation and less freedoms.
>
Oh, you mean like "them Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction!" and
"Obama's gonna kill grandma!"
> > Find one. Just do that and get back to us.
>
> > The onus of proof is on you.
>
> See my previous posts if you are too stupid to click on google and do
> appropriate searches.
Which part of "the onus of proof is on you" do you not understand?
We're not going to do your research for you, idiot. It's up to the
guy making the claim to back it up, not his opponents. Show us where
you're getting your bullshit from, or admit that you've been making it
up.
Siobhan Medeiros
> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 5:55 pm, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> >>> On Dec 16, 10:19 pm, "None4U" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
> >>>> "ma...@merde.com" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:51a48f3b-2659-43ba...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On Dec 16, 7:48 pm, Siobhan Medeiros <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>>>> Most Canadians know that global warming is real and caused by human
> >>>>> activity.
> >>>> And it will make Canada the center of global food production as the US bread
> >>>> basket moves north.
> >>> Do you think you can just plop oranges onto land previously growing
> >>> wheat? It takes years, perhaps decades to determine what grows well
> >>> on what land. Meanwhile, the US bread basket will be struggling under
> >>> increased drought.
> >> You mean you damn up big rivers, redirect them to California and wonder
> >> why there is a water shortage in the interior.
>
> > Redirect them to California. Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt. Tell you what,
> > give me the name of one BC river which has been diverted all the way
> > to California. List it right here ____________-.
>
> Kootenay/Columbia? I think that was more like flood millions of acres
> of Canadian land so to control the seasonal flow of water.
>
The Kootenay and the Columbia don't go anywhere near California,
idiot. Try again.
> I was thinking of rivers dried up leading into Mexico and the Colorado
> River.
>
>
Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but neither of those are in the BC
Interior.
>
>
>
> >> LMAO.
>
> >>>> But it in fact is doing no damage at all. 1938, and 1940 were the coldest
> >>>> years in history, and the glaciers melted faster in 1040 then now.
> >>> And how would you know what was happening in 1040, moron? And where
> >>> do you get your claim that 1938 and 1940 were the coldest years in
> >>> history? From out of your ass?
> >> Alberta this year, just 3 or 4 days ago broke a 116 year old record for
> >> cold. We haven't broken any all time highs in anyones lifetime either.
>
> > Let's see your cite, retard.
No cite. Just as I thought.
>
> >> What does that tell you?
>
> > That you're another retard who doesn't understand the difference
> > between climate and weather.
>
> Under stand the important part, warmer is bette than colder. People die
> from cold much faster than a 30C summer day. Especially if they can't
> burn carbon.
>
And what does that have to do with the difference between climate and
weather, moron?
> >> Tells me global warming is bullshit. And if it si not, I welcome it.
>
> > Tells me your head is made out of bullshit.
>
> Nope, just smarter than you. I can't tell bullshit from reality.
>
Ummm...so not being able to tell bullshit from reality makes you
smarter than me? How does that work, shithead?
> >>>> Thats the part you dont want to accept.
> >>>> Because you are a buffoon.
> >>> Because I wasn't educated by a buffoon.
> >> People making it a concern out of proportion are in fact the buffoons.
>
> > In any words, people who tell you what you don't want to hear.
>
> Sounds like you describe an eco freek.
Suuuuuurrrrrrrreeeeee it does.
>
> Just being real. I can assure you global warming due to CO2 will not be
> the end of mankind.
>
Maybe the end of civilization as we know it, that's all.
Doing nothing is going to cost us four or five times what it would
cost us to fix this thing now. Personally, I'd like to live in a
world with a little better than a 1930's style economy.
> >>>> You live in the shittiest country in the world!!
> >>> How are you enjoying your financial crisis, retard?
> >> I am enjoying it immensly. The defunct liberal-debtors running
> >> government made an excellent buying/market opportunity with this
> >> unstability. And realists all over are cashing in as we saw it
> >> coming.... I used to be happy with 8% year over year return, closing
> >> 2009 as a banner year about 4 times that.
>
> > Figures that a rightard would celebrate other people's misery.
>
> Nope, just see the stupidity going on and the leaders of the countries
> let it happen. And the UN does squat to make it better. Money isn't
> the problem, human social evolution, or the lack of it is.
And you're your own best argument for that point.
>
> I can't stop it, I am just smart enough to see the irony of it.
>
> If you really want to stem the problem, keep supporting the government.
> When they have enough control, just like THX-1038 (??) they will
> decide who breads and who does not. Your genetic stock will likely not
> be included.
I'm sorry, was this supposed to be coherent?
>
> Pretty ugly problem. And not vey many integigent enough to deal with
> it. At least China has a policy...far more than 99% of the other countries.
>
Last time I checked, it was the rightards who keep telling us to
breed, breed, breed.
> >> Much more than I lost in 2008...as in April 2008 I went cash high
> >> because governmetns were ignoring the debt crisis. In fact, one could
> >> argue they caused it deliberately.
>
> > Surrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeee you did..(bullshit detector going off)
>
> It sells taxes... governments are not benevolent. Read some history.
No it doesn't, idiot. It just puts the country deeper into debt.
Canuck57
I know from your reply that science was not your strong suit. Teacher
probabl felt sorry for you and pushed your grades up enough to pass.
Lots of people out there like you thinking they know more than they
really do. That is what is scary.
Canuck57
You were not good at geology or biology either I guess.
Canuck57
Mans propensity to screw with what isn't broke. The worlds ego system
will outlive mankind. You just have a hard time admiting that there is
nothing that we can do about global cooling or warming. Our lack of
humility in the universe, we think we can contol what we cannot. Food
ofr sheep and idle minds.