Too much gossip

Oh boy here we go again: never ending "divide and conquer!" If it isn't AGW it's bike lanes!

Errrrrr . . . "US Tea Party's Deep Ties to Oil Sands Giant" Try to get it right . . . it's TAR SANDS . . . eh!

You dither every which way: you can't help it.

GW, then AGW, then GLOBAL WARMING now CLIMATE CHANGE: which ever way you spell it the thrust is towards a global carbon tax which will make a few very rich . . . you and I stuck with the tab!

Mike Mann has gone back to playing goalie and he's missing every shot.

Of course your pals up at UBC will go along with the gag: they need the grant money.

The earth warms and the earth cools: been at it for millennia. Some say CO² makes the plants grow. Some say the medieval warm was a time of abundance.

There's money to be made in gossip!

Of course there will always be a few follower eager to lick up the dropping of the Koch's: we're not talking rocket science here.

Of course the TAR SANDS are an abomination. Ask residents of the Athabasca Basin.

Pemex has been at it for almost a century. El Monstruo has been onto clean air for as long as I remember.

http://www.sma.df.gob.mx/simat2/

In the '90's 100 IMECA was frequent. Often at 200 the schools close. Now it hovers around 40/60

Most of the world's cities have an air quality problem:

http://www.sbg.ac.at/ipk/avstudio/pierofun/mexico/cities.htm

It's all about airborne solids and trace particles.

Canada, so far is nowhere in sight, but our TAR is still a major contributor. The biggies that will sooner or later get stuck on Second Narrows takes our droppings the world over.

Now clean air, clean water and a share of our wonderful earth's abundance is a completely different conversation and the sooner we get onto it the better.

Too much gossip. Not enough action!

Harper will go along with

Harper will go along with this and Alberta and the comments I see from most Albertans on various blogs are basically Americans anyway. They think the same for the most part. Many also hate or are jealous of the rest of Canada too.

I would nuke the Tar Sands and kick Alberta out of Canada.

Koch and Reichwingers

Even more fascinating is the fact Kochs' fortune was amassed in Stalinist Russia .
Their grand dad was a personal friend of Stalin .
The elder Koch helped build workable oil cracking refineries for Stalin .

Oh, shiver...the Tea Party is gonna eat your mama!

The tar sands are nasty...no argument there.

The rest of the nonsense about CO2 needing to be rationed and taxed and soon to be traded in BC, is the biggest scam since we allowed the private banks to control the money supply.

CO2 is now going for $00.05 per metric ton in North America and the Chicago Climate Exhange stopped trading it,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/26/us-carbon-trading-not-worth-a-plug-nickel/
yet BC is about to embark on it own cap and trade scheme.

Add those costs to what the carbon tax is gouging out of the public, and you can forget about industry in BC.

The Koch Brothers indeed! You need look no further than Victoria for real villains.

The Tea Party was started by Ron Paul supporters with legitimate beefs against the Banksters. Then Sarah Palin, as politicians are won't to do, placed herself in front of the parade along with Fox and Glen Beck, and led the movement into a black hole.

http://www.digitalmeetingcenter.com/ron-pauls-shocking-message-to-the-tea-party
/851883/

West does it again...Obscurantism rampant on a field of green.

It just points out how deliberately off base he is.

I said "Ron Paul SUPPORTERS" didn't I? Then I include a link which shows Paul and Palin/Beck are not in agreement at all.

"In fact, Ron Paul believes, if you’re looking for real freedom, you should really go back to the core of the constitution and the bill of rights, which Beck and Palin do not fully endorse when you really look at their beliefs. Whether it be Palin’s support for starting more wars or Beck’s beliefs on paying the private Federal Reserve."

The take over of the Tea Party is just another example of "The best way to win an argument is to control both sides of it."

We have echos here. The NDP supports carbon trading and buys into the climate scam. So who controls the NDP, one might ask.

As for the "overpopulation" meme, it is just more of rich people trying to own and control everything by getting the rest of us
to buy into another falsehood pushed by the likes of Ted Turner and Henry Kissinger, who wrote: "Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World."

Lest we forget, our own beloved Duke of Edinburgh writing the foreward to a book called “If I Were An Animal” wrote:
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

marlonbrando

Please inform yourself with legitimate data and research before parroting misinformation and deception:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

John Greg

I'd be careful about using the misnamed scepticalscience as a reference. It's just another Warmist site and not the least bit skeptical. Besides, $79 Billion buys a great deal of "consensus".

Science is about proof, not consensus, and there is NO PROOF CO2 plays a large role in either determining or influencing climate. There is no longer even a correlation, between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and global average temperature.There never was over history either. In order for something to be a cause of something else, there has to at least be a correlation between them.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Do look at the graph comparing temperature and atmospheric CO2.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Now start getting mad at how you've been lied to.

avalanche

What happens after? Why, The Rapture happens after. People like the Koches are absolutely sure that those with the most money at the End Times get to sit on the right hand of God.......and having piles of the stuff befor then doesn't hurt either.

