Paging Algore! Cleanup in isle 7!

[scm]

Even if global warming is happening, the recent email exposures have hurt the global warming movement. Scientific research needs to neutral, independent of politics.

Scientists arguing both sides have resorted to underhanded methods. Both sides have lost credibility. The public judges the scientific community as a whole, and this has hurt everyone. The integrity of scientific data on global warming has been reduced.

Regardless of what the public think, let's see what the policy makers do.

[AEROBAT]

Scientific research needs to neutral, independent of politics.

Scientific reasearch needs funding....hence the politics comes into play. If I remember correctly the scientists were on board with Y2K scam as well.

[BoostedNihilist]

OK, let's talk about common sense for a minute. What does your common sense tell about the statement "there is no danger in sealing yourself up in your garage with the car's engine running"? On a macro scale that is exactly what we're doing to our atmosphere, but according to you and many people like you there is no danger. This despite the scientific community saying there is.

that's rather sensationalist... and incorrect. our environment has scrubbers (trees). So while slightly analogous it is not as apt as you would have us believe. The scientific community has been busted on its manipulation and bias.. now, no matter who is right we are back at square 0 so far as credible proof of either sides hypothesis. BEsides rocky, does any of your evidence actually prove causation or is it merely correlation?

There is a clear agenda by the energy industry to foil any attempt to curb carbon emissions because it means the end of their coveted business (not really, but they lack the imagination to see a future beyond it). They are funding a robust campaign against it featuring misinformation, false propaganda and outright lies that have been exposed time and time again. Despite that however they still manage to recruit lots of people like you who can somehow disregard the warnings of the only people qualified to give it.

as there is a clear agenda from the scientific community to make the research fit their preconceived notion. If these scientists as individuals fail to prove their hypothesis this means an end to their coveted business (well, not really but they lack imagination to see the future without their skewed and inaccurate findings. However they rely on people like you to tout their science despite the fact it doesn`t fit the model of true science. With propaganda they have convinced you that correlation is causation, which goes against the central doctrine of what is known as the scientific method.. so like, what you say of us can be said right back of you. There is science on either side of this debate which fits either hypothesis.. unfortunately, since you only have basic correlative evidence you cannot prove causation.. which is the flaw in your argument.. if it was proven you would have undeniable proof, but instead all you have is circumstancial correlation framed as actual evidence... THe only people qualified have shot their credibility in the foot, or did you read the emails rockie..

now, let`s talk about clear agendas. IT is clear that America cannot produce its own energy and remain competitive. The same goes for those european countries which are screwed without external sources of energy. I find it odd that only those countries who need alternative sources of energy seem to be pulling the line of global warming. America needs energy to be expensive for everyone else to remain competitive.. so long as there is cheap energy in the form of hydrocarbon (with the production and infrastructure decades ahead of any possible green energy replacement) and america cannot produce it they will behind the consumption vs production curve. This agenda is clear as day to me. Basically, so long as cheap energy exists the states will be at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to their `coveted business`

How long does your common sense tell you we can continue filling our atmosphere with ever increasing amounts of crap before real damage occurs? Does your common sense tell you it would be better to put ourselves on a path to clean energy now or later when it is perhaps too late?

Well, what does your science tell you.. i know, it can`t because it is based on correlative evidence. IF they had causation they could give us an accurate estimate and we could give you a timeline. However they need us to use our `common sense ` (read assume) that they are right and connect the dots based on literally nothing. So, you call it common sense, I call it ignorance. Besides, there is literally no such thing as common sense. So you want us to use an assumption and fear (the too late scenario) to what.. tax us and impose your policy upon us... sounds like fascism to me.

t has become a bit of a fad bashing climatologists and environmentalists among people like you. But in doing so you are failing to actually think about the potential consequences if you are wrong. If on the other hand we take action then the very least we have to look forward to is a cleaner society that isn't destroying our little bubble we live in, and in the process converting our industry to something much more sustainable and long lasting than fossil fuels.

That`s right chicken little the sky is falling and oh my god there is a wolf over there. IF you want to claim that I need to do something because there is immenent danger then you actually have to prove it. You are using fear of the unknown to manipulate people into taking your position.. where is the science in that rockie.. there is none. What about the consequences if you are wrong.. you dont think that the oil producing nations wil be impacted by a shift away from their number one export.. probably not because you dont give a shit about the impact of your actions on others, you only care about others actions on you.

