As a matter of fact...

yes. Any more questions?

To bad some outfit doesn't

To bad some outfit doesn't have a "Liar of the Year" award. Gordo and his support group of professional liars, oops, sorry, public relations staff, would win hands-down every year. Can't think of anyone else who could come close in qualifing in that category, not even Harpo but I'm sure he knows he's like Avis, number 2 and is trying harder.

What FOI really means now...

It used to mean Freedom of Information and allowed people, organizations etc. to have access to Government documents.
It was to protect democracy.
Now Campbell's version can only mean:
F **k
O **
I diot

Anyways as it is May 1 which celebrates workers struggles and accomplishments and social justice movements around the world, i would like to wish Tyee readers a Happy May Day!

targets can`t be met

The biggest fraud ever perpetrated upon the people of bc, the reason why everthing with climate action is shrouded in secrecy is because targets can`t be met!

I believe that pollution and co2s are causing havoc,the fraud is campbells plan,premier gargler never does small lies just big ones.

He could of went small ball but no,he went for a home run.He could of said our goal is to reduce 5% over ten years,which could be done but campbell went big 33% by 2020!

He`s such a baffoon he put the 33% in a bill so now BY LAW WE ARE MANDATED TO REDUCE BY 33% BY 2020---So what happens when 2020 rolls around do we arrest the ruling goverment( hang em high lock them up) I kinda like that idea.

Maybe in may 2009 I will be able to open that bottle of dom perignon in celebration of the tide going out on gordon(the gargler) campbell

The biggest obstacle we have

The biggest obstacle we have in regards to a true democracy is the CRTC's giving CanWest Global Media the only so called non-news, dis-information West of the Rockies. Shame on OUR media watch dog.
Thank you Sean Holman for your contribution to The Tyee!
Secrecy by OUR elected politicians is tantamount to treason simply put WE pay them "For the People By the People and Of the People" not for the corrupt corporations as we have now.
Gordo’s TILMA, what hell is he trying to pull?

"The press is our chief ideological weapon": Nikita Khrushchev

"There are laws to protect the freedom of the press's speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press": Mark Twain

"I take a grave view of the press. It is the weak slat under the bed of democracy": A. J. Liebling

BC Railgate
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/
http://houseofinfamy.blogspot.com/

2010 Winter Olympics
http://howbadtherecord.blogspot.com/
http://bettysearlyedition.blogspot.com/

The only thing missing.

The only thing missing from this interesting debate is a comment from Luke to suggest that as bad as Campbell's liberals are, the NDP were just as bad if not worse. [INFLAMMATORY COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

YOU GOT IT

right on skywalker

Meh, Carbon Taxes...

Meh, carbon taxes are another form of social engineering. With $1.30/litre the market will (unfortunately or fortunately) ensure that many won't be able to afford to drive anymore anyway.

Ergo, less greenhouse gases.

Add to the fact that the government bureacracy created just to collect and return this tax... it's silly and just not an efficient use of resources.

Still don't understand why the public approves this Green Party idea.

As Skywalker says, I'm wrong of course.

Two way street

While the Europeans did give the aboriginals many diseases it was not all one sided. There was in the exchange at least one venereal disease given to the Europeans and the Aboriginal secret weapon that has since killed untold millions of Europeans... tobacco.

Whoops

Sorry wrong discussion.

How you do carry on about 1/2 of it

refusing to see the whole of the scam.
You nailed it BG when you said "I believe that pollution and co2s are
causing havoc". BTW carbon dioxide is not plural...you are thinking maybe it's like PCBs or dioxins and you don't understand it's what you exhale? Lots of people do get it mixed up with carbon monoxide, you know!

It means to me you haven't examined the evidence (or rather the lack of it),and you are taking the failed hypothesis that man causes climate change on faith.

There has been so much evidence published in the last year alone that shows that CO2 doesn't have a climate changing capacity, that it is an effect of warming and not its cause and that ocean current changes and sunspots have an enormous effect on both weather and climate change.

To allow this government to participate in the scam by carping on the terms by which we will be screwed, is to collude with it.

An excerpt from an oldie but goodie you may have missed is:
The Corporate Climate Coup
by Prof. David F. Noble
"By the beginning of 2007 the corporate campaign had significantly scaled up its activity, with the creation of several new organizations. The Pew Center and Partnership for Climate Action now created a political lobbying entity, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). USCAP membership included the key players in the initial effort, such as BP, Dupont, the Pew Center, and Environmental Defense, and added others, including GE, Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Pacific Gas and Electric, Florida Power and Light, and PNM, the New Mexico and Texas utilities holding company. PNM had recently joined with Microsoft's Bill Gates' Cascade Investments to form a new unregulated energy company focused on growth opportunities in Texas and the western U.S. PNM's CEO Jeff Sterba also chaired the Climate Change Task Force of the Edison Electric Institute. Also joining USCAP was the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Resources Institute, and the investment banking firm Lehman Brothers whose managing director Theodore Roosevelt IV chaired the board of the Pew Center and was soon also to chair Lehman's new Global Center on Climate Change. As Newsweek now noted (March 12, 2007). “Wall Street is experiencing a climate change," with the recognition that “the way to get the green is to go green.”"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5568

The whole thing is an Elitest scam.

What was the real reason?

Gordo was told that this would happen over and over by those who know what was going on and what this would cost. The real question must remain this: If Gordo knew that the result would be increased cost to the taxpayer and undue hardship to those involved directly by his strategy, why did he do it? the only possible reason would be to punish the poor who can not compete in his capitalist fantasy world. The only reason was cruelty and this speaks more about what kind of man he really is. Our leader is a poor excuse for a hu8man being and even a devote conservative must know realize that their greed cost them far more than their charity ever could. Looks good on you neo-liberals to be revealed the mouth breathers you really are.

I guess you are Luke.

Wrong that is, because it was the Campbell government that approved this idea

Skywalker...

Yeah... and so do the Greens:

http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/content/bcs-climate-action-budget-carbon-tax-fails-business-and-environment

And so does the NDP:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3d978bcf-04da-4755-861a-0c0c5593d53e&k=67967

Except the Greens and NDP have different variations and opinions on how it should be implemented and who should be affected.

Still the same ol' silly carbon tax.

How can Gordo still be in

How can Gordo still be in power especially when his dishonorable fiberals are under investigation for the disgraceful (turncoat that he is) BC Railgate, the biggest scandal in BC's history! MSM?
4.5 years later nothing, I and many other law abiding BCer's smell something very rotten here as our MSM sells us out with non news, snippets, and dis-information. CanWest subscribers are canceling in droves! Why, for the simple reason of WE deserve "TRUTH" not pure crapola (headline full front page in Province: "ODDLES OF POODOLS" MSM?
Where was MSM? when the UBC students had a peaceful march denouncing the privatization of OUR UBC Endowment lands for condos for the rich, and the VPD went and arrested 16 students like criminals just for using their (OUR) RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH
Is there anyway to "follow the money? There has to be some honestlawyers in this OUR BC?
CTV will no longer cover local peaceful gatherings that promote OUR RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH which is the cornerstone of a REAL DEMOCRACY
Secrecy a guilty person’s refuge.

electoral amendments act

Gordon (the gargler)campbell is attempting to pass another illegal bill. A limit on third party advertising --150.000.00 limit ( 5 months before the election)

Thats right so now lets say the bctf launches ads against gordo ( like the last election) which they spent 1.5 million dollars ---now gor doh has limited them to 150.000.00 or 1/10 ---and this goes in effect 5 months before the election--

This has been attempted before but the courts ruled in the past that was illegal(it infringes on peoples right to freedom of speech)------read michael smyth column in the province today. ( yea it blew me away, something happening with canwest global, I think they smell liberal blood in the water)

The only thing I read into this amendment is the gargler is worried, if those ipsos reid and mustel polls were ligit campbell wouldn`t be freaking out trying to stop any and everyone from advertising.

CELEBRATE GOOD TIMES COME ON, CELEBRATE GOOD TIMES COME ON

Name & ME2

The North Atlantic Oscillation is but one of many on the planet. Others include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation, all with their own chaotic characteristics, all having profound and well-known effects on the climate of their regions.

Thanks to the work of Anastasios Tsonis and his colleagues, we now know that these four separate and major oscillations can and do act in unison. And when they do, the world climate turns.

Prof. Tsonis applied mathematical procedures from chaos and network theory to the oscillations that occurred over the 20th century, for each of the four major oscillations. Out of the chaos, he found coherence. All four oscillations demonstrated independent characteristics most of the time, operating at different intensities and wave patterns in their own complex dynamics.

But several times they synchronized. And within those synchronized periods, they sometimes coupled to act in phase and in increasing strength. This increasing coupling strength culminated in dramatic climate shifts.

