Hummer greener than a prius?

Your statement is very true - for almost all emotional arguments and agendas. Including the one that claims CO2 is a pollutant that contributes to the effects of global warming, climate change, or whatever name they're now giving the disaster that's allegedly destroying the planet. That's the real inconvenient truth too many people won't admit.

If people want to believe something, they don't bother looking into the facts of anything that seems to support their position.

And of course, as Max just pointed out, it goes for a lot of misinformed "beliefs".

My boys STARTED to watch ALGORE's slideshow for SCIENCE class last year. As soon as I found out, I asked the teacher if she was discussing the show with the class AND correcting the parts that are known to be wrong. I cc'ed the principle and assistant principle with each question.

The "teacher" said that no, they were not talking about it, but they are teaching the kids to think for themselves, and LATER experiments would set the record straight. When she replied to me, she did NOT carry the CC on.

I put them back in, and stated in no uncertain terms that as instructors, they are placed before the kids as the "experts" and have a responsibiltiy to make sure that they are presenting facts instead of political propoganda and fear. I didn't MIND them showing the slideshow, if they corrected it when it was wrong, AND discussed it with the kids. Throwing incorrect data and scaring kids is NOT acceptable for a science class.

Instead of correcting the slideshow, she decided to just stop showing it.

20 feed under water. what a maroooon! :D

so, your response to the collection of misdirection, misinterpretation, lies and bias put out by Al Gore is to balance it with the lies, bias, misdirection and misinterpretation contained in the Great Global Warming Swindle?

Don't know much about the ACLU except for the odd anti-ACLU rant on this board so I won't comment but I've seen Gore's movie and the GGWS (twice) and they are equally as bad. In defence of the GGWS, Gore's is longer and contains Gore...

:)

Algore stole it from "The day after tomorrow"

lol, too funny...

Dan

.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html

How about a a debate on the consensus question as well? There obviously is another side of that claim, regardless of what anyone might suggest otherwise.

9 of them say that the moon is made of green cheese, and one disagrees, are the nine right, or the one?

How this consensus deals with the ever changing problem?

we have gone from global cooling to global warming to climate shifts, all within the last 30 years.

How do self ordained experts explain away this?

How can they teach as a fact something that has changed so much, so quickly?

It is funny how these "experts" took the snakeoil route of "climate shifts" since it IS and always has been "shifting", so nature will stop proving them wrong?

Please.

you are polluting the air.

I have to agree, I read that and actually laughed out loud...

Oops, gotta be careful, I am supposed to be W--- oops -- cant say it!

going on a killing spree? :0
ma'an, and I was sharpening a blade, and counting bullets :(

is that Climate Change is happening and that it's man-made and Something Must Be Done. The scientific consensus here is almost complete, contradiction is heresy. I cannot talk about the attitudes over where you all are.

I'll post a few examples tomorrow.

not really a good example. Scientists DON'T think the moon is made of green cheese. Find a better illustration and I might agree.

You'll get no argument from me on how it is, either here, there, or everywhere. (A little Beatles lingo, there.)

What you describe is, pretty much, how it is here as well - it's considered a forgone conclusion. However, my point is how it SHOULD BE. How do you think it should be, either here or there or both?

That's my point - IT IS NOT a forgone conclusion, and there is NOT a consensus. There's PLENTY of dissenting opinion - and by VERY QUALIFIED scientists.

People are blindly following like sheep, led by the accomplices in the dominant media. Is that how it should be, or should people (and especially students) be presented with both sides of the argument?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePyyqjQgCgA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwgruLoObWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dtp9RiA0ns&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbkVF9sihF4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVWdQ2IkG9w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zIoBNTVg6k&feature=related

is the persistent idea that there has to be another side and that it should be given equal weight. I found this annoying to the point of apoplexy in the Intelligent Design discussions. Here, I admit, you have much more of a point but I still don't reckon that you're entitled to some form of parity. It might be the American Way to be fair and even handed (as seen with ID) but it ain't mine.

I'll have to wait until this evening to view and assess the YouTube stuff so please take my response as pending...

:)

It is amazing that the zombies kneeling down before the current god, "Climate Shifts".

The god has been changing, and for each one, "the debate" was over, until it silently faded away to be replace by the new god.

First we had the god of global cooling.

This god was replaced by the god of global warming and the world was going to drown.

The god of global warming died a quiet death, and most didn't even notice.

The heir apperent was the third in a long line of gods, the god of climate shifts.