Nope mopled

THis is what you said:
"The Tea Party was started by Ron Paul supporters with legitimate beefs against the Banksters"

It was Bullshit - The TEA PARTY is made of stupid people being manipulated by wealthy people who have been suffering apoplexy since a black man won the WHITE HOUSE.

Big Business - Kock, et al

Well, I suppose this will be classed as rude, but I don’t give a hoot.
The real enemies of mankind are not the puppet jokers who run for public office in the western, somewhat democratized, nations, but the domination freaks, the money-horders, et al, who would have been and could easily have been the other Hitlers, the other Stalins of another nation if the job wasn’t already occupied or if going after the ‘suckers’ under the rules of the other evil, ‘Capitalism’, wouldn’t have been easier, which it is, either way, one more nightmare to endure for the good people.
You know how it started?
Well, the angels just finished a great piano forte for God’s music chamber. God was in the middle of creating this here Naked Ape and had ten done, so he thought to himself: this is a good test how things are going with my endeavour. He gave each of them one dollar for the task of, very carefully, moving the new piano to his chambers, then he was off to create new worlds.
Now, this piano was really heavy, along with God’s wrath if only a scratch showing, so, this wise guy propositioned the other nine (first suckers) to give him their dollar, they would carry the piano, and he would just sit here in the cool shade and carry ‘the responsibility’, to which all agreed, that’s why they are suckers.
And that’s when Capitalism was born.
For the ‘Domination Freaks’ and associations thereof, the word ‘enough’ does not exist. They just keep taking, right down to the last proverbial or real shirt button. I wished Hitler would have concentrated on their elimination solely; at least we would have had something.

"started" and "made of" are differnt concepts

The Tea Party is not our problem no matter who leads it now or how it started.

The phony Left wants to pretend that Obama is toast because he's black. He's toast because he continued Bush's war policies and allowed the Banksters to continue the destruction of the economy by saddling it with more debt. He's just another front man for the NWO and now half of Democrats want a nominating convention for the 2012 election.
I liked what Chris Hedges had to say:
"Fox News’ Beck and his allies on the far right can use hatred as a mobilizing force because there are tens of millions of Americans who have very good reason to hate. They have been betrayed by the elite who run the corporate state, by the two main political parties and by the liberal apologists, including those given public platforms on television, who keep counseling moderation as jobs disappear, wages drop and unemployment insurance runs out. As long as the liberal class speaks in the dead voice of moderation it will continue to fuel the right-wing backlash. Only when it appropriates this rage as its own, only when it stands up to established systems of power, including the Democratic Party, will we have any hope of holding off the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party.

Wall Street’s looting of the Treasury, the curtailing of our civil liberties, the millions of fraudulent foreclosures, the long-term unemployment, the bankruptcies from medical bills, the endless wars in the Middle East and the amassing of trillions in debt that can never be repaid are pushing us toward a Hobbesian world of internal collapse. Being nice and moderate will not help. These are corporate forces that are intent on reconfiguring the United States into a system of neofeudalism. These corporate forces will not be halted by funny signs, comics dressed up like Captain America or nice words.

The liberal class wants to inhabit a political center to remain morally and politically disengaged. As long as there is a phantom left, one that is as ridiculous and stunted as the right wing, the liberal class can remain uncommitted. If the liberal class concedes that power has been wrested from us it will be forced, if it wants to act, to build movements outside the political system."
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/blaming-the-left-that-isnt-there/

Bullshit! I say again Bullshit!!

There are NO GOOD REASONS TO HATE.

Those who suggest there are have an agenda they're trying to get others to buy into.

Rage and hatred are stupid emotions - those who use them to motivate others are evil. Those who follow them are deluded, dangerous pawns.

I'm so glad that West has come out against hate.

That is really useful. Notice that we don't have an equivalent of the Tea Party. Canada has 4 political parties, and none of them question the banking system.

When the Trudeau government capitulated to the Banksters and financed the deficit by borrowing from the private banks instead of the Bank of Canada, as had been done since 1938, thereby allowing interest to compound into the present overwhelming sum,David Lewis, leader of the NDP at the time, drew attention away from what was happening with his "corporate welfare bums" meme.

http://www.sustecweb.co.uk/past/sustec13-1/How the Debt-based Monetary System.htm

Ed Broadbent and then Jack Layton supported the FTA and NAFTA. Now Carol James supports the Campbell governments cap and trade policy as if a carbon tax weren't enough of a scam.

We are constantly being betrayed from the left and the right and we're supposed to get exited about a dumb rightist movement in another country? It is a classic "red herring" ploy.