"The first synchronization of the 20th century occurred around 1910," Prof. Tsonis explains. "For almost three years, the coupling strength increased and then in late 1912 or early 1913, the synchronous state among the oscillations vanished. That coincided with a sharp increase in global temperatures."

Other synchronizations occurred in the 1920s and 1930s, but these were marked by an absence of increasing coupling strength, and the global temperature didn't shift. "In the 1940s, we again saw synchronization accompanied by increasing coupling strength, and we again saw a dramatic change in global temperatures -- this was the period of global cooling that is so often remarked upon, and which led some scientists to predict that we were entering a new Ice Age," Prof. Tsonis continues. For several decades, more synchronizations occurred, but without increasing coupling strength. The temperature continued to cool. "Then, in the late 1970s, we once more saw the phenomenon of synchronization among the oscillations, plus increasing coupling strength. When the synchronization ended, the climate turned again, and the current period of global warming began."

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=288ba340-98f9-4fbe-8412-acf920b32604
Researchers attempting to model what might happen to the climate of the North Atlantic over a period of decades suggest that the temperature of the sea and Europe and North America may cool slightly.

The researchers said the North Atlantic had variability on a 70 to 80-year cycle and the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) - a giant "conveyor belt" that brings warm water northwards into the area - had an important role to play in driving those fluctuations. When the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2238317.0.Doubt_is_cast_over_global_warming.php

Thank you, Mopled

I'm quite sure that our scientists modelling climate change understand all this. In fact it was from one of Canada's members on the Intergovernmental panel that I first heard the PDO & ENSO patterns explained at a symposium almost a decade ago.

As the BBC has noted, the just-released German study might come as a surprise to those who assumed a very simple model of global warming, but the folks who have been working on this for decades have always understood that it's by no means a straight line. (Even I understood that and I'm no scientist!) And that we are sure to find many new insights and surprises, some of them superficially counterintuitive, as we go along. And that these jiggles, hiccups, tipping points and curlicues will all add richness and depth to our understanding of how the broader transformation underway will eventually take shape.

Name

It is not that the PDO or the NAO weren't known about. It is how they work together that was only discovered recently.

This is new stuff and could not have been considered by the IPCC. Their cut-off date for research to be reviewed was 2005...although I understand they did make an exception for something written in 2006 which supported the AGW/CC hypothesis.

Also, all the Warmists have been denying that there is anything cyclic involved in climate change.....the Earth is burning up....remember?

You might take a look at this.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

James Hansen at GISS has been changing history on temperature data and seems to be making a new version of the infamous Hockey Stick.

It gives a whole new meaning to the words man-made global warming.

The whole thing, not just the gas tax is a scam.

A quick question for you mopled

Are you financed by the Heritage Foundation or indirectly by Exxon Mobil?

I do agree with you that Campbell's Gas Tax sleight of hand is a scam and little more than a sop to the man's overweening ego.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

You really are silly G. West

I am not paid by anybody to do anything....so I get to do what I want. Am I not lucky?

Now, I have recently been asked by Tyee management not to contribute more than three times a day to any one thread. I could not leave your cliched non sequitur ad hominem unanswered, but I will not be able to answer anything you post until after midnight if I am to abide by the rules set out for me, or I risk being banned.

Have you ever received such a notice, my dear sir? I would think the rule imposed on me should apply equally to all, but one never knows. Has anyone else received such notice?

In the meantime, I leave you with this:

"Globe may be cooling on Global Warming
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/32821
"Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously." Dr. Phil Chapman wrote in The Australian on April 23. "All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead."

Chapman neither can be caricatured as a greedy oil-company lobbyist nor dismissed as a flat-Earther. He was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology staff physicist, NASA's first Australian-born astronaut, and Apollo 14's Mission Scientist.

Chapman believes reduced sunspot activity is curbing temperatures. As he elaborates, "there is a close correlation between variations on the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate." Anecdotally, last winter brought record cold to Florida, Mexico, and Greece, and rare snow to Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad. China endured brutal ice and snow.

NASA satellites found that last winter's Arctic Sea ice covered 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) more than the last three years' average. It also was 10 to 20 centimeters (about 4-8 inches) thicker than in 2007. The ice between Canada and southwest Greenland also spread dramatically. "We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south," Denmark's Meteorological Institute stated.

"Snows Return to Mount Kilimanjaro," cheered a January 21 International Herald Tribune headline, as Africa also defies the "warming" narrative."

Do read the rest. It is quite enlightening
as to what is really happening with climate and weather.

I just heard the most absurd thing....

....but not surprising......to do with federal secrecy, rather than BC's:

On late-nite CBC news just now there was a bit about how the Tories are discontinuing the list of freedom-of-information requests that the legislation created. The reason was simply stated as "government departments have no use for the list". yeah, right....

Reported in the same commentless deadpan that another CBC newscaster delivered this chestnut a month or two ago, re the investigation of Mulroney based on Schreiber's claims:

"We feel a set of fully-open public hearings is not going to be efficient as private hearings behind closed doors".

Yeah, uh-huh.....amazing though that they get away with justifications like this. Taht says more about "us" than it does about "them".

Au contraire

The Heritage Foundation, which is largely financed by Exxon Mobil and Philip Morris (for reasons known only to themselves) has sent copies of material including DVDs into Canadian schools in an effort - their spokespersons say - to counteract the impact of Al Gore's movie.

I'd suggest such dedication and effort - not unlike your own - is costly - and while I disagree with your point of view, I'd never try in any way to muzzle your voice.

I didn't, not now or ever, make any kind of a personal remark about you. That's not my style. Everyone is intitled to their opinion - that does not mean that they aren't legitimate subjects of debate; as is the question of who gives others aid and counsel. OK?

As a matter of fact, a quick re-read of my very short interrogatory above will show, I abaolutely agree with your position relative to the Campbell Gas Tax.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

Just a touch of hypocrisy, GW

Turn about always used to be called fair play. It was Gore's movie that had school distribution first.

Monday, April 16, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth for BC High Schools

Every public high school will get be receiving a free copy of An Inconvenient Truth. The announcement came this morning during a press conference outside the Vancouver School Board offices.

Funding for the project comes courtesy of the Tides Canada Foundation, while the distribution of the DVDs will be taken care of through the Novex Courier's clean fleet of hybrid and low-emission vehicles and bicycle courier service. The original vision for the project came courtesy of Gregor Robertson, Member of the Legislative Assembly for Vancouver Fairview and former CEO of Happy Planet beverages."
http://consciousearth.blogspot.com/2007/04/inconvenient-truth-for-bc-high-schools.html

You keep trying to pretend I'm something other than I am. That is not polite, so stop acting as if you are the wounded party.

Anybody who is retired, as I am, could do what I do. There are many sites run by independent scientists which provide the information I tap into for free. It helps I'm good at using search engines and have a good memory, otherwise you might have gotten away with re-writing history as to the distibution of Gore's DVD to Van schools.

Dedication to the truth does not require a salary to maintain.

The warming period is over. The cooling may last until after 2020. CO2 has bloody little to do with it.

You will dismiss Dennis Avery as a corporate shill, but here's a good piece on the latest science anyway.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871
So,I still want to know if and when those who want to tax us on the basis of a phony premise will just call it a gas tax which helps pay for their Olympic party?

Ummm, because

It is easy. His party got the most seats in the election. He is the leader of said party. Ergo, he was asked by the Lt Governor to form the government.

Hmm, looks like you are not the only one.

Interesting to watch this thread. A carbon tax was something the NDP advocated as a fix for global warming for years. Now that said tax has been put into place, the screaming has begun and especially the chorus of "make somebody else pay, not me!"

I call it "environmental convenience." Many are concerned about the environment until it threatens their life style in some way.

CLIMATE CHANGE POLITICS

As reported in one of Vaughn Palmer's columns, a host of BC's environmental NGOs lined up to praise the provincial government's carbon tax Bill 38 before it had even been introduced!

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=936a0476-4adb-49d7-852a-421cf4ea172a

These NGOs, many of them very well financed, with big direct mail lists and multi-million dollar payrolls and comfortable Westside office locations, were totally onside, secrecy be damned. Why is it that few people find this kind of behaviour worthy of comment?

Cons or Dupes?

GWest said: "The Heritage Foundation, which is largely financed by Exxon Mobil and Philip Morris"

Neither the 2006 or the Historical record shows any funding by either.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation

Where's your reference for that crude attempt at a guilt by association smear?

Now, the ubiquitous Tides Foundation, which paid for the distribution of Gore's version of "science", is something else again. It gets its money from other foundations....it "greenwashes" money from Big Oil.