Kneel down, unworthy one, and worship the god of the day! We have ways of dealing with anyone who speaks heresy, and there will be no mercy on the unbelievers. We once again, have consensus!

A doctor in the 1800s notices that women in childbirth had a higher survival rate when serviced by midwives than those serviced by doctors.

He recommended that doctors wash their hands between patients. The consensus was that he was wrong.

Was he?

A cartographer at the turn of the beginning of the 20th century noticed that the continents looked as if they fit together. He surmised that they may be floating on giant plates...

He was ignored because he was not an expert.

A few decades later, geologists came up with the plate tectonics theory.

Then, of course there was Louis pasteur, who's germ theory was so thoroughly rejected by his peers that he had to resort to demonstrations to the public to get any notoriety.

I thought I conceded in that discussion (or a similar one) that such a topic belonged out of the science room, and was a better suited religious discussion, or, at best, a philosophical one. However, when one scientist says to another, Wait a minute, I looked at the same data but came to a different conclusion, then it's a different issue all together.

According to Webster, the definition of science is [i]knowledge attained through study or practice; knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.[/i]

This is more than a difference of opinion, as was the case in the ID discussion, it's a difference of conclusion. Good science will leave open the conclusion until such a difference is resolved, don't you think? If so, the conclusion to which you cling must be a result of bad or flawed science - or, as you suggested in a previous message, politics instead of science. When politicians start advancing an agenda based on scientific theory - especially when there are plenty of qualified scientific dissenters - it's reason to dismiss in its entirety and wait for a real consensus.

Can you imagine one engineer saying to another, "Wait a minute, I reviewed your design, and my structural analysis would dictate a larger girder for the bridge span." However, the original engineer won't concede that an engineering miscalculation might have been made, won't consider further review of the design, AND the politicians involved want that bridge built in their district anyway and they continue to advance the project! No, no, no - hold the phone.

There's not much difference between engineering and science. And before a conclusion is considered a consensus, there should really be one. In the case of human activity contributing to global warming which is allegedly causing climate change, we're very far removed from a real consensus. And when these politicians want to advance the project anyway, we should ALL be screaming, no, no, no - hold the phone.

is what makes the "consensus" people worthy of only the scorn they have earned in their arrogance and ignorance.

They have made up their minds and will attempt to discredit anyone that doesn't agree that the sky is indeed falling.

Political agenda, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.

and a few other scientists throughout history.

OK, here goes...

The programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle (which I have seen twice), claimed that climate scientists had been engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to dupe the public and politicians into thinking that global warming is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. You seem to have bought into this idea as well. I'm not a great believer in Conspiracy Theory.

What do I think? Well, I value accuracy as I have always been taught that different views should be assessed according to the evidence that supports them, rather than on the vehemence with which they are held. It is on this basis that I accept that the understanding of climate change has developed through rational pooling of ideas and the accumulation of collective opinion in support of an accepted interpretation of the available evidence.

The rational consensus on climate change is that warming of the Earth is unequivocal and very likely due to greenhouse-gas emissions and other human activities. I'm sorry if you don't like it and I do agree with and accept your fears that politicians with their willing complicity of the media will continue to screw around with the evidence to suit their own agendas.

The consensus doesn't mean that there is absolute certainty in the conclusions. It certainly doesn't mean that or unanimity among researchers. It is based on a large body of evidence that has been documented in many thousands of scientific papers over the past few decades. Almost none of these papers, far less than a fraction of one per cent of the total, has diverged from the general theme.

My conclusion is that the weight of evidence justifies that the opponents of the consensus should NOT be given equal space. Under those circumstances, you will only get my attention if your objections are coherently and honestly expressed.

Neil :)

Pasteur was the first person to demonstrate that theories of spontaneous generation were wrong with a series of experiments that very quickly convinced most of the scientists in Europe.

It was all about the EVIDENCE. Pasteur had no difficulty whatsoever in getting his ideas across.

The Puerpal Fever incident involving Ignaz Semmelweis was before Pasteur's first demonstrations of Germ Theory and Semmelweis was, indeed, fired by a reactionary Medical School hierarchy for saving lives. All that demonstrates is that it's very difficult to formulate theories that go against the perceived wisdom of the times held by a bunch of academic old fogeys.

That is NOT the case now.