But let`s for the sake of argument stipulate that you are correct and we do actually need to switch our modes of production..<

how do you suggest we solve the problem of energy production and storage.. or are you like the rest of the people like you and have all the answers when it comes to claiming there is a problem but nothing int he way of viable solutions..

[Icebound]

...

I do know that volcanoes and especially forest fires put far more pollutants into the atmosphere than man ever could.


OFD

Really?

I would like to understand how you do know this interesting fact.

There are approximately 20 active volcanoes in the entire world at any one time..... (and 6 billion people)....which would mean that each volcano would have to emit pollutants equivalent to about 300 million people. Perhaps you could point out to me the volcano which is currently emitting more pollutants than all of the population of the USA?

Given that there are at least 60 cities with a population of 4 million or more, it is pretty hard to believe that 3 such cities... say Detroit, Houston, and St. Petersburg Russia, together wouldn't outpollute one measly volcano.

In actual fact, it is recognized that volcanoes are pretty puny emitters on a day to day basis when compared to humans...
..., and that their carbon-dioxide output in particular... is about one - hundredth of human activity.

( you can google the volcano vs human pollution question
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638
http://www.gaspig.com/volcano.htm
)

As for forest fires.... it is a little more difficult to find hard data.... but it is pretty easy to recognize that the lifespan of a forest fire (and its emissions) is in the order of days.

Houston, Detroit, and St. Petersburg go on 24/7 for ever.


That ship has sailed, OFD.

The point of argument is not whether man is contributing significantly to pollution and GHG emission.... the point of argument is only whether we should give a damn.

Let's face it, no matter what we think, or how dedicated we may be to "reducing climate change", we are still going to burn every drop of oil that exists on this planet. The only question is whether we do that within the lifetime of 2010's New Year's Baby, or whether we can stretch it out a few thousand years.

"The Science is not settled" statements are mere distractions along that way. Science is never settled, otherwise it would not be science. That's why science constantly reviews available information. It will review this information. It will make a judgement as to its impact on the hypotheses in question. It will change them if necessesary.... it has before.

Bad code and questionable practices in one research facility does neither make nor break the case. There is bad code and questionable practices in every institution in the world, including banks, News Agencies, and Air operators... we just don't get to see them every day. But that does not mean that we should put our money in a mattress, stop reading, and never fly....

There probably exist math profs who cheated on their exams, but that doesn't discredit the validity of calculus....

Whether the scandal proves anything or not...... I'm still not buying any winter tires.



...

[canwhitewolf]

Skeptics score a win against alarmists
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post
Published: Thursday, December 03, 2009




On Tuesday night about 1,100 people participated in a sold-out global warming debate that, in the end, turned downtown Toronto's new concert hall at the Royal Conservatory of Music into a microcosm of a larger tranformation that is sweeping the world. The debate pitted two well known global warming activists of international repute against two well-known skeptics. The skeptics won, shifting the audience's support away from the drastic global warming action demanded by activists and toward the moderate reponse of the skeptics, a move that is rapidly becoming a trend everywhere. If global warming is a problem -- and many have growing doubts about that -- it is not a crisis that warrants draconian policy intervention in Copenhagen or anywhere else.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/col ... a0cd47&p=1

[2R]

Has anyone else noticed that since the ownership of the logging companies has changed from good old Canadian families to that of foreign multi-nationals (who do not answer to any governments or shareholders) the logging protests have stopped.Coincidence or proof that we are not immune to the interference of foreign carpetbaggers and their professional propaganda machines.
My point is :as all this anti oil sands talk is going on Canadian are selling the sands to foreigners CHEAP.Way to cheap and that Canada will be shortchanged by these foreign fearmongers who are stealing our resources through propaganda.
Ed Stelmach has already buckled under the pressure of these oil tycoons and allowed them tax breaks and lowered royaties.Meanwhile he will have to cut health care and infrastructure projects to balance the books.
Danny Williams stood up to the big oil companies and got a better deal for the people of Newfoundland.
All the crap spewed about the oil/tar sands will stop the day after foreigners own the largest known strategic oil reserve in this country.

[AEROBAT]

2R you are absolutely right. Next on the agenda is the shortage of fresh water in Canada. They will end up taxing you on your water, even private wells on private property.

Most provinces have created water managment strategies and the next step is the privatization of all municipal water treatment facilities.

[scm]

2R you are absolutely right. Next on the agenda is the shortage of fresh water in Canada. They will end up taxing you on your water, even private wells on private property.

Most provinces have created water managment strategies and the next step is the privatization of all municipal water treatment facilities.