We already have a Tea Party,

We already have a Tea Party, they currently form the minority government in Ottawa.

Rebiblicans and Reichists

That is the Tea baggers .Fake Christians with fake outrage .

Sorry mopled, you're simply, and as usual - WRONG

When the Mulroney Conservatives campaigned for economic integration with the US under the FREE TRADE Accord (FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the NDP opposed both agreements.

I suspect you're too young to actually know those facts mopled

And you're WRONG about the carbon tax too

NDP leader Carole James said on September 24, 2010 she will trash the carbon tax. What she actually said was:
“The gas tax isn’t fair. And it doesn’t work,” ... “You pay, big polluters get a pass and emissions keep rising.”

G West, mopled is factually wrong...

about Broadbent supporting FTA which he most definitely did not. And Carol James' position on the carbon-gas tax issue is suspect since she appears to flip-flop, probably because she does not have a clear grasp on what needs to be done.

I have not read what the NDP propose to do specifically, if anything, about the carbon issue other than say it isn't fair. I cannot help but think that it will ultimately be some BS version of corporate thinking, something founded along these lines:

"Naturally they like carbon trading. To my mind at least, making a profit off the fact that you did not piss into the community drinking gourd is the kind of logic only obsessive, property based western world governments and corporations could come up with. It assumes that (A) poisoning everyone else in the human fishbowl is a right to start with, and (B) that right is a property which can be bought and sold between corporate poisoners." ~ Joe Bageant

That said, there is merit to mopled's overarching claim that the 'left' has abandoned the people and merged as another church of the ideological right.

@samuidave

That's a direct quote from Carole James - she has NOT flip-flopped on the carbon tax...period

As for mopled

I guess you haven't been around here long enough to have read about some of the other things he 'apparently' believes in...

As a matter of fact

Citizens Concerned About Free Trade was inundated with requests for info about FTA from BC NDP riding associations because the back room boys had taken the advice of a PR firm based in Wash.DC that "The Canadian people are not interested in trade issues."

I called the NDP one Saturday afternoon during the 1988 election to find out why they were so unprepared. I spoke to someone I'd never heard of, Glen Clark, who assured me that the FTA was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I'm much older than you think

"Roll back" the carbon tax and institute cap and trade

James just wants to "roll back", not ELIMINATE the carbon tax. The NDP is on record as preferring cap and trade and that is just what the Campbell gov't is busily planning now.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/mitigation/cap_trade.html

"OTTAWA – NDP Leader Jack Layton was joined by a number of NDP candidates from across Canada with environmental backgrounds today to outline why a cap and trade system is the best option for fighting climate change in Canada.

“The cap and trade system ensures that big polluters pay their fair share, and it makes it possible for more people to afford green solutions,” explained Layton."
http://archive.ndp.ca/page/6448

Sorry mopled, this is what you wrote:

Ed Broadbent and then Jack Layton supported the FTA and NAFTA.

That was categorically and demonstrably false...the fact you allege you talked to someone called Glen Clark in 1988 about the FTA is neither interesting nor relevant. The point simply is that you have, once again, posted another of your almost limitless supply of misunderstood and half-baked ideas.

Perhaps you'd care to give us your latest impressions on how George Bush brought down the two towers...it's been a while since you've shared anything on that subject!

The

Nothing has changed...same old pretense

"Victor Fletcher, the editor of Toronto Street News, regales us with a story about NDP leader Jack Layton: "I met Jack Layton two Saturdays ago and asked him why the NDP was supporting the NAFTA highway in the NDP Manitoba Throne Speech. He said "Manitoba needs the Churchill jobs." I agreed but further asked: "Why then, do they have to issue Mexican drivers licenses for fall of 2008?" He then RAN AWAY!"

"He took off with his aide and never answered after taking a copy of Toronto Street News which a headline I pointed to saying: “Harper's Police State Union With Bush Moving Fast! Manitoba Throne Speech Announces U.S. Union!"

This is not the action of someone who is substantively against the SPP-NAU agenda. Mr. Layton as a "Quisling"-like collaborator, along with Mr. Dion and the Bloc Quebecois leader have indeed turned Opposition Party politics in Canada into facile political theatre aimed at deceiving Canadians."
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/12/18/02018.html

G West, are you suggesting...

you accept the party line and 9/11 Commission Report as remotely accurate about the events?

I don't know who did 911(but I have ideas)

I do know, that it was a controlled demolition. The evidence for it is overwhelming. Among other strange lapses, the 911 Commission ignored Building 7. Read all about it.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/396-911-explosive-testimony-exclusives.html

I agree...

that only the most credulous can accept the state story on face value. The holes in its script accounting the events -- from the flights time-lines and flight-paths, the non-scrambling of military jets accordingly, official state reactions, eye-witness accounts, the physical damage to towers (3 collapse, two others damaged) etc -- are simply beyond suspicion. Obviously we are being lied to as to what really occurred. And I, for one, know the government took advantage of the situation in one fashion or another.