Pronouncing the doom and gloom of the comming ice-age?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7329799.stm
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/07/climate-activist-got-bbc-change-global-temperatures-decrease-article

The self-stated goal for the activists:
[i]"Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it's been subject to spin or [b]scepticism[/b]."[/i]

Yeah, anything that is scepticism has to be bad for their movement, right?

Amazingly, the BBC DID change the article, folding under the pressure and threats.

Based on the BBC article, the temp has NOT gone up in ten years, and they question if GW has peaked or not.

Clearly, a radical right wing group as the BBC can not be trusted to accurately talk about such things, right?

After all, we have consencus.....

People are being fired for espousing veiws counter to the church of the Goracle.

There have been calls to fire meteorologists for the high crime of being 'global warming deniers'

That they support reduced emissions part of the time. When we studied alternate fuels, they do save but shutting down the wee engine from time to time, but with the heavy accelerating stop and start driving most people face in cities, it usually pushes the engine on and off so often that the savings just don't add up at the end of the day.

The passive driver benefits more than the more common agressive driver of today I think.

Te key issue I see with Prius is the battery problems are simply endless. Very expensive to replace, unless you get a converter kit for a standard Mazda battery (need full side venting), don't last more than avg.3 years and are double the waste when done.

[b]"PLEASE DON'T FEED THE PLANTS"[/b]

Simple!

Because, my skeptical little chum, the release of fossil sequestrated Carbon Dioxide by man is unprecedented in the lifetime of the planet! Every other interglacial, the oil and the coal has stayed underground!

But of course it won't have any effect because it is a plant food...

I do accept that the Physics of CO2 is simple but its application to Climatology is complex and probably to the point of Chaotic but, especially given that complexity, there does come a point at which one weighs ones own personal feelings against the evidence to date and makes whatever decision suits. If you sit on the fence waiting for certainty, when a fence-post rams up your arse, don't blame me...

Neil :)

But our environment will become unable to sustain human life naturally anyway, just as it has done before, we may just be accelerating that fact.

We will never kill the world though, it's keep on spinning until.....uhm....god stops it or something.

As for the stopping breathing thing that's a great idea, lets start with anyone south of Canada.

Well, what you do in your mad country is totally up to you. I don't think it's quite so likely over here. I certainly don't have any hard evidence for it. There is certainly some idea that research funding is a bit skewed - maybe a LOT skewed - but I tend to factor that in in on own private little evidential scales.

Neil :)

http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315

Actually the scene in Europe is far more set in stone than it is out here (US [i]OR[/i] Canada).

Out here it is still heavily contested by those who don't believe it, it is beliwilderment in many others as they get pulled from side to side without really taking time to weigh it for themseves and is not really addressed by most companies, beyond the blue box for paper recycling and the odd CEO who makes the daily newspaper for riding his bike to work.

In Europe, resource management has been a great focus for many more years, having had to recover from two world wars. Climate change was a relatively easy one as most people have grown up being more resourceful, though the new generation has slipped a bit it seems.

In Austria, logging by horse is still a living for many, it gets them by and doesn't clear a forest.

In Germany, fuel efficient and resourceful cars have been a focus for decades out of sheer lack of resources (as with much of Europe for that matter).

People are far more concerned about water and electricity waste, recycling and taking puiblic transport to work (mainly because of the tiny congested roads and a decent tube).

Out here people are more recreational and enjoy their toys and comforts a little more. RV's, dirtbikes, sea craft etc. Who wants to give up that great stuff, I know I don't; even though I kayak, I love the bikes and Seadoo too.

We just live a very different lifestyle here, when I visit my mum, she still gets on to me if I leave a tap runnning and dry my hands first.

Mankind has lost an ability to adapt to our environment because we have created an environment that we can't sustain. Our eceonomy is designed to grow and expand, unlike our resources.

Since our neighbors to the north are far more environmentally friendly, y'all can show us how it's done, then we'll check the results.

Unfortunately Canada is far from being environmentally friendly, there are more advocates for a greener country as we can see the destruction on our resources first hand. Yuu should see the clear cuts through rollong mountains that US lumber company's get away with up here, even after provincial companies have been regulated to better logging practices. I honestly think yuo don't give a rats though, as long as it isn't in yoru face and in your backyard so you have to look at it, you will simply enjoy the benefits it offers you instead.

Canadians have a lot more to do before being considered environmentally freindly either though, there Is awareness, we SEE teh effects first hand but still those who don't see it don't believe it.

In a case of global movement toward cleaner living, Canada setting teh stage wouldn't do f-all for you anyway. Regardless of what happened, I am confident that you would still plug your ears and cover your eyes and refuse to admit there's a problem anyway.