So what can we do to stop this from happening?

[Spokes]

...

I do know that volcanoes and especially forest fires put far more pollutants into the atmosphere than man ever could.


OFD

Really?

I would like to understand how you do know this interesting fact.

There are approximately 20 active volcanoes in the entire world at any one time..... (and 6 billion people)....which would mean that each volcano would have to emit pollutants equivalent to about 300 million people. Perhaps you could point out to me the volcano which is currently emitting more pollutants than all of the population of the USA?

....



...

I think your numbers are out a bit. There are 20 or so Volcanos erupting at any one time. There are about 50-70 that erupt on th order of once a year, 600 that have erupted in recorded history, and about 1500 considered to be active. The definition of this is that they have erupted within the last 10,000 years. I know this is a bit pedantic, but it wouldn't hurt to have the right data to start with when making an argument. Carry on...


http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/en/volc ... anoes.html

[Rockie]

our environment has scrubbers (trees).

Agreed, but not nearly enough of them. And we are cutting more of them down all the time especially in our biggest set of lungs...the amazon. This is happening while we greatly increase the amount of crud we pump into the atmosphere year by year.

THe only people qualified have shot their credibility in the foot, or did you read the emails rockie..

That's what you would like to believe, but the amount of research going into this eclipses the embarrassing revelations out of East Anglia by a huge margin. It would be like me saying critical peer review is a sham because of this site http://www.junkscience.com.

Besides, there is literally no such thing as common sense. So you want us to use an assumption and fear (the too late scenario) to what.. tax us and impose your policy upon us... sounds like fascism to me.

Really? No such thing as common sense? Fascism? Are we discussing the same thing here?

What about the consequences if you are wrong.. you dont think that the oil producing nations wil be impacted by a shift away from their number one export.. probably not because you dont give a shit about the impact of your actions on others, you only care about others actions on you.

Actually I do care about the impact, that's what this whole thing is about isn't it? You know...the impact of not doing anything? Our environment and all that.

But let`s for the sake of argument stipulate that you are correct and we do actually need to switch our modes of production..<

Remember a few months ago when the economy collapsed and part of it was caused by reality catching up to Chrysler and General Motors? For decades they ignored the fact people were buying 1. fuel efficient cars, and; 2. reliable cars. It took a trip to the brink of oblivion and massive help from the government before those geniuses saw God and decided they needed to build fuel efficient cars or nobody would buy them. They still are in denial about the reliability part, but at least they're halfway there.

They decided that not only could they make money building fuel efficient cars, but they would make no money if they didn't. That's what all industries need to do. Make the decision to make money in clean sustainable energy. The first companies that figure that out will make a very, very large amount of money. Unfortunately like GM and Chrysler they haven't figured that out yet due to lack of imagination. There are many fortunes to be made here for the first company's that figure that out, and sooner or later the ones that don't figure it out will disappear.

how do you suggest we solve the problem of energy production and storage.. or are you like the rest of the people like you and have all the answers when it comes to claiming there is a problem but nothing int he way of viable solutions..

See my paragraph above. Governments and industry need to get our economy redirected to developing clean sustainable energy. If you don't think we'll ever need to do that then you are frankly not very smart. Now, what suggestions do you have besides doing nothing?

[BoostedNihilist]

Agreed, but not nearly enough of them. And we are cutting more of them down all the time especially in our biggest set of lungs...the amazon. This is happening while we greatly increase the amount of crud we pump into the atmosphere year by year.

Yeah, and there are natural factors not to be ignored.. the leading cause of tree death where I live is fire and pine beetle... we have somewhat control over one variable and no such semblance over the other. Nonetheless, I agree about the Amazon.

That's what you would like to believe, but the amount of research going into this eclipses the embarrassing revelations out of East Anglia by a huge margin. It would be like me saying critical peer review is a sham because of this site http://www.junkscience.com.

It would be one thing if the emails were simply trying to make it difficult for someone else to get published.. that I get.. but the manipulations of the data are what I cannot understand. If what you say is true and the data transcends this set of tainted data I have to ask myself how, with tainted data, they have all been coming to the same conclusion. If some of the data is tainted, and it agrees with data which you say is not... what to think then? To me this brings the possibility that all of the data is either valid, or tainted.

Really? No such thing as common sense?

Really.. Common sense is one giant ignorant generalization..

Actually I do care about the impact, that's what this whole thing is about isn't it? You know...the impact of not doing anything? Our environment and all that.