It funds Tides Canada, which paid for the distribution of Gore's DVD. For a glimpse of the spider's web, see:
http://www.renewalpartners.com/who_we_are/founder_senior.html

The pretense that this is a Left/Right or Green/Big Oil argument, when Sunoco's Tar Sands (Pew Center on Global Climate Change) money is being poured into Gore's PR machine, is a tad disingenuous.

http://thefilter.ca/articles/canada/us-foundations-give-millions-to-canadian-environmental-groups/

Bud Campbell points out the MO in the use of NGOs and the Left, but doesn't go far enough.

Vaugh Palmer's article is very funny in the context of the new science. Neither Liberals, Federal or Provincial, or the NDP can abandon the old AGW/CC paradigm easily.

Both will be shown to be either very sleazy, or at very best,dupes.

Funding

In 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.

The following corporations would seem to have a significant interest in what the foundation is all about, wouldn't you agree?

They include defence contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin; Allstate Insurance and American International Group (AIG) tobacco companies the Altria Group (Philip Morris); drug companies such as Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; oil companies Chevron Texaco and Exxon Mobil among others.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

Red herring West!

What does the funding of the Heritage foundation have to do with the new scientific findings anyway? They didn't fund them. The only connection to this argument is you accused me of being funded by Heritage. I fell into your trap and went and looked it up, and you showed a connection between Heritage and Philip Morris. So what? It's a Red Herring Argument.

Man, you must have swallowed the book on fallacious arguments.

"Description of Red Herring
Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

But the funding of the false AGW/CC hypothesis is very much to the point, because as I've shown, the money comes from the same people when it isn't coming from government directly. Bush 2 has funded the swollen climate establishment all through his administration. It is now up to $6 Billion a year

When ultimately the same people control both sides of the argument and fund both sides of the argument, there is no argument, there is only a tax supported psyop.

And if you want more

Look here:

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

I also understand

That a good many of the 'scientists' so often included in the list of global warming deniers have had their work, and their opinions misrepresented by groups like the Heartland Institute and have requested - or demanded - that their names be removed from the Institute’s materials.

Furthermore, I've heard it said that some of those who remain are being paid to sing for their supper at the Institute’s infamous bun-tosses.

One thing I do know, the same cast of characters keeps washing up on their shores all the time.

Again, I note with interest and a little chagrin that once again you've failed to acknowledge that I do agree that Campbell's tax is a noxious and nonsensical sop to the man's enormous ego and a complete waste of time (and money) as a substantive effort to address the problem of global warming and climate change. As Budd will attest, I’ve posted this opinion elsewhere and I have taken the time to read the many pages of the complex and pointless law.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

GWest

I think he nailed you with this one, Garth. What's your response?

Sez Mopled

"When ultimately the same people control both sides of the argument and fund both sides of the argument, there is no argument, there is only a tax supported psyop."

Hardly!

I have a lot more trust in the at least mostly arms length funding for university researchers than the kind of bought to order stuff funded by think tanks and institutes financed by Richard Mellon Scaife and his like.

Most of my academic colleagues (outside of the business faculty) have not surrendered their independence of thought and action.

The dray horses of the 'Institutes' have.

I am troubled by the amount of private financing that's starting to go on in public universities but, for the most part, I think independent academics are more likely to be trustworthy than the guys in the private institutes.

The denial forces come from the private for profit side, in my view.

Furthermore, my own observations and conclusions about the state of the environment and the diminishing quality and increasingly random behavior of the weather fits, in my view, the global warming paradigm much more closely.

Furthermore, I'm not at all sanguine about anything else that big corporations, oil and car companies, forest multinationals and commercial agriculture have done for the quality of life here and in the 3rd world so I'm more than willing to see such things reined in for a of reasons.

Besides I think the state of the economy, the quality of the air, the lack of a positive future for children and the poverty and hunger of the third world are givens - there's no longer any point in arguing about them.

We either put up now and try to change things (and not with the kind of nonsense Campbell and, sadly, Suzuki, often support either).

I'm just not interested in this debate, I think it's over and the time for action, real action, has come. And that has nothing to do with a poorly thought out ‘revenue neutral’ Carbon Tax.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

"How to talk to a climate skeptic..."

Here it is-if you want to use your precious time "talking' to these people.

Article from "Grist"
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Not Grist again

It exemplifies the very worst of the scam and often turns truth upside down. I offer an antidote.(Alberta Oil Money is a funder, but then AOM funds the whole "]Big Green Machine" through Sunoco)
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed Papers
(critical of the IPCC's politicised version of the science.)
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=107

Universities are dependant on both gov't and industry for funding. Increasingly they are the same thing. For instance,Clinton and Chretien both gave $600 million to Monsanto to produce GMOs....like GM wheat, which Canadian farmers had to protest long and hard to prevent from being grown. It would have contaminated their stocks and ruined their markets.
The research was done at US and Canadian universities, and paid for by Monsanto with money provided by governments.

SD walker, try http://icecap.us/index.php
as a daily antidote to Grist. You might then realize how our ignorance of basic science has been taken advantage of by the scamsters. You might start with this one
May 04, 2008
The Global Warming Scam

By Dr. Vincent Gray, 4 time IPCC Reviewer and Nobelist

The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the Environmentalist belief that the earth is being harmed by the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief. They have published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it."

In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and any influence on the climate, it is necessary to solve three problems: (1) To determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is increasing, (2) To measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the atmosphere, (3) To reliably predict changes in future climate. None of these problems has been solved. continues at http://icecap.us/index.php
(Different Dr. Gray, Garth!)

Always amusing...

I'm always amused by arguments that all the built-in rigours of independent science have perpetuated a gargantuan global fraud, and that we should therefore trust anonymous folks who spend all day ranting on blogs to educate us about the real truth.

The original article was well worth discussing, but the rest of this is a colossal time-waster!

Trust Non Trustworthy Politicians Implicitly

It never ceases to amaze me how readily the vast majority of people seem to accept the sinner yoke, how they comply so readily with classic politically driven "divide-and-rule" Hegelian contradictions.
Same old story works every time.
It is almost jaw dropping the way those who claim to have a jaundiced, sceptical, even cynical view of greed driven, ruthless, green-washed governmental decisions, at the same time have no problem accepting Gordo's plans to drill dry both the electorate's bank accounts and the lucrative black gold all along the B.C. coast line, in one fell swoop.
Elected leaders continue to facilitate what is essentially not so much a democracy as a pollution rewarding corpocracy. And still the disinherited are the meek, eager and willing to "believe" that politicians and corporations jointly look out for the average citizen's best interests, almost like almighty priests on high?
Indeed, it seems there are wannabe green sycophants who can be heard begging to be green-wash taxed half to death. In aid of what, again? Surely not the historically proven notoriously variable climate?
The classic post modern government line:
"No matter how much this hurts we are only doing it for your own good".
Anyone who buys that kind of snake oil may well deserve to be left in the spin dust, staring confusedly into their own empty wallets.
As Milgram and other similar human experiments have proven, about 60%+ will follow any leader, any time, anywhere, including straight off a cliff. So I suppose this must be Darwin at work.
Multinationals are daily profiting from what Naomi Wolfe accurately described as Disaster Capitalism. Its genius is the orchestration of all forms of terror at once, including but not limited to the climate terror question. No one seems to notice, though.
Google and Youtube. Listen to what Naomi Wolfe has to say about the Disaster Capitalism technique involved in the latest Blitzkrieg of multiple crises. Has no one stopped to ask how overnight we face artificial food shortages, gas high jacking, climate fear mongering, war profiteering, elected terrorists using the threat of terrorism against the people? All are different branches of the same poisoned tree.
Wolfe is that refreshing kid in the crowd who has studiously perfected accurately calling these fear mongering emperors exactly what they are - buck naked.
Yup, the climate is changing all right. Excuse me. I have to go put on a sweater.

Are you a Coincidence Theorist?

Name, I provided the proof that Big Oil is funding both sides of the argument.

I provide a bibliography of peer-reviewed science and you dismiss it with "anonymous folks." You and I are "anonymous" and so is just about everyone who posts here. (How I miss Truman), but there are credible scientists standing openly behind the research you casually toss aside, using an Appeal to Ridicule
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Is it really "timewasting" to point to scientists who are genuinely independant and who voluntarily give time and resources to fight the fraud of AGW. Universities are too dependent on industry for grants and usually only those who are retired can speak with relative impunity.

Yes, a gigantic fraud is being attempted. Why else would Gore need to spend $300 Million on PR and advertising? The selling job gets harder as the world cools, that's why the push to get the taxation in place.

The scam is not "global" yet and will probably never be, because essentially India, China and Russia are saying "stuff it".

And it looks like the British Public is too.
"More than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll.