Youi have grown up in a country that obviously sees extremes in one direction or another (whether environmentally, politically or whatever), this doesn't allow you to accept the small realities in between. It is either FAR FAR left or it is WAY OUT right, there's no common ground or reasoning allowed, only extreme difference of opinion; otherwise you would be considered to be flip-flopping, indecisive and unable to pick a side on which to play, displaying no core values or support for one side or the other.

I think, as usual, the rest of the world will have to set the example for you to scoff at for a few years and laugh at, point a finger at and call greenies. I can understand why though, in America green is EXTREME left-wing, radical nutjobs, Al Gore and the likes. The right wing seems to be paying lip service but at least that's something, whether effective or not. I must agree with Max with his view on how the grain is being segregated for eco fuels while people all over are starving. Yes, that's insane. Too bad people couldn't find a middle ground and agree on at least solving one or two of the resource problems, instead of simply opposing one another for the sake of opposition.

LL is right, try it out there first. We will follow if it suits us well enough :D
And just think, then Canada would be the worlds leader in something :0 :^0

Ok, now how do we convince those south of the USA?
Hmmm, maybe East and West as well...

Oooh, and Washington D.C. cant forget to convince them....

Unless it is an opportunity to go to war and blow off all your arms before teh expiry date, America will always be the ones to sit on their hands and laugh at the rest of teh world. But you do seem to follow suit eventually, it just takes you all a while to catch on I think. Actually to be more concise, it seems the US only gets involved when it hurts, until American people feel the sting, they refuse to change.

I thinks its that age old and quite backward saying, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Obviously, with grammar like that, it could not come from anywhere else.

Oh, BTW, when was the last Canadian innovation in the field of Pharmacuiticals?

And the automobile resolved a major pollution problem.

Horse manure, which contributed to massive outbreaks of disentery (sp?), as well as a plethora of environmental concerns.

The US phamaceutical industry is the laughing stock of the world. It has to be one of the most commercial, poorly regulated and corrupt industry's in your country. When it comes to drugs just go to the US they'll find some for you. If they don't work, they'll find something else to counter the effects, and so on and so on and so on, until you have a cornocopia of colourful medicines to make the world a happy place again.

Then again, you know all about hard core meds, don't you? How many do you take now?

But you have a good question, what HAS Canada contributed in this field? NOTHING I say, NOTHING, compared to the little blue pill of course.

But how about T3C - the most effective drug for dealing with Aids symptoms, that is recent and most widely used drug in the world in the treatment of HIV?

or Insulin? though that doesn't really matter anymore, curing diabetes it's not new and hip like Viagra and has merely been saving millions of lives for decades.

Mustard operation: okay that's getting old now, but saving childrens lives never gets old, does it?

Neonatal screening for congenital hypothyroidism, you might want to look that one up, I had to. It has saved many babies from retardation due to a lack of Thyroid Hormone.

Pablum: Yummy! good for the babies, but again that's old now, everyone knows abotu Pablum.

OH, I know, Polio vaccine, but that is also old and fewer people seem to die from Polio these days so I guess that doesn't count.

Rhogam is a little mroe recent, discovered in the 80's. then again, there are fewer cases of Rhesus disease being passed onto unborn children so I gues sthat one didn't work either.

We made the arm for your space shuttle but that's not medicine that's science. We did perform the first Chiropractic alignment, telegraph, morse code, telephone,and lightbulb (before the patent was bought and marketed by Edison of course), fibre optics, kerosene, the list goes on and on really.

But you're right, Canada does not release billions of dollars worth of questionable and often useless pharmaceuticals the way the US industry does, something I will reconsider getting US citizenship over I'm sure.

In contrast to Canada or other country's, the US invents very little, the US HAS been known to buy patents and market, develop them into major money making enterprises but is not vieiwed by many as an INVENTOR of anything.

Here's a partial list if you are actually interested and not just spewing stuff out of your arse in hope of loooking superior to others as usual.

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/CANpride/inventions.html

Then again, this is an old excercise I have been through many times here, so it's nto really fair on you. I know you don't get taught much about Canadian inventions (or Canada or anywhere else in the world) in school, unless they are later considered American inventions or examples of what America did right of course.

They all live in Alaska and you found a website that shows the current population is okay, they are not threatened by receding ice at all, that's just the substandard Canadian bears that were a cheap copy of the American invention.