But what will the impact of doing SOMETHING be? I have yet to hear a scenario which lets me retain my current quality of life.. or a scenario that doesn't create a vacuum in a country dependent upon our need for their resource, or a scenario where everything is made up to make a few people rich, or a scenario where a bunch of people who I've never met.. don't think they give a shit about me.. sit and make decisions for us all. Isn't pretty much everything carbon? Don't we exhale it? Seriously.. I am with you on circle drum joint session where everything is for the good of everyone but when I look at the possible manipulation which might occur to fight 'global warming' I have to wonder whether the apocalypse is a valid option.. truth be told, I am not so sure it isn't.

Remember a few months ago when the economy collapsed and part of it was caused by reality catching up to Chrysler and General Motors? For decades they ignored the fact people were buying 1. fuel efficient cars, and; 2. reliable cars. It took a trip to the brink of oblivion and massive help from the government before those geniuses saw God and decided they needed to build fuel efficient cars or nobody would buy them. They still are in denial about the reliability part, but at least they're halfway there.

This is not exactly true rockie....

Up until very recently people WERE buying GM's. Look it up, you will find that GM was in #1 in overall sales.. People WANTED big gas pigs... every hot soccer mom was driving a jeep cherokee, or a chevy suburban... hell, HUMMER needed to be created JUST because people couldn't burn quite enough gas. And it would still be like this, but... gas got really expensive for a year and people started to panic. Toyota took over #1 spot in sales (worldwide) and the credit crisis set in. You say decades but you forget the k series chryslers of the 80's ... Hell, the most fuel efficient car available was a chevy sprint.. so like.. they had the cheap fuel efficient car thing figured out.. 10 years too early. Hell, Chevy had an electric car on the road and certified, but, they were stood up by their competition and ended up recalling them all at the end of their lease terms. So far as reliability, they are all about the same. If you look at the documentation their scheduled maintenance falls about standard when compared to their import counterparts. You want to go back decades in import terms and we will see toyotas prematurely rusting and hyundai's legendary offering of the pony. I *STILL* see 80's chevy pickup trucks, not so many toyotas kicking around, most of them have deteriorated into a pile of red dust.

They decided that not only could they make money building fuel efficient cars, but they would make no money if they didn't. That's what all industries need to do. Make the decision to make money in clean sustainable energy. The first companies that figure that out will make a very, very large amount of money. Unfortunately like GM and Chrysler they haven't figured that out yet due to lack of imagination. There are many fortunes to be made here for the first company's that figure that out, and sooner or later the ones that don't figure it out will disappear.

No.. they figured out that if they paid their people less, and sold their cars for more, that they would make more money. I see this more as a worker exploitation problem than anything else. However, I would doubt that just any company with a good idea will succeed. That is utopian capitalism. With all the new red tape yet to be created it will be a miracle to succeed, I would guess a retarded sperm has a better chance of impregnating an egg. I see the impact that for the privilege of some new millionaires I am going to be taxed in new ways, and chances are, it all will be much more expensive.. yay...

See my paragraph above. Governments and industry need to get our economy redirected to developing clean sustainable energy. If you don't think we'll ever need to do that then you are frankly not very smart. Now, what suggestions do you have besides doing nothing?

See, this is what I talk about when I say people have many ways of saying there is a problem but nothing in the way of solutions. Move to clean sustainable energy.. what exactly is clean sustainable energy? Are we talking solar cars? hydrogen cars? nobody has cars? everyone rides railcars? nuclear power, we double up and start riding cows... like.. what are your solutions. All I hear is you saying that there is a problem and you want government to fix it.. If you are pushing this agenda with the consequences you should know where the solutions lie.. otherwise, we will simply have a tax on a system which may or may not change. I am not ready to put my faith in government with the potential consequences of doing 'something' for the sake of doing something...

[Check Pilot]

To BoostedNihilist,

That was an extremely well done bit of logic and some good research to respond to "Rockie's Ramblings" that should put an end to his goofy alarmist postings about the (now) non issue of AGW BS.

Thanks for your time at getting it on this forum.

[Rockie]

In my "ramblings" on here I often talk about something called political will. Usually in terms of aviation regulatory matters, but it fits here as well. Something as simple and short lived as the spike in fuel prices didn't cause GM's problems. They developed over decades as foreign automakers "got it" and built fuel efficient and reliable cars, while Ford, GM and Chrysler didn't. They never figured out that the masses of people don't buy hummers and never have. And they still haven't figured out that Honda, Toyota et all build far better quality cars right here in North America (you can't really call them foreign when Canadians and Americans are building them can you?).