The survey also reveals that most Britons believe "green" taxes on 4x4s, plastic bags and other consumer goods have been imposed to raise cash rather than change our behaviour, while two-thirds of Britons think the entire green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/green-tax-revolt-britons-will-not-foot-bill-to-save-planet-819703.html

So far only 1 in 10 polled understood "that climate change is totally natural." that will grow as the planet cools over the next 10-12 years.

Why not base the taxation on the rate of warming, as was suggested last year.
http://economics.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=economics&cdn=money&tm=19&f=10&su=p649.0.147.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html%3Fid%3Dd84e4100-44e4-4b96-940a-c7861a7e19ad%26p%3D1
Call Their Tax
Why not tie carbon taxes to actual levels of warming? Both skeptics and alarmists should expect their wishes to be answered

Ross McKitrick, Financial Post Published: Tuesday, June 12, 2007

That is what the NDP should be calling for. At least tie planned increases to the tax to actual warming.

I'm listening to Naomi Wolf now and all I can thing of is Suzuki calling for jailing "polluters" (anyone who breaths when CO2 is declared a "pollutant") or the proposed Bill C-51 which would allow warrentless searches....for herbs and vitamins.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8850
Yup, it's the Blitzkreig model.

lots of clutter

The bottom line is campbell is hiding his crimes, not only that,the gargler wants to silence all counter veiling views.

It does not matter whether global warming is real or not, that isn`t the issue, freedom of imformation is not a priveledge,its our right! Its our money.our province our air.

The same goes for advertisig,if I was rich,which I am not and wanted to spend as much money as I want on any political party,thats my business, not gordon(gargler) campbell`s business!

The gargler campbell must be related to george bush!

southdeltawalker, Gwest and Name

southdeltawalker, I suppose I should find it amusing that you ask me to read GRIST, when I won't read the RENSE articles Mopled offers. You're more interested in OPINION than science, and so too with Gwest, who offers :

"I have a lot more trust in the at least mostly arms length funding for university researchers...,,"

Anyone who today believes that university scientists, who are deliberately underfunded by Gov't in order to force them into "partnerships" with Industry, are "independant", needs to have his or her head read. While once rightly assumed to be seekers only of "pure science", today these people are primarily involved only with "applied science".

And so too with Name, who tauntingly writes :

"I'm always amused by arguments that all the built-in rigours of independent science have perpetuated a gargantuan global fraud, ....."

"Built in rigours" indeed !! All that I've seen to date is a MEME positing CO2 induced GW, which depends far more upon the supposed credibility of its proponents and their alarmist argumentation, than upon rigourously-tested science. As far as I've seen to date, those opposing it draw equally upon upon science, and themselves exhibit impressive credentials and experience.

In my opinion, either side of the pro vs anti Warmism arguments have yet to amass conclusive data, and there the jury's still out.

But not so with CO2, and the arguments against it as a proven cause are steadily mounting. And so what sets my BS detectors ringing is who the proponents of CO2 warming are, all of whom are motivated by economics,(the "Disaster Capitalism" MIA referred to above) plus political and environmental objectives only tenuously connected to GW.

And so the failure of a response to Mopled's comment is for me to date his most compelling argument :

"When ultimately the same people control both sides of the argument and fund both sides of the argument, there is no argument, there is only a tax supported psyop."

And psyop it is.

None of this is to deny that the Oilcos and their Corporado buddies are thieving scoundrels. Nor does it mean that Air Pollution, particularly from hydrocarbon generated aerosols, is not an extremely serious problem.

What it does imply however, is that we are wasting effort and money on chasing a will-o'-the-wisp, money that should be spent upon genuinely serious problems.

Better make that a Cowichan sweater, Mia.

HOW HAS THE ENVIRONMENT MOVEMENT BEEN CO-OPTED?

The question in my mind is how have BC's environmental NGOs been so successfully co-opted by the BC Liberal government? They even have Mark Jaccard writing op-ed pieces that specifically damn the NDP government of the 1990s as ineffective and label Carole James as dishonest. How have the Liberals achieved all this political traction?

Perhaps this is a little more to your liking ME2

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

I thought I'd posted it before, but I see I've been defending myself against false charges of hypocrisy for some time – my apologies – I’m not into memes.

Enjoy.

That's a good question Budd, and a lot of the blame has to lie on the doorstep of a somnolent media.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

Mia

Great point, Mia.

What indeed are our taxes going in aid of these days? Most have been slyly custom-designed and specifically targeted to plump up and pander to the "pollution rewarding corpocracy" you mention in your post.

GWest

I guess I'm hard to please Garth, since it looks like standard conspiracy theory fare to me, especially in its conflation with the "Tobacco Conspiracy". Preaching to the converted.

I'm constantly surprised when advocates of one side or another, who are quick to recognise when such a strategem is being tried on them, become even promoters of trying to pull the same thing on someone else.

- usually sucking even themselves in in the process.

Believin' In Reason Is Just A Hard Way To Go

Disaster Capitalism, originally about capitalising on disaster, can shift toward intentional creation of disasters which are then capitalised upon. The aforementioned Blitzkrieg of multiplying disasters is more commonly known as Shock and Awe.
Psyops are simply the home based version of the more brutal version of warfare which indiscriminately attacks civilians in foreign countries. Inundation with "Dirty Thirties" type news can keep many perpetually off balance, finding it harder to hang on to bearings, common sense, wits or reason.
In the UK and the EU, for example, at first climate concerned citizens knuckled under to the all too familiar WWII type Dickensian lifestyle.
Basic deprivation schemes have become commonplace. Austerity policies include compulsory mercury filled CFL light bulbs, regulation reduced night time home heating, wearing winter gear to bed, to save the planet.
Lately, however, there is blowback. Abusive, draconian, "green" taxation is now perceived by more people as a tax grab masquerading beneath the pretext of faux green policy, causing a taxpayer backlash, as people begin to seriously question tax grabs with no perceivable change in any outcome and with no achievable goals in sight.
Perhaps there is a lesson to be taken away from this experiment.
Maybe Canadians taxpayers may begin to demand of those they elect that taxes, as mentioned above, be linked directly to actual satellite readings of global temperatures, and runaway abuses of power may be reigned in.
Until then, count on savings and incomes going up in corporate smoke and political one way mirrors.

China

Are they just? China is so confident that there's lots of cheap oil at the center of the earth being hoarded by Morlocks that they're signing energy deals around the world (including Canada) in an attempt to secure future supplies. Hmm, doesn't sound like the actions of a country confident that peak oil is a myth or climate change is a conspiracy.

ME2

I don't actually see myself as an advocate of one side or another in this debate. The science I’ve read is more convincing, all things taken into account, than the ‘denialist’ lobby – in my opinion.

Furthermore, I am a believer in the precautionary principle and I think any 'real' changes to our way of life here in the West which:
a) reduces our use of and dependence upon fossil fuels;
b) rationalizes the way we live in and relate to the natural world - including especially farmland and forests but not excluding the air and the water which form - together with the built and natural environment - the ecological system we depend upon;
c) enables the people of the third world to begin to live better lives without making the kinds of mistakes we have in terms of personal over-consumption of finite resources, and;
d) addresses what to me is a persuasive scientific case for the degradation of the atmosphere that I personally have been witness to during my own lifetime.

I think the science has done that - at least to my satisfaction and, as I've said before, I just don't see the downside to making real change a priority for all.

On the other hand, as I've also stated repeatedly, some of the kinds of things - among which is Campbell's Carbon Tax Boondoggle - which have been and will be suggested (ethanol replacement/substitution is another) are nonsensical, wasteful and harmful, in my view.

These things do the atmosphere no good and, by their very nature, they do the campaign to clean it up nothing but harm. Unfortunately, and Campbell's little clique of 'secretive scientists' appears to be sadly typical - some 'environmental' groups have a political agenda that bares little relation to the stated objective of addressing climate change in a meaningful and effective way. And, as I pointed out, anytime Richard Mellon Scaife climbs on board any campaign, I begin to sound warning bells.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

Interesting

It is interesting how the left was so in favour of a carbon tax just a few months ago. The order has now come down from NDP head quarters, or more accurately CAW headquarters that said tax is evil. This is because the CAW survives on making gas guzzlers in southern Ontario. The market for gas guzzlers, even without the paltry carbon gas tax is already gone and it is not coming back any time soon.

Equally interesting is how quickly the left in Canada has abandoned their worry of global warming. They now say the tax is unfair, etc. Perhaps the NDP should, as part of their platform, give $10,000 rebates of 8 litre Chevrolet pick up trucks, many of which are built in Oshawa, a plant that recently cut one shift due to lack of demand.

