SupremeLeader

The most hilarious thing is that Albertans will still vote PC or WR (The party full of a bunch of PC defects). Unreal.

Seniors should not have to pay for a license. Many seniors don't have pensions (other than gov't) and ever little bit of money they can save helps.

Excellent fly. I love seeing flies that aren't super difficult to construct tied to absolute perfection; this is an excellent example of this.

How does registering a gun make you an outlaw? I thought 'outlaws' don't follow the 'law'?

....Are you serious? I'll remember that.

Maybe you should go back if it sucks so bad here.

The most hilarious thing is that Albertan's will vote the same gov't in that pulls these stunts just as they always do; or they'll vote the new right wing Wild Rose Party. It'll just be the same old same old; the right wingers (no pun intended) catering to the rich elite.

Klein cut Nursing staff and healthcare funding in the 90's, and only so recently proposed the 'Third Way' system...... a system along the same lines as the one you had in the states.

Maxwell and Smitty. Experts on all aspects of fish reproduction.

Indeed.

I made fun of people who wear Exofficio clothing and you guys edited my post. WTF? Sorry......but you have to admit...,those outfits look ridiculous. I think I saw BBT wearing them in one of his vids.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/200...#socialcomments

There needs to be an emoticon for the all-seeing eye for BBT. It would be more appropriate.

Looks like BBT is drinking Doda.

Indeed

Apparently, incestuous is a bad word.......

One thing about trying to debate anything on this board is the community on FFC is, metaphorically speaking, incestuous. There is such a Neo-Con corporate agenda (the Mods included) that challenging the FFC status quo views on the environment is impossible; the views are so myopic it's ridiculous...they'll challenge widely excepted views in academia as self-serving and bias, and then when it suits their agenda quote the view of one or two opponents and their University credentials. Clive, and anyone else using your 11 year trend is yet another example of the type of science used to support the opinions on this forum. To put that information (11 year cycle) into perspective...it's like when people quote or manipulate sources to support one's conclusions.... Example 1: "The was not the best documentary I've ever seen" John Smith. Example 2: John Smith said it was the "best documentary I've ever seen" The trend is going up and the difference in the last 11 years is barely worth noting as the variance is minor. Clive, I can accept the data you wrote or quoted concerning ocean levels, but you posted that chart concerning the last 11 years? You and I both know it's bunk selective statistics that are 'intellectually dishonest ' (good one btw Midgetwaiter). I'll go back to what I said earlier, I trust the type of people I know who work in academia, and who I know would never manipulate data. Fringe scientists and privately corporate funded firms don't cut it, and neither do people online. Midgewaiter, tonyr, don't bother, these guys don't believe in anything unless it serves their interest.

Perhaps , but but we all know the corporations and their research is definitely not unbiased, and certainly serving their own agendas.

Indeed. And for Bhurt http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/

Look up a documentary called the The Denial Machine (Fifth Estate) and the references to The Great Global Warming Swindle, some great facts regarding the 'science' and agenda behind the climate change deniers. -- edited by mods - please review the Code of conduct for posting in the forums --

Peer reviewed science is 'one voice' that includes every non-profit research organization in academia. You're using double-speak.... Milankovitch's data is excellent, but try to understand it, it would never support the rate of temperature change that had occurred over the last 100 years.

Tuvala.... look it up Clive. You have to look at current publications though, you won't find the info in any magazines published in 1973.

Calm down Clive. And where did you dig up that magazine article.......1973. Weren't they still using leaded gas back then? And geez, that's the year I was born. Look at the data; it's selective. If the first graph showed the temperatures recorded over the last 100 years you would see an upward trend; you and I both know this. And you didn't address Exxon's research and the tobacco 'scientists'.......the biggest corporation in the world had to resort to using bunk science in it's arguments against climate change? The thing about the vast majority of science regarding climate change is that the studies are grant funded and peer reviewed at Universities. Scientific research in universities doesn't set out to prove something, it's function is to research the truth. Consulting firms on the other hand, are asked to prove something. A few great examples come to mind....like the firm hired by Telus to prove using cell phone while driving is safe. Exxon hired their scientists to prove global warming is false; they didn't hire them to report the data. To compare the money made by Gore or Suzuki to Exxon Mobil is ridiculous....seriously. My wife works in scientific research at the U of C, and my father-in-law is a PhD with his own lab and research funding. I have mentioned to both of them some of the arguments regarding grant funded scientific research and the idea, apparently, that the data is altered so that they can make money.....they always get a good laugh. You're a smart guy Clive as are a lot of people on this board, but none of you are climatologists. Who should I trust, a grant funded climatologist at a University, or a climatologist at a firm funded by oil companies???? By the way, if you want to make money as a climatologist you don't work in a public funded research institution, you work for a consulting firm hired by big oil. The one thing that is scary is the deniers are kind of building their own Jones town....stringing' people along until the final cup of purple kool aid. Unfortunately, climate change will effect food production in most of the poorer nations of the world, and it will displace an enormous amount of people; it's already happened to one island in the South pacific. I guess the thing that bothers me most is the shortsightedness of people in Alberta. When the deniers aren't plastering their nonsense all over the place, they're saying how global warming will be great for Canada......how selfish. Stay tuned.