After decades of denial and losing out to other automakers the big three got the political will to change, and if they are really sincere about it they will survive and probably start making money again.

The same can be said about energy. It's strange that it is the innovators making all the money and changing our world in ways you seem to be blind to, but you don't think innovation has a place in energy production. You asked for my suggestions and I gave you a very big one. If I could invent the golden BB myself I wouldn't be flying airplanes for a living I can assure you, so for now I choose to apply pressure to my government, who in turn should apply pressure to industry to develop clean energy. Your idea is....what? Nothing? I asked before but you didn't answer. Nor did you offer your insight on whether we would ever have to change.

You offer nothing. You don't even recognize the problem. You leave it to others.

[ottawa,kan]

I think Rockie and Boosted are both right about GM and Chrysler. They made crappie cars for years and years. Cadillac Cimmaron anyone? How about a Cartera? My one ton 4X4 Chevy has plastic shift forks in the transfer case. Decades of crap is right. And yet people kept buying crap right up until the moment it got too painful to handle. Then GM suffered a gas price shock that they couldn't sweep under the rug, and they went under. Toyota was only kept from GM's mistake by a much higher level of financial soundness...Toyota brought out a huge pickup and a new 3 billion dollar plant in Texas to build it just in time for $4 per gallon gas. Hurt Toyota too. But GM and Chrysler were to weak in other areas to carry on. So The Government solved it...ours and yours. To protect the UAW/CAW jobs they bailed GM out to the tune of 70 billion dollars. To bail out Chrysler they took the worst car company in North America and combined it with the worst company in Europe. And at least around here, poeple are back to buying SUV's and pickups.
As for the political will to do something about global warming....just in case it's a problem, I'd say the environmental team doesn't really want anything done. Full blown Nukes would solve this for the USA. We could easily meet the most draconian Kyoto/Copenhagen GW wet dream if we got 90% of our electricity from Nukes the way France doesn. Not gonna happen. My state is a better source of wind energy than anywhere in the USA except west Texas, and we are better situated as far as the grid is concerned, especially the eastern grid. Yet our environmentalist team said no wind plants in the Flint Hills, a prime area for wind generation ,and about 1/3 of the state. Why? Might bother the prairie chicken. So the whole world is ready to go down in a warming fiasco, but we might mess up the prarie chicken? Huh. Talk about political will. This isn't about some C02 reality, it's about politics and political power. If it were about a real problem, we'd work on picking off some low hanging fruit and not on establishing a trillion dollars of new taxes to fund the enviro/liberal wet dreams about how the world ought to be run.

[BoostedNihilist]

Well, i guess fixing an aileron while the rudder-stop is the real problem works for you Rockie, but in my life, I don't fix something unless I know for a fact it is actually broken. Nonetheless, you are the one convinced there is a problem, therefore the onus is on you to come up with a solution. You want to know what I offer when it comes to solutions? I will offer criticism of those solutions to make sure that in our haste we don't end up with a solution with some other long term impact which will create an uninhabitable globe.

So simply by recognizing the problem allows you to tout yourself as part of the solution? I might not actually be doing much to prove or disprove a theory, but you are simply agreeing with people who are actually doing the work. In the end, you and I are the same, we sit here talking about it. However, the data is now in question and multiple times I have heard from you the fear mongering of the fear of the unknown.. the 'what happens if we don't' argument... this is not scientific.. if you want to convince me, convince me with evidence, but know, that once I agree I still might think that our current course is better than a manipulated change for the 'better'

[Siddley Hawker]

Next on the agenda is the shortage of fresh water in Canada. They will end up taxing you on your water, even private wells on private property.

Well, Maude and the boys would like to do something about that.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/C ... story.html

[Rockie]

Well, i guess fixing an aileron while the rudder-stop is the real problem works for you Rockie, but in my life, I don't fix something unless I know for a fact it is actually broken. Nonetheless, you are the one convinced there is a problem, therefore the onus is on you to come up with a solution. You want to know what I offer when it comes to solutions? I will offer criticism of those solutions to make sure that in our haste we don't end up with a solution with some other long term impact which will create an uninhabitable globe.