Like it or not, not many people are going to buy a truck that uses 20 l/100km when gas is at $1.30 a litre.

Finally, the NDP is bleeding support to the Green Party in a big way. Their obvious reversal on global warming is the cause. You see, reducing fossil fuel uses was hip in leftie circles until the secretariat issued the cease and desist order. Conservation is only a good thing when somebody else has to pay for it and it does not inconvenience anyone. It is a God Given Right to drive a Ford Explorer, especially if it is made by a union member in Oshawa.

Enlightenment

For all of you who think you know all about climate science because you read grist or realclimate, here's a link to the audio of lectures presented at the 2008 Conference on Climate Change.
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/audio.cfm

"Who’s on the fringe of scientific consensus? The alarmists, or the skeptics?

These questions go to the heart of the issue: Is global warming a crisis, as we are so often told by media, politicians, and environmental activists? Or is it moderate, mostly natural, and unstoppable, as we are told by many distinguished scientists?

Former Vice President Al Gore has said repeatedly that there is a “consensus” in favor of his alarmist views on global warming. And of course, he’s not alone.

Two weeks ago, Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, when told of our conference, said, “You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth.” (Denver Post, February 12, 2008).

RealClimate.org predicted that no real scientists would show up at this conference.

Well ...

We have with us, tonight and tomorrow, more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States.

They come from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University.

From George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics.

From The University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

And from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

And I apologize if I left anyone out.

These scientists and economists have been published thousands of times in the world’s leading scientific journals and have written hundreds of books. If you call this the fringe, where’s the center?"

Enjoy!

enjoy what?

Are you paid by the word or by the post Mopled?

Stump, my dear fellow

You might ask the same question of any entity or multiple personality that hangs out here, Stump.

Please, if you know where I can get funding just to post real science, please let me know. Since I can only post 3x per 24 hr period, it won't be much.

It would be better of course if Tyee would do an article on Lawrence Solomon...a man with impeccable enviro credentials and his new book The Deniers. Tyee is just about as "fair and balanced" as Fox is about Bush when it comes to climate issues.

In the meantime you will have to make do with what Solomon has found out about Wiki and the Climate Information Control Mafia.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=490337&p=1

After you read the above, why don't you listen to some of the lectures from the conference at the Heartland link provided and learn something?

Or is that against your principles?

falling for propaganda

is most definitely against my principles.

PLANTING THE CO2 IDEA: "Mammals Are CO2 Exhaling Aliens"

Isn't the stock market overdue to cap & trade volcanos ? Don't global flora inhale Co2 which global fauna exhale? Time to carbon neutralise the flipper print of great whales which have even bigger Co2 hot air blow holes than climate hysterics. Cap natural subsurface Co2 wells which inject Co2 into oil wells to raise pressure for oil extraction? How about more eco friendly wars? Seriously, just how ludicrous is this cult getting? Co2 is only a tree to which to tie that hard kicking taxation mule. Reduce our carbon footprint? Human beings are made of carbon. Carbon is an indispensable building block for the continuation of all life on earth. Contrary to convenient lies spread by a certain profiteering theology drop out & wannabe prophet, that cap & trade Corporate CEO, Al Gore, Co2 follows, rather than precedes, periodic upward fluctuations in long term global temperatures. Chasing Co2 is like a puppy chasing its own tail. Co2 is a red herring, not a causation factor. Sadly, millions gobble up the propaganda, desperately needing to belong to a Co2 cult. To "believe" that carbon taxes "save the planet", is little short of astounding. Carbon tax every every living breathing being & this would change nothing - except globalists' balance sheets. In short, one would have to eliminate all flora & fauna from the earth to rid the planet of the evil carbon footprint of breathing beings. On the other hand, fear can achieve compliance about the "inevitability" of..oh,..say, depopulation programs. Over lay the reality of corporate pollution with the hype of every day Co2 & simple carbon exhaling sinners repent. Face Facts: 'Going Carbon neutral' is only achievable by dropping dead, if then. Reduce the collective human carbon footprint? Why not go the extra green mile & eliminate that footprint altogether? It won't affect climate, but it will certainly make those who loathe humanity pretty ecstatic. It's gets back to that old joke: A psychotic thinks two plus two equals five. A neurotic knows two plus two equals four but it's driving him crazy. Junk climate science reasons like a psychotic. [/i]'Dying For Gaia'[i] works something like this: If psychotics insist mammals are planet killers, then killing off mammals saves the planet. For the average nature loathing misanthrope, realists are 'deniers', while climate alarmism promises the Holy Grail, a desperately sought empowerment tool to grant fringe alarmists the authority they so crave, the chance to become apocalyptic agents. With desperate fingers on the trigger of the Co2 human bug spray, they are set to eradicate Global Swarming with a single hot button issue. Heaven forbid they protest the real scam, taxing nailing the earning classes to the floor.

Mia meet Mopled. If

Mia meet Mopled.

If ignorance is bliss and misery loves company you'll be very happy together.

The kind of scenario you both describe requires a level of scientific ignorance on the part of the 'alarmists' and a level of collusion and conspiracy by world gov'ts and the U.N. that even 9/11 conspiracy theorists would say it beggars belief.

Your statement that "human beings are made of carbon" as though that fact has anything to do with climate change suggests to me you are either totally ignorant to the facts or being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to sway the gullible.

If you are looking for readers stupid enough to swallow this nonsense I think you've come to the wrong place. Try Canada.com, the automakers and suburban condo developers who pay for it to exist through advertising would probably revel in your odorous pastiche of half-baked DENIALIST tommyrot.

DENIAL OF WHAT, EXACTLY?

As a realistic conservationist, might I inquire, Stump, I am accused of denial of exactly what? Denial of the reality of growing pollution? No, not for a minute. It is all too real. Denial of the appalling state of global environmental degradation wrought by corporations and those billions of consumers who don't boycott corporations everywhere? Not at all. Denial about daily increasing eco-fragmentation and ever more toxic waste and oil spills? No way. Denial of the fact that corporate developer friends of Greenwash Gordo are being granted at top speed the imperial right to concretise the province by developing the remaining B.C. greenspace until much of it resembles Hong Kong or Shanghai? Not at all. Or perhaps you meant the denial of a lie laced shell game unfolding, a Ponzi scheme to impose faux green carbon taxes in order, amongst other projects, to have a convenient way to fund the Olympics? Absolutely no way am I in denial. There are always those extremists who think that if they stop bathing and doing laundry altogether this will save the planet, - only to become righteously infuriated when all their neighbours continue to squander a precious resource such as potable water to water their lawns all day long. Likewise, reducing pollution only to continue to inhale China's fumes as their capitalist coal smog drifts over to the west coast of B.C. is not really much more than a band aid solution to anything. Pollution reduction, - as distinct from the well nigh impossible goal of overcoming climate change,- only works if everyone does it, including all the corporate pirates. Just how likely is that? Otherwise, taxes are an empty misplaced political gesture, far worse than merely futile, a case of sheer tokenism, of borrowing from Peter and Paul to pay Gordo. So, Stump, let he who has not ever exhaled Co2 but who lives in a glass house be the one to cast the first stone. Better yet? Do the planet a favour. Try putting into practice what you seem all too willing to preach. Why not be the first to send away for a handy dandy self euthanising hemlock kit? That way the sanctimoniously self righteous could avoid the rush AND save the planet, two less lungs at a time.

RULES OF THE FLAME GAME

1. Never offer any sound or solid evidence of your own to counter any real or solid evidence produced by other bloggers who may use in-depth research which is in danger of having educational merit.
2. Use ad hominem assault tactics, one right after the other, being certain to shoot the messenger by any means possible, the nastier the better. Then blame them when they do defend themselves or are justified in using fair turn about.
3. Use round robin games w/ alternate blog names, to maintain the illusion of a large majority, a faked consensus, via fear mongering, dismissiveness, self righteousness.
4. Remember passive aggression will only go so far. The best defence is a good offence. Use verbal toxic waste as the primary tool of attack.
5. Choose arbitrary character assassination of strangers, especially new guests who make enough sense to risk lending courage to any uncertain fence sitters who may be waiting to see who "wins" a power struggle.
6. Create the easy contagion of paranoia by alluding to various non existent alliances &/or conspiratorial associations between various other bloggers.
7. Create multiple blog personae to give the impression that the gang is larger than a group of one.
8. Form gang-like alliances between each one of these fake names.
9. Make bullying the main tool used to discredit others.
10. Dismiss anything even remotely reasonable which might begin to upend the prevailing party line.
11. Search out & destroy anyone &/or any idea which is in danger of encouraging others to move in the direction of respect for sound reasoning, fact based realism, &/or healthy scientific scepticism.
12. At all cost, immediately rename any legitimate blogger's attempt to employ logic or reason by resorting to inflammatory language while thumping one's chest, hurling one's faeces, & shrieking 'DENIALIST' repeatedly.
13. Collect as many easily ignited faggots as possible, pile them up, & have matches at the ready for a good old fashioned witch/wizard burning.
14. Burn witches just often enough that the resulting smoke will appear to contribute to global warming, just to seal the argument.

