canadensis

And global cooling was the greatest risk to the dinosaurs, causing extinction.

Unclebuck, Greenhouses pump co2 in to enhance growth.. It is not co2 that comes out of your tailpipe, it comes out of your mouth when you exhale... co2 is not a pollutant. I fully agree with your last 2 sentances.

I voted for fishing in the Parks. It is problem that I may not be able to fish in the Park, yet someone can stay in a $500/night hotel room that overlooks where I once fished... Forget about the nonsense of ridding the waters of non-native species, just nonsense. I fish a couple of creeks that have seen more bulltrout and less cutthroat trout over the past 10 years. I am sure the cutties consider the Bull Trout invasive..

Great post. Like most debates the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. The thing is with this debate there is no way to quantify the data on either side. The one fact remains our climate is in a constant state of change, always has been and always will. There has been waaay more dramatic climate change in the history of the world when it was definately NOT caused by humans, this is fact. Do Human actions accelerate this process? Can we stop or slow climate change? This will always be the debate as there is no definitive answer..

You do not have to agree with someone to respect them. I respect Suzuki.

I am surprised your "Pet Wolf" did not eat it? My "Pet fox" would have...

C`mon Rick. Al Gore is the biggest Global Warming huckster out there. And yes it is pretty tough to respect someone who does not walk the walk when they pedal all the doom and gloom that Gore spoon feeds the media. At least Suzuki lives by the credo he puts forth...

I see the whole global warming “debate”, industry, or whatever you want to call it very similar to the long gun registry here in Canada. When the whole debate first started with registering long guns we were promised less crime, it would only cost a couple million, etc.. And generally worth it because of the long term gain. Now that we have some history with it we know the reason it was implemented is bunk. It cost in the BILLIONS, and effectively had zero effect on reducing crime. But now we have a community that we have created an industry in Merimishee, albeit a unneeded industry based on actuality, that rely on the registry to support their families. A small, be parallel example of how an industry is created from bunk… I bet the next phase is as more of the untruths are uncovered is we should hold truefast on this path, `just in case`as the possibility of Global Warming is too great to ignore and we have already developed a road map to possibly reduce it... And you can not ignore the name change to `climate change`..

Just like O&G, logging, mining, etc.. The whole Global Warming theory has now become an industry. The Global Warming theorists are just protecting their bread and butter. Nothing can be spun moreso than scientific data, on both sides. Global warming industry becomes too big to fail By: Timothy P. Carney Examiner Columnist November 25, 2009 "I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measur[e]ments here in the UK -- looking promising," wrote Andrew Manning, a climate-science research fellow at the University of East Anglia, "so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases." Manning's e-mail, written in October to a colleague at East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit, was one of the thousands of private communiques exposed to public view by a whistleblower or a hacker. The note and others like it reveal the intriguing relationship between industry giants like Siemens and the scientists driving climate change fears. More importantly, though, Manning's e-mail shows the incentives of climate scientists: Convince people there is a climate disaster coming, get more money. Manning and the warming crowd benefit from a beautiful feedback loop: The more governments, businesses, and media outlets you can convince that man-made global warming is a serious threat, the more these institutions will invest in climate change studies, solutions, and policies. And the more they invest in combating global warming -- whether it's a newspaper hiring a climate reporter, a company buying emissions credits and alternative energy sources, or a government building a climate lab -- the less willing they are to tolerate dissent on the issue. So the warming crowd, these e-mails show us, suffers from the same conflicts of interest and profit motives that are frequently attributed to skeptics. When Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, Gore charged that global warming deniers were trying to protect profits. Gore quoted fabled muckraker Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it." Climate scientists derive both their sense of purpose and their paychecks from a perceived climate crisis. We shouldn't be surprised, then, to see them putting their pet cause ahead of scientific standards. For instance, climate scientist Giorgio Filippo in a 2000 e-mail wrote about the drafting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's assessment of climate research: "Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent, which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this." These are the scientists who drive climate policy. Some critics writing about the leaked e-mails say they expose a "fraud," a "hoax," and a conspiracy. The warming crowd claim that everything is being taken out of context. But Manning's e-mail cannot be ignored, because it is self-evidently true. If the catastrophic-man-made-climate-change hypothesis melted down, these scientists would lose their funding. Atlantic blogger Megan McArdle probably put it best: "That doesn't mean their paradigm is wrong; rather, it means we need to be less romantic about the practice of science. No scientific consensus is ever as powerful as its proponents claim, because no scientists are ever as perfect as we'd like to imagine." And scientists aren't the only ones with skin in the game. Take manufacturing and transportation giant Siemens, for instance, whom Manning was wooing. In 2006, the company joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has been a key lobbyist for the sort of greenhouse gas cap-and-trade scheme at the heart of the climate bill currently before Congress. Siemens and other members of USCAP have invested billions in buying up greenhouse gas credits, alternative energy sources like wind and solar power, and carbon capture and sequestration (the attempt to trap CO2 underground). E-mails show CRU scientists pushing corporate donors to fund their climate science as a way of advancing carbon capture. Governments have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into climate research. News organizations have staked their credibility on the claim that climate science is "settled." With all this on the line for scientists, media, business, and government, are we really going to let some contrary data get in the way? The leaked e-mails don't necessarily show a conspiracy, but they do show that the industry built upon belief in man-made global warming has become too big to fail. Timothy P. Carney, The Examiner's lobbying editor, can be reached at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. He writes an op-ed column that appears on Friday.

Definately a quick float.

Just like volcanoes and forest fires.

The difference is the demographic that this flu has the potential to kill. Once you are over 70ish no matter how you die it should be deemed "natural causes"

Yup for sure, I totally agree. The way you worded the initial question it was obvious that you have alot of learning to do; the kind that a Prof. or school does not teach.

Fairly apparent that you are a student...

If it becomes able to fly maybe..

If it wasn't for a shitty landlord It would have taken me longer to start saving for my first house.

I have no problem whatsoever buying a fishing rod made overseas. All it means is I will be paying what the true value is. There is no reason whatsoever a top quality rod should cost more than $400 It takes alot of marketing dollars to con you into paying $800-$1000 for a fly rod and feel good about it.

What will come out of the wash in the next few years is how the Inconvenient Truth should have been nominated for the best comedy film in 2006.

Inherently more cruel than hunting or extraction angling? How do you live with yourself PGK? Being a human you are displacing flora and fauna, yes even if you are a vegan living in a straw bale house. Since when is nourishing myself and family cruel? But within your definition not "as cruel" if I catch and release a fish? It is certainly of your opinion about angling or not in the park, and that I could have respected even though not in agreement. In the remainder of your post you have come across as a nut job. You are on a slippery slope you have no chance of climbing.

Has anyone heard if this was a hoax or not? I would think that if the allegations were false and it all made-up there would have been a press release?

Seems the melonheads wanted it more, the fans anyways.

This year again there is a Bounty in Newell County of $20- + whatever the skin fetches. Not bad considering they have mostly ended up as fertilizer for the past few years. Might be worth it. However it would be a tough way to make the payment on a $62k diesel p/u.

Xplorer, Avoid all of the salmon streams/rivers during the spawn.

LoL... If this happened I would collect cups in my free time.

I guess just keep the garden shed full of beer cans for retirement. Maybe the deposit will increase by the time you are ready to cash them in. That seems like a gamble too...