SupremeLeader

Nice one, comparing dinosaurs to the Inuit....

I've answered your question(s), now scroll up and start answering mine.

2005 was the warmest year in a century (NASA). 2006 was the fifth warmest year on record. (NASA). There has been a cooling 'trend' (see reference to 'trend' in previous post) since 1998 if you choose to present the data in a particiular way (see below). Top five warmest years since 1890 (according to NASA). 1998 2002 2003 2005 2006 You talk about cherry picking data? If you look at this 'trend' and begin in 1997 or 1999 (thus removing the hottest year on record from the start of the analysis) instead of 1998 the 'trend' of cooling is debunked. The 'trend' margin of cooling while using the starting point of 1998 amounts to ~.1%, that is not signifcant enough to form an actual major change in the direction of the Earths climate; you as a biologist should know this.

Do you consider the Inuit people in 'our own backyard'? If so, C02 / global warming is ' the greatest risk to [their] existance [and] health'.

C02 is only added to enhance growth in greenhouses for a period of no more than twenty minutes prior to daytime cycles. C02 does, in fact come out the the tailpipe of a car that burns fossil fuels, along with Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen Oxides, and Carbon Monoxide. Although C02 is the product of perfect combustion, the US Environmental Protection Agency does, in fact, view C02 as a pollution concern.

Where do you get your facts? Stelmach is spending 495 million over 15 years......33 million a year; a drop in the bucket when one considers the environmental cost. Perhaps, but in that case you're not showing it - first of all by using and pointing out fringe websites to support your facts, and in your most recent post- Wikipedia. If you used those sources in a post-secondary paper you would fail -that is a fact. I think you mean your saddened by the media sensationalization. In regards to getting second opinions, unfortunately, many of the second opinions have come from the largest contributers of C02 (Exxon). If you work in Education you'll support funding and protectionism, if your work in healthcare you'll support funding and expansion, if you work in the oil industry you'll resist critisism regarding climate change; it's called bias. And sorry Sun, you look at the studies to see how much substance there is? Maybe; if it suits your agenda. You should head down to the Maldives and tell people your thoughts, or a closer venue may be the Inuit on Baffin Island. Wow, and I thought it was only the media that pumped out scare tactics? Climate change is a long-term change in the Earth's climate....they never changed their terminology; it's called the Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change. It was created to address Global Warming which defined is: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

MOD EDIT (BBT) Your last sentence summed up your true intent regarding this topic. And for the record.......what have you given away so far? Nuff said.

Why is that the majority-minority opinion in oil rich areas deny climate change? Is it some kind of aberration, or are people's views slanted because of the threat to their monetary stability? Or is it because they view the science with neutrality? If so, do areas where people don’t have vested interest in oil slant their opinions against oil based economies?

Denier is not derogatory term..... you deny global warming. Every political scientist (and many politicians) study Hitler; it is not an attack and in this case, I thank the moderators for recognising this. Studying a dictator's tactic to sway public opinion has been occuring for thousands of years.

The 'rightous' side? I guess that all depends on which side you pick. In your case you pick the denial side....that has been caught far more times deceiving the public than the 'rightous' side ever has ie. Exxon's phony research.

Your factoid is entirely irrelevant to the average I posted.

So interesting how the denial side main tactic is to abuse and name call Gore and Suzuki. Its as if Gore and Suzuki created the atmosphere proper. The climate was changing when these guys were kids. Suzuki and Gore did not create the physical and chemical properties of the atmosphere; somehow calling them names will prove that the Glaciers are not really shrinking and the Arctic is not really melting? It's really sad how Exxon, and these recent 'hackers' have brainwashed so many people. Humanity will marvel at success of Big Oil propeganda in the future. They must have studied Hitler........the bigger the lie; the easier it is for people to believe.

Humans produce 150 times more C02 than volcanoes do over the course of a year. I'll show you my source if you show me yours.

For sure...our back yard is far more important than anyones elses.

Global warming deniers’ consistently raise the idea of 'trends'. The 'trend' since 1998 is that the climate is actually cooling. Do you know what a 'trend' is defined as in the scientific community (no matter what side you're on)? A trend is something that doesn't have enough evidence /statistics behind it that in can be considered significant or of any considerable relevance. Mention the word trend in any scientific journal, or to anyone in the scientific community (again- it does not matter what side you're on).....I promise you a lot of yawns.

It is completely illogical to deny that converting 60 million barrels / day (of a substance that's been underground for millions of years) into gaseous and toxic substances does not affect our climate.

Wrong.

.....you're just wasteful - that's all.

Smitty wrote; "But this is the problem with yours and SL's stance; that if someone were to purchase a 2nd home to rent out to help pay (1) bills, (2) pay down a mortgage, (3) buy an extra flyrod , (4) Go to Vegas every 3 months, who are you to judge? You want to talk greed, then stick to Michael Moore movies and the Wall Street fat cats and leave middle class people, whose great sin is to create an extra income stream, alone." You're right I shouldn't judge, your Vegas trip, new fly rod, and second mortgage is justified and far more important than affordable housing, even if it means gouging renters. And really, I mean they're getting a gift basket. And Smitty, I do live in the capitalist centre of western Canada, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite. My wife and I, unfortunately, don't have second properties that would allow us to move (right now). And on that note and that topic, I have lived in two countries in Europe and four different provinces.....the standard of living in all of these places has been equal (better in Europe) to Alberta...and none of them had oil. The only difference was there were not so many Hummers or Ford F350s. My job is funded by a federal body by the way.

How do you know I work for the Government? I don't,....but Smitty does. I never said all free-enterprise is descended from the devil...you're twisting my words. Landlords who owned their homes prior to the recent boom and hiked their rents up %50 and %100 are greedy tyrants that made it difficult for every person who could not afford their own home; that's a fact. And for what ....free-enterprise? Please, that's not free enterprise...it's gouging. And not everyone in this province is dependent on oil companies... spare me that drivil, you give them too much credit. Oil could stop tomorrow and I could assure you I would still have a job..you have no idea what I do. I know quite a few people who lost their second homes; some of these clowns were charging $1500 to $2000 rent for refurbished 800 square-foot condos). The result in the end was putting their own home and other assets at risk.....too bad; deserves'em right. Greed....it's great, eventually it takes down the greediest. And Smitty-stick to math.....although that requires logic and principle. And sorry, but who pays for the gift basket? You, the renters, or the last damage deposit you somehow kept. You're the first teacher I've met who has several properties and tenants.

SJW or Smitty as a landlord; I couldn't imagine a worse scenario. I'm glad I own my own place (just one by the way). And to the renters, thank all of the greedy landowners for all of the problems that exist in the rental market now. When I rented in the past you could find all kinds of places that were reasonably priced, clean etc.....but over the last few years the rental market has been flooded with thirty-somethings who think you as a renter should pay their second mortgage, or other landlords who have in many cases doubled their rents....it's pure BS. If you can...buy. I would love nothing more than to see all of these get rich quick clowns not be able to pay their second mortgages and lose their homes. Here's hopin'.

People, You're debating (with one individual) about whether or not littering is good or bad? It just goes to show that anyone can twist things to suit their opinion/agenda even if it lacks any real logic. Canadensis....what's next, telling all us to light up because smoking cures cancer? Please.

At you guys aren't in pre-moderated mode........ The only way to avoid this is to follow a strict Neo-con agenda, and worship a diety known as dryfly.

In the words of Public Enemy. ......Fight the power.