OK

"Do the planet a favour. Try putting into practice what you seem all too willing to preach. "

Ride a bike or bus, eat locally, curb the excess consumerism? Already doing that thanks.

If you wish to equate sensible conservatorship of our planet as some sort of extreme position then more power to you, but the solution DOES lie in individual actions, not throwing up your hands and saying, "Well, China isn't going to do their chores, so neither am I!"

Any legal, moral, or ethical platform we might have to attack the big polluters (in terms of nations) is pretty flimsy until we attend to our own profligacy first. Your DENIAL that we can do anything about it is no more realistic than the idea that we have nothing to do with the problem.

By the way will you be

By the way will you be informing us ignoramuses how the fact that humans are a carbon-based lifeform relates to global warming per your earlier post?

The so called most open

The so called most open government Gordo used to talk about is as secretive as it could get. Try to remember that, next time an election comes along

The so called most open

The so called most open government Gordo used to talk about is as secretive as it could get. Try to remember that, next time an election comes along

THANKS, STUMPED, YOU MADE MY POINT, I REST MY CASE

You just did it again. Your technique seems to be fairly transparent. You extrapolate from what I state clearly and then redirect and manage to arrive at a completely different conclusion then the one which I very clearly put forward.
I never said that if you can't do everything do nothing.
YOU are the one who said that, not me. You only prove my case about how flamers bait and switch.
I stated that merging the very real question of global pollution with the false red herring issue of Co2 as the identified enemy is utterly fallacious reasoning.
I gather that is your favourite type of reasoning.
Calcium carbonate is what seashells and coral are made of, created through synthesis of Co2.
Tell you what, Stumped. Instead of you replaying the same old Stump speech, why not try another approach.
Rather than you, Stump, continuing to wilfully blur a clear distinction regularly made by sound science between a) pollution & b) Co2, .... and instead of you, Stump, continuing to blur the distinction between completely different "oxides", (such as, for example, CARBON MONOXIDE, or SULPHUR DIOXIDE, or NITROUS OXIDE), why not just retire from your gate keeping day job?
Why not allow others a fair chance to consider simple scientific facts? Plants manufacture carbohydrates, which we in turn eat, by using Co2. The higher the level of Co2 in the air, the easier it is for plants to manufacture vitally necessary carbohydrates.
Ironically, Co2 is a gas of prosperity.
Do the necessary work.
http://www.co2science.org
Far be it from me to get into any flamer's "educate us dummies" trap, especially from the likes of you.
Find out for yourself why humans are made of Co2, the basic building block of life, namely carbon.
Why not go figure out just how the propaganda justifying endless tax grabs is one more corporate grab, as well as a non solution to actual pollution.
Do your own homework re why carbon is indeed not the identified enemy after all, the bogeyman deemed by junk science to be responsible for cyclical climate change. And take your time. The end of the world through Co2 hellfire seems to have been called off recently, due to unanticipated and dramatic climate cooling which caused large numbers of deaths, unheard of snow in desert regions, and massive crop failures world wide.
You are living proof that education is optional.
Anyone else is free to explore this link.
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
Have a ton of fun doing so.

More Stump dumping

Stump, I'm not sure whether that was a
an Appeal to Belief Fallacy or Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief Fallacy you used when you labled the 2008 climate Conference lecture link propaganda
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/audio.cfm
Although your answer was short and snappy, it was far more revealing than it seems you understand.

As Spencer said:
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Are you sure that is a principle you should hang on to?

Ten years of no warming since 1998 and continued cooling predicted until 2015-2023 even by Alarmists, gives us time to examine the science situation more closely, as New Zealanders may.
Let's use cooling off period to check our facts
"It begs the question of why the computer models used by IPCC in its first four assessment reports didn't predict the current period of temperature stability which has lasted now for almost 10 years."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10508067&pnum=2

So far, no one here has offered any evidence to support the CO2 hypothesis, yourself included. The IPCC says (with only 90% assurance, a confidence figure drawn from a hat with no supporting data to back it up), that the sea will rise 1 foot in 100 years, not the 20 feet predicted by The Goracle. We could prepare for it much more economically( Lomborg and Nordhaus) than by reducing levels of a gas which only makes up 0.0385% of the total atmosphere, which the Earth itself manufactures and to which we humans contribute only 3% of the total. The green house effect is 95% water vapour.
So...
How irrational your beliefs are.
And...
What a cult you belong to.

The not so blissful ignorance would seem to yours.The fact that others agree with me must be really annoying.

And I suppose some will claim Exxon planted this editorial:
We've created a climate of needless fear
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/COUNTER_VIEW_Weve_created_a_climate_of_needless_fear/articleshow/3013053.cms

Maybe Campbell&Co. hesitate to install carbon trading because it is getting increasingly hard to keep up the pretense there is a need for it.

Human composition

I think I'd find out they're not.

Food Chains

The source of all food is the activity of autotrophs, mainly photosynthesis by plants.

* They are called producers because only they can manufacture food from inorganic raw materials.
* This food feeds herbivores, called primary consumers.
* Carnivores that feed on herbivores are called secondary consumers.
* Carnivores that feed on other carnivores are tertiary (or higher) consumers.

Such a path of food consumption is called a food chain.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/F/FoodChains.html

human composition - a primer

Mia:

Carbon (C) is an element.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a molecule.

Humans are made of mostly water (H20).

Soylent Green is made of people.

Mia and Mopled

You are wasting your time mounting detailed arguments against Stump et al.

Their basic argument is against oil consumption per se, CO2 being secondary, and each of their points can be traced back to that base, such as when Stump says, (pretending to be tongue-in-cheek) :

"Are they just? China is so confident that there's lots of cheap oil at the center of the earth being hoarded by Morlocks that they're signing energy deals around the world (including Canada) in an attempt to secure future supplies. Hmm, doesn't sound like the actions of a country confident that peak oil is a myth or climate change is a conspiracy."

Since whether oil is scarce or plentiful has NOTHING to do with Global Warming, just as the profitability of oil sales has NOTHING to do with GW, and since there is NOTHING that can, within a reasonable economic time-frame supplant oil, why demonise the oilcos simply for their production of oil, positing only sheer greed for doing so?

Are we blaming the greedy corn and wheat growers for the biofuels schmozzle?

The answer for that question is easy to see. The big Oilcos have long stood (and rightly so) as representative of everything - writ large - that is wrong with our brand of Capitalism, and are so much hated by everyone that we could successfully nail them with the Crucifixion of Christ.

A good example of this demonisation was the site GWest offered yesterday, in which the Oilcos were painted as identical to the Tobacco companies.

And so the Oilcos, with EXXON as their flagship, are enmeshed in the massive propaganda war for public approval that has arisen out of the CO2 scare, and knowing that neither side is "winnable", they are pouring millions into both sides, as Mopled has pointed out.

While hating Oilcos is a valid exercise, blaming THEM for CO2 is a patently fallacious argument. But most enviros are not about to give it up, since all kinds of them are dining out on that fare.

POINT COUNTER POINT, CHECKMATE. OVER AND OUT.

Did anyone deny that humans are mostly H2o?
Nothing changes though. Humans (& all mammals) are still comprised in part of elemental carbon. No, they are not ONLY comprised of carbon, nor ONLY comprised of Co2. Nor are they are NOT largely comprised of water.
What stands out here in stark relief is the way you intentionally evade & ignore the obvious. Co2 is a good thing, contrary to the official disinfo party line. Co2, & H2o are basic building blocks of life. Co2 is what all oxygen emitting "green" life such as environmentally indispensable plants & trees, etc., take out of the atmosphere in order to survive. The more Co2 they have the better they survive & the more lush is the green growth on this planet. "Green" is not just some buzz word. Green also means all living flora which is green & growing, all plant life for which atmospheric Co2 is an indispensable component.
I reiterate that mammals exhale Co2 before they breathe in the oxygen which trees & plants give off after they have ingested & synthesised the nutrient for all plant life, namely Co2.
Say ... Are you being paid piecemeal, per bait & switch or just by the hour? I am guessing that this attempt to sabotage facts and even opinions must be your job on this site, right? As far as I can tell, you "try" (albeit poorly) to demolish logic & undermine reason by using scorn & redirection. I can only conclude that your job here must be somehow linked to Gordo. Are you on his payroll? Is that why you continue to sabotage any solid fact based exposing of Gordo's carbon tax scam? Are you attempting to act as a coverup agent for the entire carbon footprint hype, trying to redirect others' attention back to the usual tripe about Co2 being the enemy? (As if Co2 was something toxic like car exhaust, which it is absolutely not).
One last time, Co2 is a gas of prosperity. It is not even remotely an enemy, which the outfoxed media has tried to portray it as being. End of story. I gather this may also be the final hours of this thread. Thank goodness.
A word of caution, be it troll or flamer or gatekeeper or hireling or amateur disinfo agent, all or any of these, whatever you aspire to, it is glaringly apparent the the same tired old flame game tactics do tend to grow old fast.