In reality, scientists all over see the polar bear population as being extinct within a century, but that's fools science, you've seen one at the zoo and it looked fine, a little yellow but okay for the most part.

It's funny how that US website mentions NOTHING of the ice floes that they use to hunt, or how those floes are receding quickly. They do mention how they monitor the feeding habits around the bowhead whale carcasses in Alaska though, so that represents the species I guess.

I am sure they are seen eagerly gobbling up what they can of that dead whale, not recognizing that their main food source is the seal, for which they rely on ice floes to reach them. Not too many bowhead whale carcasses washign up in Hudsons Bay these days I don't think.

" It feeds almost exclusively on seals, although it is an opportunistic feeder and will eat almost anything [b]if hungry[/b]." Such as a whale carcass because it can't GEt to the seals anymroe.

"If climatic trends continue polar bears may become extirpated from most of their range within 100 years."[1] The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service formally proposed listing the polar bear as a threatened species on January 7, 2007. A final decision was due on January 7, 2008 but has been delayed"

So the US does recognize there is a dire threat to the extinction of the bear, perhaps you should write your congressman and tell him it is okay and not to worry, you found a website that has them eating dead whales in Alaska so they don't need huntin grounds, we'll just round them all up and send them to Alaska to be happy.

Geez, you really gotta try harder before you throw out such insubstantial garbage.

We've had quite a few people here, like yourself, who rely on quick facts from few sources that simply support their own ideas and end up just looking uneducated and downright stupid, do a little research next time.

NEXT!

Neil is British, in England fossil fuels (especially coal burning) were in use during the industrial revolution, starting in England in the late 18th century and gradually being adopted across Europe and eventually North American in the early 19th century.

As for dissentry that was common since the dark ages when human feces was not properly disposed of, until the Romans lead the way of course, long before the industrial revolution.

You are also right in that horse manure was a big problem at one time, but are you suggesting that is a good reason for burning fossil fuels in automobiles instead?

Or are you suggesting that is why we don't need to address the current pollution problems and inefficient North American automobiles?

Because it's either that or this?
Horse crap that kills us from disease or else pollution that kills us as we walk down the street? I'll opt for the horse crap over CO, we have vaccination and cures for such infections now.

Regardless of your belief or disbelief in global warming, climate control or whatever, how about making a case of WHY yuo feel we DON'T need to control our emissions and pollutants?

That will be interesting, forget GW, why shouldn't we leave a smaller carbon footprint regardless of climate change?

"You notice, when people say 'the scientific consensus on global warming,' they won't specifically say what they're talking about." (1:45)

Horseshhit! The scientific consensus has been spelled out for you in great detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
Good job finding that one little exception to Forster's theory, in tropical regions, but most of the Earth is not in tropical regions -- yet.

[i]In August, 2007, Spencer published an article in Geophysical Research Letters calling into question a key component of global warming theory which may change the way climate models are programmed to run. [3] Global warming theory predicts a number of positive feedbacks which will accelerate the warming. One of the proposed feedbacks is an increase in high-level, heat trapping clouds. Spencer's observations in the tropics actually found a strong negative feedback. This observation was unexpected and gives support to Richard Lindzen's ?infrared iris? hypothesis of climate stabilization. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said. "The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming." [4][/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
1. Does anybody here know how he arrived at that 75%?
2. Does that mean the increase will be only 25% of what Al Gore said, or 25% of what a reputable scientist said?

"...and I was just amazed, because you don't usually see that level of intellectual honesty in the scientific community."

Wow! Sounds like science is very difficult ... for him.

"I mean typically we're all pretty protective of our theories, and our work, and we really hate being wrong, and it's true of all of us."

We don't suffer fools gladly. See about his TS card, please deepsand?

I visited the Hummer and Toyota web sites. None of five models of Hummer or three models of Prius is available in any color, shade, or hue of green.

[i]"3. At 01:13 AM on 13 Apr 2008, Steve wrote:
What a disappointing explanation.

Two facts were accurately reported in the original version of the story. One was subsequently removed, the other was obfuscated.

The fact that was obfuscated is that the earth's temperatures have not risen for ten years. The fact that was removed is that some people then extrapolate that some people think global warming has stopped.

When the "addition" of material serves to remove and obscures facts, then the revision is less accurate than the original.

Mr Harrabin emailed a campaigner:

"Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier. We have changed headline and more."