Baloney

Like climate denial, the case for an explosive demolition of the trade centre is nothing more than magical thinking by the deluded. The same sort of people who think voting Republican will help working people get jobs.

It's not surprising the same people would believe the same nonsense.

nonsense, G West

... the case against the trade centers being brought down by something more than planes acting alone is overwhelming; two towers hit, three fall like controlled demolitions, others damaged; historical first of concrete-steel structures melting yet with temperatures so high passports survive without charred edges and people remain communicating on the floors instead of being liquified, etc; the same thing goes with the pentagon being hit. It's right in front of us to see but we choose not to. '2+2=4', G West.

It's tragic that when something so obvious can be claimed otherwise by the government, with hundreds of millions in the USA and Canada believing the official rendition wholeheartedly.

Show me some empirical proof

Otherwise you're into magical thinking - the analysis of the destruction by the sustained effects of fire is absolutely clear. It is interesting that the same people who happily ignore the scientific evidence of AGW also ignore the same materials testing and engineering expertise which have confirmed the facts around 9/11.

Secure in ignorance, I'm told there are still many individuals in the United States who believe Barack Obama is a Muslim and that he was not born in the United States.

Pick your crowd - but don't pretend it doesn't reflect upon everything else you do and say.

I find it unsurprising that the same person who claims democracy will be 'saved' by the action of selfless 'independents' also thinks that the Trade Towers were 'blown-up' by explosives.

In fact, if you really knew much about how the trade towers were built - i.e. the essential features of their design, the lack of an effective sprinkler system AND the utterly incompetent way the web trusses were fireproofed - you wouldn't have been surprised they collapsed at all.

Normally I don't share personal details on the internet but I will mention this small anecdote. When my family awoke on the morning of Sept 11, 2001 and we all gathered around to watch the live coverage on television I pulled out a textbook I happened to have on my shelves and an architectural journal from the 1970s which contained a long feature article about the construction of the World Trade Center. I checked a few references and did a couple of calculations. At that point, I suggested to everyone watching with me that if the fires in the towers were to burn for a sustained period that the buildings' structural integrity would be compromised and they would likely collapse.

All my research since then has confirmed that first conclusion.

You are right about what one chooses to believe though.

Oh, and by the way, the Trade Towers were entirely steel framed structures - the only concrete in them was a light and relatively thin floor membrane poured integrally with the very long floor trusses.

Why can you never keep on point ?

...without expanding the argument into realms never mentioned? Suggesting a person questioning the official press release on the story is also a denier of AGW, thinks Obama is a muslim, perhaps even a holocaust denier no?, etc.

Of course the fire burning fuel from the impact of jets into two towers brought three steel-framed towers down in near free-fall. /sarcasm

What are you talking about?

People who believe certain things that are both unsubstantiated and unscientific fall into, in my view, a certain category. Believing that an army of ethical independents will deliver us from pseudo democratic hell happens to be, in my view, pretty much the same thing as believing that someone ‘blew’ up the twin towers in a controlled way.

You seem to prefer ill-informed sarcasm to actually 'discussing' the reason why one should support 'your' set of beliefs as opposed to mine which, I've plainly suggested, are based on evidence, experience and observations. In the case of the design of the world trade center that knowledge is a function of both my education and my profession as well as a strong belief in science and a thoroughgoing skepticism about what I call magical thinking. I trust evidence that can be measured, quantified and reproduced. You, on the other hand, seem to have been unaware of even the most fundamental details of the construction of the buildings in question.

I simply asked you to provide some empirical evidence (apart from your particular belief 'system') for claiming your views are supportable and, under scrutiny, worthy of further discussion.

So far, the case seems quite clear - the audience can judge for itself which side of this debate they choose to throw in with.

There is a further irony inherent in your quibbling which stems from the fact that mopled (who, you'll surely allow) is one of the Tyee's prime AGW deniers AND a believer in the theory that the burning planes were not the proximate cause of the destruction of the WTC towers.
One is surely entitled to address remarks at more than yourself Samuidave, is one not?

As for the relevance of these kinds of comparisons in a discussion that includes a consideration of the whack-jobs in the 'TEA PARTY' and what kinds of serial nonsense they profess to 'believe' - Birds of a feather flock together…again, in my view.

This doesn’t mean that I think you are a bad person, nor that your motives are misplaced – it simply means that I don’t find your claims supportable and, in a public forum, I claim the right to assert and explain the reasons for my beliefs. What other readers may conclude from our exchanges is entirely up to them.