DEAR ME2

I absolutely LOVED reading your most recent post. I only wish I had read it before I bothered to take on Stumped one more time. I need not tell you that no matter how anyone feels about the futility and dead end agenda of global oil addiction, the reality is that right after the likes of Rockefeller and his family turn off the oil tap and just as soon as oil consumption ceases, we will all be equal because we will all be dragged right back to the stone age. I suspect that that is the kind of nihilism which some may even long for, maybe some sort of self loathing redirected outward at the human condition, or perhaps some pressing need to see everything grind to a halt, who knows?
As for the Campbell government's own climate of secrecy? I think most reasonable people can fully understand the reasons. When politicians literally try to play at being experts about a case of trumped up hot air, well I guess we mostly know why.
Thanks for uprighting the topic so effectively. I was growing more than tired of et al anyway.
Your think piece managed to cut through time wasting distractions like a knife through butter.
I can only hope a future tax serf or two, or even several hundred or thousand of them, may eventually manage to find the courage necessary to actively stop this political and corporate Machiavellian madness. When people are taxed to the brink, maybe then they will locate the backbone necessary to revolt. I hope so. Otherwise they may find themselves fully fleeced and left to shiver in the dark cold barn of baseless climate fear and political opportunism. Beware those whom we unthinkingly elect.
Meanwhile, Me2, you are a veritable breath of fresh air - oxygen or Co2, take your pick!
Again, thanks.
Give my regards to respectful debate.

AND THAT'S A WRAP!

India is only one of many countries now challenging the conventional "wisdom" on climate change. Below is the article. It seems a fitting way to wrap things up.
*************************************************

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/COUNTER_VIEW_Weve_created_a_climate_of_needless_fear/articleshow/3013053.cms

"COUNTER VIEW:

We've created a climate of needless fear
6 May 2008, 0030 hrs IST

,Jug Suraiya

The only fact that we have about so-called global warming is that it's not a fact; it's an unproven hypothesis. This is the challenging assertion made by, among others, science writer Michael Crichton in his bestseller, State of Fear . According to Crichton, climate change burst upon the international radar soon after the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Crichton believes that is not a coincidence. He suspects that the western political establishment had to replace the 'evil empire' of the defunct Soviet Union with another threat perception to keep people in a state of fear which would make them amenable to mass manipulation. So the Frankenstein's monster of climate change was created. The new bogey was eagerly embraced by the media (bad news sells, good news doesn't) and the legal profession (lawyers could make a lot of money through environment-related class actions). NGOs also welcomed climate change as a cornucopian source of funding. In short order, climate change became a major money-spinning industry.

Humankind has indeed despoiled the planet, and we all need urgently to clean up our act — stop cutting down forests, stop dumping industrial effluents into the earth, etc — before it's too late. But have we changed the climate by pumping carbon emissions into the atmosphere? Perhaps, and perhaps not. Think of the earth's atmosphere as being the size of a football field. Nitrogen takes up most of the field. Oxygen, hydrogen, other gases take up almost all the rest. Carbon dioxide represents the width of the base line demarcating the end of the field. And the additional carbon dioxide added by industrial activity would be the width of a pencil.

Why have temperatures unarguably risen in certain areas? Because of the 'urban island heat effect'. Mega cities with large populations have become warmer; less populated towns haven't. Polar ice caps melting, glaciers 'calving'? Natural, inter-glacial age phenomena. And, in fact, the ice sheet in Greenland has actually thickened over the last 6,000 years. And that is the real inconvenient truth about global warming. That it isn't an incontrovertible truth."

plants and CO2

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/081ns_003.htm

As I suspected Mia, a cursory google search confirmed what I suspected... raising CO2 levels ISN'T the 'all-good' scenario for agriculture that you are touting. Short excerpt below, full article linked above as is another, even more pessimistic appraisal.

-----

INCREASED CO2 LEVELS ARE MIXED BLESSING FOR AGRICULTURE
COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be a boon for agricultural crops, as this greenhouse gas helps crop plants grow and reproduce more.

Peter Curtis
But that boon comes with a price, said Peter Curtis, a professor of evolution, ecology and organismal biology at Ohio State University. Greater growth and reproduction may hurt the nutritional value of crops.

“If you’re looking for a positive spin on rising CO2 levels, it’s that agricultural production in some areas is bound to increase,” Curtis said. “Crops have higher yields when more CO2 is available, even if growing conditions aren’t perfect.

“But there’s a tradeoff between quantity and quality. While crops may be more productive, the resulting produce will be of lower nutritional quality.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wild plants are constrained by what they can do with increased CO2. They may use it for survival and defense rather than to boost reproduction."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nutritional quality declines because while the plants produce more seeds under higher CO2 levels, the seeds contain less nitrogen.

“The quality of the food produced by the plant decreases, so you’ve got to eat more of it to get the same benefits,” Curtis said. “Nitrogen is a critical component for building protein in animals, and much of the grain grown in the United States is fed to livestock.

“Under the rising CO2 scenario, livestock – and humans – would have to increase their intake of plants to compensate for the loss.”

The research appears in the current issue of the journal New Phytologist.

Times of India

That wasn't an article, it was an editorial... one which reflects your opinion. Nice try.

scorn

My scorn is for those who claim a scientific approach and then cherry-pick the science they like and ignore the vast amount of data that refutes it.

When you throw in an international climate conspiracy as the reason behind the science that disagrees with you... it gets even harder to take you seriously.

Same poster, two different statements.

Mia:

These are direct quotes from you.

You've appeared to confuse C and Co2. A mis-statement, or proof-positive that some remedial biology is in order, and your opinions regarding climate change's effects on the biosphere need to be taken with a large grain of NaCl?

And so we're back

To Michael Crichton - the intellectual avatar of the climate change deniers: I'll make you a deal - lets trade Gordon Campbell for Michael Crichton and take them BOTH off the table.

I'll stick with the scientists and leave the spinning to folks who think the creator of Jurassic Park and ER has anything more to contribute to this debate - mopled, God Bless him, has already covered all your territory heretofore...and many more times than once.

I wonder exactly how the climate deniers on the sub-continent are going to deal with the fact that India is burning through its water faster than any other nation on earth - such wonders do petro-chemicals and fertilizers bring with them. Perhaps you can feed the 200 - 300 million Indians who are going to be starving as a result of global warming in the next couple of decades.

And, my dear Mia, mopled sometimes does it without snide and ad hominem remarks too.

Carry on.
I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

I first introduced

The Times of India EDITORIAL as such.

Mia then referred to it as an article.

Just so you get you nit pick the right nits.

West...there isn't going to be any "Global" warming for the next decade and there wasn't any for the last. Actually, it never was global because the Antarctic has been getting colder, except for the Penninsula, which is on a tectonic plate juncture and has much vulcanism. Most of the research takes place near there because it is warmer than the rest of the continent."Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Reaches "Unprecedented" Levels" http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3066
Stump...
Not all crops respond the same way to increased CO2 levels. Most are given increased drought tolerance .
Background
Loladze (2002) speculates that atmospheric CO2 enrichment will alter the plant tissue concentrations of a number of micronutrients, many of which are important to human health, worrying that if decreases predominate over increases, humanity could suffer severe adverse consequences.(see also What was done&What was learned)
What it means
For three of the four micronutrients investigated in this study, atmospheric CO2 enrichment led to concentration increases, reminiscent of the findings of Lieffering et al. (2004), who observed CO2-induced increases in the concentrations of six out of six micronutrients (Zn, Mn, Cu, B, Mo, plus Fe) in a study of rice grains. Hence, there is reason to hope that the fears of Loladze will not be realized, and that perhaps just the opposite may prove to be true in the case of most food plants.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N10/B3.php

Of course the very inconvenient fact, ignored by the IPCC, is that 19th & 20 centuries levels of CO2 ranged from about 290 ppmv in 1885 up to 440 ppmv in 1940—about 60 ppmv higher than now (Beck 2007). May I remind you that heavy industrialization took place after WW2.