Please, BBC. Report the facts - don't tell us how to feel, we can make our own minds up."[/i]

And yes, the way his original story would have been pulled out of context and spread out as if he were some Anti-GW fan would have hurt him, as you well know.

He made the mistake in the first story to report on the facts.

He made the mistake in the second story to remove some details AND bury the parts the activist was so outraged about.

[i]
Original Wording:-

"The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. [b]This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."[/b]

Revised wording:-

"The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. [b]But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases."[/b][/i]

[b]She then went on to say:[/b][i]
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.[/i]

and he proved her correct, by allowing himself to be "psychologically manipulated", by her.

I reccomend thorazine for you, about 900mgs should be just about right.

We'll let the canadian ones die.

Please stop your emissions.

Oh, and logical fallacies, such as the fallacy of the false middle.

To paraphrase what you said, sometimes the two sides of the arguement are 'right' and 'wrong'.

A comon trait here is when people can't defend a point or realize they were wrong, they simply offer pathetic one liners in an attempt at humour. Again, it's old and been done to death already.

that you're currently all fired up in your anti -Oz campaign and your one-liner was probably aimed at him but, from where I'm looking, your post is hanging at the level that is in answer to mine and I could misconstrue.

However, I don't upset easily...

:D

The mainstream media took a line of inquiry in progress, and exaggerated the researchers' confidence of the worst-case scenario in a crass bid to boost sales. Adam & Jamie say: "Plausible, with strong support from reams of common knowledge. This can almost be confirmed without even testing."

"please provide references from the 60's saying there was a [i]consensus[/i] that global warming was the real problem."

Put down the crack pipe, nobody ever claimed that was the consensus [i]in the 60's[/i].

That just means he was the biggest noise on Earth that year. Didn't they vote down Osama bin Laden by a whisker in 2001, for the same recognition: cover boy?

is not = best man

the choice is who made the biggest impact, good or bad, that year.

I think you have to admit, he did make a global impact?

that you didn't comment on the changes made in the article.

That is ok. You didn't write the article, you just defended they way it was changed?

Fine.

How many in the scientific community agreed with, or disagreed with the idea of global cooling?

When did global warming become recognized as a global problem?

When did it reach "consensus" status, and who ordained it such?

Based on what time frame, does the cooling/warming trend start getting measured at?

As for resources, I recall hearing we were going to run out of oil in 10 to 20 years, over 30 years ago. hmmmmmm.

no offense meant to you.

And I'm done razzing Oz.

....

By the way, for all your bluster, Canada does have an active pharmaseutical research base, and we have 3 times as many people working for the big pharmas as we do working for generic manufacturers.

Canada of course also is big on medical research. Sick Kids is one of the top paediatric hospitals in the world and does tons of research(Pablum was invented there). Princess Margaret is one of the top cancer research hospitals in the world.

But don't let a few facts get in the way of an entertaining yarn now.

James

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html

It was in 2003 that Bush invaded Iraq and f*cked up the world forever. Or did he do something even WORSE in 2004 that I don't know about?

Why work through problems and health issue when you can just take a drug for them. Then another to balance out the last one and so on and so on. Yup, yay for US pharmeceuticals.

By the way, excellent job avoiding the fact that the last rant from you was thrown back in your face, way to support your BS.

You know I always love that one.

"What has Canada ever invented?"

It's always fun to post and endless list especially when full of inventions many people think are from the USA.

This one's just too easy for me though, I need the real heavies, like Max, to give me a run for my money again.

Your a funny one, how you ever skpped stand up for IT I just don't know.

I suppose I am supposed to get worked up or upset that you are speaking of Canadian bears being woth less than American bears.

Well even if I WAS Canadian, which I am not, I stil lwoudln't care what you thought. I have many mroe laughs on Canada's behalf than you could ever hope to, ever seen our government, that'll keep you in stitches for a while.
The difference is, Canadians don't take these things seriously, I don't care of you want to poke and prod at Canada, I do it all the time, as do many Canadians.

YOu seem tothink that anyone downplaying your government, is anti-American, moreso you feel that being anti-American is a bad thing. Even if I WAS American I would be opposed to the US government these days.

You see, I live in a democratic country, they have it in the Constitution that I don't have to love the government and I can call it to task if I want to. It is what some consider freedom and protection from dictatorship.

In contrast; freedom and being American, in the USA, means you love the government and support their actions (according to your ranting). If not, you are anti-American, either with us or against us and all that utter BS. Way to promote your ideals of freedom and democracy to others around the globe!