The "What Do I Know Grit"
I wonder if this is a left wing organization?
Your intelligence, or lack therof, always astounds me.
Yah, we inherited the bottom rung from the Liberals.''Canada, US rank lowest on climate scorecard (Toronto: July 04, 2005)'' http://www.wwf.ca/NewsAndFacts/NewsRoom/default.asp?section=archive&page=display&ID=1393&lang=EN
At what point does this government start taking responsibility, Wilson? You know, aside from all the good things... Must be nice to have things both ways.
"I wonder if this is a left wing organization?"I wonder if Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands even cares?Left Wing or just plain Communist it's his "donkey".Left wing pukeing Bilderberger fomenting vomit of pretense.But James Curran wouldn't know that would he.
He also co-founded Rotary International...another evil group. Here's the list of evil Bilderberger attendees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_attendees
Canadian attendees of Bilderberger includes:Stephen Harper (2003), Canadian Prime Minister, 2006 – Present Bernard Lord, former Premier of New Brunswick Jason Kenney (2007), Canadian Member of Parliament Preston Manning, former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, leader of the Reform Party of Canada Kevin G. Lynch, Canadian civil servant Michael Wilson (politician), current Canadian Ambassador to the United States, former Minister of Finance (Canada), former Minister of International Trade (Canada) Mike Harris, former Premier of Ontario Ralph Klein, former Premier of Alberta Peter Lougheed (1973), former Premier of Alberta Hardly a group of Leftwingers.
So what does that make the WWF?The World Wrestling Federation?
According to this new report it is the place to be.Pointless to rush a carbon emissions planJuly 2, 2008http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080702.RREYNOLDS02/TPStory/Business
Um, Kevin, perhaps your home schooling skipped over a few critical thinking skills so I'll offer a brief explanation.An "opinion" piece is NOT a "news report." Your link is to an opinion piece, in which the writer offers his opinion, referencing a single economist (I'll let you look that up on your own) offered his "scientific" opinion that it would be ok if we just didn't do anything for 50 years on the environment because, in his opinion, if what we do 50 years down the road is a lot better than what we do now, it will all be about the same point (i.e. worse than it is now) a couple of hundred years later.In other words, the opinion piece writer took some flimsy, flimsy speculation by someone outside of their field and tried to make it smell about as good as he possibly good given the best possible scenario.Hardly a ringing endorsement to do nothing for a while.
Joseph - typical liberal shoot the messenger thinking. If you disagree with something lash out and dismiss it as biased. I unlike you and many on the left think that in science the debate is never truly over and that there is always something new to discover. I read all the new reports on both sides and believe me unlike what the All Gore's and David Suzuki's of the world would have you believe the science is not settled.
Yeah, Kevin, got it . . . you hate it when someone actually calls you on your bull shit.The same minions who tried to spin the public for decades on the benign nature of cigarettes have found a new and lucrative niche marketing their self-generated "fuzziness" about human-induced global warming.I spent the first few decades of my life striving valiantly to see "both" sides of issues. Then I realized I was just making excuses for dip shits who lie through their fucking teeth constantly.So now that we're all clear on the crap you're peddling. I'm all ears to hear your spinning excuse for why the north pole will be ice free in the next year of two.Because I'm sticking to the observations of the vast majority of actual scientists who recognize human-induced global warming is "real." Heck, even political leaders such as your personality-starved leader pretend to acknowledge it on occasion.Unfortunately, it doesn't take a genius to recognize when the strategy has shifted to one in which any actual action is watered down or delayed. Those of us who actually use our brains instead of regurgitating the spin call this phenomenon wasting time. And I have no intention wasting time going through the motions of pretending its just peachy to do so for the sake of keeping the dialogue going for several more decades.
Joseph - That is why 31,072 American scientists have signed this petitionhttp://www.petitionproject.org/index.htmlor are they all biased too?
Wow! An online petition. How convincing. I don't recall learning that scientific method in school.Did you get special books for that at home? Are they like the ones arguing against the existence of dinosaurs, or are they a different crayon type?
Joseph - It is the globally warming alarmists that point out the debate is over because 2500 scientists signed the UN reports. However as I have been courteous in this discussion and you seem to have a definitive attacking style I do wonder one thing.Are you even old enough to vote?
I'm old enough to vote and to recognize bullshit when its being dished out, no matter how "pleasantly" its coated.So you've made your point that in your opinion it is just fine that Canada is failing to meet its environmental responsibilities because an online petition you found "proves" global warming doesn't even exist.Glad I could help dredge that to the surface. Pretty precise measure of the amount of "balance" you bring to the table.
Exactly what "scientific method" is used to determine man caused global warming?I'd like to know if you supply that information.WWF uses scientific evidence to show TV commercials of coastal areas under water in a few years but forgot to mention that water expands while frozen and contracts when it melts and the Antarctic is not melting,at all.
Post a Comment