A new paper in the
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary
atmospheres
Ferenc M. Miskolczi

http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
"Extra CO2 does not result extra 'radiative forcing' in the final account, as the energy constraint rules it back to its equilibrium value. Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions. So, contrary to the common wisdom, there is no positive H2O-temperature feedback on global scale: in Earth-type atmospheres uncontrolled runaway warming is not possible. This new theory seems to be only a little step forward in the two-hundred years old greenhouse science, but its consequences are revolutionary: actually it stops the possibility of man-made global warming."

That Mia may be going over what I first presented does not negate its relevance. Especially since the Guardians of the Meme ignore facts which conflict with it.

LoL-erskates

Did you type that with a straight face. Cuz, Pot... meet kettle.

Further, whinging that people mock your ideas is rich given the scorn you're both (Mia and thou) heaping upon us nutters who place our 'faith' in the huge body of evidence supporting climate change and dedicated legions of scientists who've produced it.

Except Mopled

90% of recognized and accredited science - if not more - agrees with the reciprocal of what the Hungarian Meteorological Service says....

among other things.

As you well know.

Look, you're entitled to your opinion - you're also entitled to be wrong.

If 90 - 95 percent of medical opinion says that childhood inoculation is the right thing to do for human children and 5 - 10 percent of physicians are of a non-conforming view to the point that they suggest increases in autism is the consequence of such programs I have little problem with permitting free individuals to decide not to give their kids shots.

However, over time, it has been shown that the benefits of certain behaviors outweigh their cost.

Anyone who takes the position that the ecology is NOT in a decrepit and pitiful condition because of human activity is simply ignoring the reality of the last 50 years. I think that simple fact is pretty hard to ignore and I think you, and climate skeptics everywhere are ignoring both the science and the reality.

Calling people names when you're trying to change their minds is not, furthermore, a very productive way to proceed.

Which is, in fact, the behavior I was remarking.

Carry on. Are we agreed that you won't cite Michael Crichton as long as I don't pretend Gordon Campbell is a 'green crusader'?

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Contradiction is the essence of open minded debate, certainly no time to slam the science book shut or make it a bible read from a pulpit. A father in England recently won a lawsuit about how the public school system abused its educational role to wrongfully politically indoctrinate that man's child, using a deeply flawed & seriously misleading film entitled An Inconvenient Truth. 19,000 reputable scientists approach the UN to reconsider climate finalities about imminent climate doom. Climate debate is only declared "over" when it is faith based & when science has been abandoned. Monsewer Cap & Trade Gore, who, like Gordo, recently acquired waterfront property, (no, not Noah's Ark), is heavily invested in ethanol & oil. Gore is directly implicated in imminent destruction of the U'wa tribe, due to relentless Columbian oil drilling by Occidental Petroleum, in which Gore, by family tradition, is a major stakeholder. To have the hypocritical gall to pronounce the climate debate 'over' ignores everything about the nature of open minded debate. That's is a statement born of dogma, not science. Science debate, by definition, is never 'over'. Finalities, however, are the stock & trade of religion. Those who left the bus at the first Armageddon stop appear driven by faith based need. Why else diss the inquiring minds of others who are not climate doom "believers"? Why act threatened by those who prefer to continue to engage in ongoing exploration? Armchair scientists, (I'm first to admit I'm no scientist), tend to mirror the two similar extremes of left(eous) & right(eous). Centrist moderates are not readily swept away by emotive arguments designed to dismantle fact finding research. Genuine debate is not about being right or wrong, only exploration. The AGW climate agnostic camp, versus the climate atheist or climate true believer camps, can only be labelled a sin by one of those other two camps. The more unsure people are, the louder they insist they are the way & the light. Willingness to tithe to the climate doom church of final pronouncements may offer comfort, but it's still evangelical bet hedging. If the end is nigh that offers the bleak comfort of certainty. And that is the essence of dogmatism.

Mia -

I think you need to look at that decision from England again.

If it's the one I'm thinking about your précis is a little lean and doesn't really reflect the complexity and nuance of the judge's decision. In any case, it has been discussed thoroughly here at Tyee if it is the one I'm thinking about.

On the other hand, I'd be interested in hearing how you decide who the arm-chair scientists are because I don't seem much science in either your post, or the courts.
As a matter of fact, the courts, in many cases - whether judicial or clerical - are often the ones which, over time, are proved to have been erroneous.

You can check with Galileo about that among others. Had we left the science to the courts I think we’d still be trying to create gold from lead.

I'm heartened to hear you're not a scientist - therefore you won't be too insulted when I say you sound a little dogmatic to me.

Are you willing, as I suggested to mopled, to consider forgoing citing Michael Crichton as a climate expert if I agree with you that Gordon Campbell is no greenie?

As for Al Gore’s living arrangements and property purchases – so what – did you think he was a Saint?

I’d never suggest your domicile has anything to do with your philosophy – nor would any reasonable critic.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.
G West

LEFT BRAIN/RIGHT BRAIN/NEVER THE TWAIN

GW QUOTE:
"As for Al Gore’s living arrangements and property purchases – so what – did you think he was a Saint?
I’d never suggest your domicile has anything to do with your philosophy – nor would any reasonable critic."

Reasonable critic? An open minded critic would never separate this climate prophet from his own actions. And yes Gore IS seen by far too many as a "Saint". Actions invariably speak louder than words. His actions positively scream contradiction.
The separation of actions from words is also the inherent weakness of all blogs since we never see the writer in context nor ever come to know the writer's true actions nor, for that matter, ever know anything about them except what they would like others to "believe". A pulpit in the making for one and all.
Only compartmentalised thinkers would separate the actions from words. I dare say that the compartmentalised thinking encouraged by any kind of religion would seem to be exactly how humanity has managed to wretchedly soil its own global nest thus far. Such thinking is also how humans got into this eco-illogical, ideologue driven, didactic mess in the first place.
Sorry to say if you tolerate "Do as I say not as I do" from those you would choose as your philosophers, or from your priests, then you are obviously not about to be that kid in the crowd who points out that this Gore climate dread empire builder and would be emperor is naked.
Sustained admiration for non sustainable dogmatists in itself tells a tale.

CALLING ALL THINKERS

Calling on Lynn, Me2, and other on topic bloggers. I, for one, love to hear from the rest of you again.

The Critical Disconnect.

GW Quote

Compartment One:
"A quick question for you mopled
Are you financed by the Heritage Foundation or indirectly by Exxon Mobil?"

Compartment Two:
"I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee."

I confess I erred, fell into the trap, tore a page from GW's sideswipe book and threw it at both him and his alter ego, Stump.
I promise to try not to do so again.
Mia

Toleration has nothing to do with it

Toleration has very little to do with it, recognizing the complexity and contradictions inherent in the human condition does.

If you can point me to anyone who is perfect, anyone who doesn't, at least some of the time, separate actions from words, then do so - consider it a challenge in fact.

I never saw Al Gore as a priest or leader any way and those who do, such as our CEO premier appears to want British Columbians believe that he does, deserve scorn.

The point is, quite frankly, that you're not being a reasonable critic when you engage in the kind of thing you've just done above here.

Go back to the little list of characteristics you posted the other day and honestly analyze how many of those things typify what you've just written in response to what I penned.

You don't know a single thing about me - and yet you've made a whole slew of uncalled for suppositions about what I believe and 'whom' I worship.

So far as I know Al Gore hasn't asked to be, or suggested he could be, the emperor of anything - do you know something the rest of us don't?

All I've ever said on the subject is:
a) I tend to accept the more or less consistent verdict of between 90 and 95 percent of the scientific community on the subject of global warming – when there are signs, real signs, that that consensus is changing then I’ll re-evaluate – most of my academic colleagues feel the same way; but at the same time,
b) I'm suspicious of anyone who, like our friend mopled, tends to use exactly the kind of ad hominem arguments that you decried earlier - look at the stuff archived here at Tyee on every story that has the remotest connection to climate change and you'll see what I mean because mopled has weighed in, heavily, on every single one of them; and,
c) I do believe we have, as you so delicately put it, soiled our nest and I'm inclined to support rational and positive change to do something about it. I don’t think that merely trading in the old clunker for a new shiny one which gets a few more kilometers per litre is going to cut it.

Cheers.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.
G West

Media monitors

I take it, Mia, you're not familiar with the fact that there are, some of them paid to do so, a confraternity of folks who actually are paid to present, represent and in some cases misrepresent certain points of view.

My question to mopled was entirely un-ironic. the amount of time and effort he has put in to advance his particular brand of orthodoxy is really quite phenomenal.

As I said, have a look at the archives if you don't believe me.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.
G West

By the way

No trap intended, metaphorical or otherwise.

If you can show me where my comments have been anything other than entirely respectful in my discourse with you please do so.

I always invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West