So simply by recognizing the problem allows you to tout yourself as part of the solution? I might not actually be doing much to prove or disprove a theory, but you are simply agreeing with people who are actually doing the work. In the end, you and I are the same, we sit here talking about it. However, the data is now in question and multiple times I have heard from you the fear mongering of the fear of the unknown.. the 'what happens if we don't' argument... this is not scientific.. if you want to convince me, convince me with evidence, but know, that once I agree I still might think that our current course is better than a manipulated change for the 'better'

Jeez, I don't know how many different ways I can state this before you understand but I'll try again. I personally don't have the know how to come up with the kind of innovative solutions that are required. I could suggest full blown nuclear supplemented by wind, solar, hydro-electric and tidal energy creation, but more drastic and creative solutions are called for here that haven't even been invented yet. I'm sorry I don't have the smarts to invent something because if I did I would be very rich. But there is something I can do, and am doing.

I am applying pressure on my government to take this issue seriously and do something about it. I learned a long time ago that the most powerful force is the will to do something. Aternatively the most immovable obstacle to getting something done is lack of will. Our government lacks will, but helping to change that is something I can, and will do.

You and your "ilk" (to borrow a favourite phrase of some of you), are doing your best not only to prevent the government from gaining the will to change, but you are going way out of your way to discredit an entire worldwide scientific community in the process. You are very much part of the problem.

[canwhitewolf]

The Myths Of Global Warming: Part 7 (Final)
http://www.paltelegraph.com/columnists/ ... rt-7-final

[Check Pilot]

Don't worry Rockie, you will shortly be able take your "liberal" views and comments to get onto another fear generating crisis about to be thrust into the public consciousness:

http://www.rodale.com/products-contain- ... -Top5-_-NA

This should generate more global hysteria, just like the AGW nutbars are doing right now. If this trumps global climate change fears, the poor scientists will have to change their lines of research to keep those public dollars flowing into their pockets.

[Siddley Hawker]

Come back ozone hole, all is forgiven.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... te-threat/

[Check Pilot]

That's a really good one too there Siddley Hawker.

That oughtta scare the sheep into a herding frenzy out there. That should become another scare'em and make'em pay way more taxes to the government so they can clean that one up too.

We need to keep looking for more of these so we can finally paralyze the world's population into total fear and finally demand a world government to tell us all exactly what we need to think and do. Maybe an unelected world government (kinda like the current group of alarmist Climate Change folks propose) will finally set us all straight, especially when we finally follow the dogma of giving all our earnings from working hard to those folks to make it all better for us.

I can finally see the dream of the old Orwell "1984" movie coming to fruition. We shall all live in peace and harmony then - making sure our thoughts and actions are totally in conformance with the wishes of the "State".

What a wonderful substitute for the replacement of the old time Communists they loved so well. Finally there is relief for all those that are so desperately searching for someone else to tell them how to think.

[Rockie]

It would be something worth reading if you actually had valid arguments to counter the prevailing scientific opinion, but you don't. So you revert to pointless drivel like this. It's childish.

In this article recently published in the Grope and Flail, two accomplished and very qualified scientists answer the four most common arguments used by sceptics. These arguments have appeared many times on this forum so I thought you might find it interesting. I think it's safe to say these two know a lot more about what they're talking about than anyone here including you. They represent the aggregate scientific opinion worldwide, and I think I'll go with their considered opinions over yours. Much like if I wanted a medical opinion I wouldn't be taking your advice on that either.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1389545/

[Siddley Hawker]

Rockie, a nice counterpoint to that article would be one from either Ross McKitrick or Steve McIntyre, but do you think you'll ever see it in the Globe & Mail or The Star? You actually have to take the time and look for both sites on the internet. Remember the missing weapons of mass destruction? The press had a field day with it. The leaked e-mails - I'm calling them leaked in lieu of hacked or stolen because I'm betting on a whistle blower rather than a hacker - did to the theory of AGW what the missing weapons did for President Bush's foray into Iraq, but with very few exceptions the MSM has been awfully quiet.

Here's McKitrick's blog site...
Global Warming: Competeting Views
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/cc.html

...and McIntyre's.
Climate Audit
http://climateaudit.org/

[Rockie]

I also read the national post in keeping with my belief that the truth always lies somewhere in between the extremes. Their approach to this issue is much the same as checkpilot's. Sarcasm, ridicule and baseless statements. They too use the East Anglia revelations as absolute proof that the entire worldwide environmental sciencific community are a bunch of frauds. Total nonsense.

A quick look at McKitrick's site peaked my interest in what he had to say. But then I got to the part where he called the Friends of Science a bunch of sensible people, and his credibility disappeared. The Friends of Science are the most blatant lobbyists for the oil industry out there and should really be called the Friends of Exxon.

[Jastapilot]

Except they kind of are frauds, Rockie.