kelownabomberfan

CANADA-U.S RELATIONS Trudeau to get red carpet treatment during White House visit Roberta Rampton WASHINGTON — Reuters Last updated Wednesday, Dec. 09, 2015 7:43AM EST President Barack Obama will roll out the red carpet for a planned visit next year by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, hosting a formal state dinner for the new leader, the White House said on Tuesday. Obama and Trudeau met for the first time in Manila at a summit last month, and discussed a bilateral meeting at the White House early in 2016. But the meeting will also include the pomp and pageantry of a state dinner, a lavish honour that the Obama White House has extended to only a small, select group of world leaders who have come to Washington. The White House has not yet announced a date for the dinner. Trudeau vowed to put a priority on improving Canada’s relationship with its neighbour after ties were strained over energy and climate issues during the tenure of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whom he defeated in October. The last White House state dinner for a Canadian leader was in 1997, when President Bill Clinton hosted Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, was invited to two White House state dinners during his time as prime minister – by President Gerald Ford in 1974 and by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e27655638/ How come Harper never got a dinner in Washington? What's that about?

I wanted to add that if you did put out a study about AGW causing spontaneous combustion, you can bet within hours Al Gore would be out peddling carbon credits to cover the CO2 released when you are on fire, and within two weeks he'd have a billion dollar "spontaneous combustion" insurance fund and Apple Computer buying insurance for all of its employees.

Is that picture Wes Studi from the movie Mystery Men? I just watched that last weekend so that's why I know it. What happened to Wes Studi anyway?

Good, I've got Kane in my pool...

No, you will be just shouted down and called names. Now if you walked around saying that man-made climate change was causing 20% of people to spontaneously combust, and you produced a bogus "study" to back up your claim, you could probably have Obama tweeting it by sundown and NASA posting it on their website by Monday.

I would think a lot of people think that his Calgary story is accurate. If you've never been to Calgary in January and experienced a Chinook, why would you doubt what he's saying? You would swallow it wholesale, kind of like how people swallow the completely false statement that "97%" of scientists are in agreement on AGW. That's just not even close to true. And there basically is no will or desire to correct DiCaprio in the mainstream media, as anyone who does will just get dismissed as a "right wing nutjob" and a "Denier", even though what he said is just complete and utter crap. And that's what "irks" me about the whole AGW movement, they can basically get away with murder, and never get called on anything.

No, but we can discredit the completely bogus study that gave birth to the above false stat, and state the fact that the above stat is not true, because it's not.

I actually liked the name "Heel Atomic", not sure why it changed back to just "Atomic".

or in other words, the people saying things that confirm your biases haven't responded.

Well that does it for me. I would expect that Leo is going to give up his private jets and his wild supermodel parties and live like a monk now, given what he saw happening in Calgary. I mean, warm winds are coming in and melting snow in the middle of winter. The world is definitely ending.

Tornado activity and intensity spiked immensely in the 1970's, probably due to the ice age that was occurring at the time - LOL. In fact the 1970's suffered a lot more intense and weird weather than we are experiencing now, from what I've been able to read and find - it's tough to find stats as most people didn't really care at the time, like they do now, as we are all hyper-sensitized to any weather trends and storms, given the billions of dollars of funding on the line and the incessant need of media outlets and money-grubbing shysters to play up every single weather event as "further proof of the scourge of AGW". The lack of hurricanes must really be perplexing to people like Obama, who was going to stop the rising of the oceans during his presidency. Who knew they didn't need him around, they would stop rising themselves.

No, what I said was that we've only been able to accurately map and study the earth's climate, weather and ice at our polls for an extremely brief period of our entire history. That's why it "irks" me whenever there is a hurricane that manages to make landfall (and for some reason, there haven't been that many, though I was told in 2005 by all of the "scientists" that hurricanes and tornadoes were only going to get more frequent and bigger in intensity, so weird that didn't happen) that this hurricane was "the strongest in recorded history". That just smacks of politics to me. How long has mankind even cared about how intense an hurricane was. Hurricane Katrina was seized upon by the AGW fanatics as proof that man-made climate change must be real. Yet it wasn't the strongest hurricane recorded to hit New Orleans, one in 1969 was stronger, and actually, no one even knows how strong it was as it ripped up and destroyed the only weather station that could monitor it. No one cared about recording the strength of these storms even 20 years ago, as there was no political gain to exploiting the fear of their intensity. So to me, whenever a "record" hurricane or storm hits anywhere, it's just bogus fear-mongering to me. Your point though about ice cores is well taken though and it is my hope that these studies are actually used to try and prove what is actually happening, instead of just providing more fodder for fear-mongering. The polar bears are banking on that - weren't they all supposed to be extinct by now?

BB - thanks again for your response. Let me clarify - I'm not saying that all scientists are fear-mongers, and definitely not you, that's for sure. I was referring to the two guys that I mentioned, Hansen and Schneider. Both of those guys I find incredibly irksome as their fear-mongering is/was off the charts. Hansen in particular. His projections are always bordering on the lunatic, and none of them have ever come true. His editorials are always over the top, calling coal trains "death trains" etc. If you don't think that what Hansen does is fear-mongering, then I'm sorry, but you're a bit too close to the action I am afraid. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal So while there are many, many credible people like yourself working on the "science" here, there are many more clingers on, hangers on, and pure shysters that are spreading lies, hysteria and lunacy, and the motivation is pure profit. Al Gore has become a billionaire in the past few years, all thanks to the general public and taxpayers continuing to pour billions of dollars into his "Green" renewable energy. And kudos to him. He worked hard to create this hysteria and bring these rivers of cash flowing into his coffers. I just think that a lot of those billions going to "fight" this issue could be better spent elsewhere. That's where I agree with 17 to 85 and Bjorn Lomborg. If this is actually happening, ie man-made climate change, then let's get off fossil fuels and on to nuclear as fast as possible. At least nuclear is another form of energy that actually has a pay-back, and isn't a total drain on public coffers. The UN has also played a huge role in fear-mongering, with absolutely zero accountability. In 2005, they said that by 2010 there would be 50 million "climate refugees" roaming the earth looking for a new place to live, as man-made climate change would make their homes unlivable. That never happened, and the website was just quietly taken down, with no repercussions, and no punishment for the perpetrators of this massive lie. And that's what I really find "irksome" - if the "science" on AGW is so "solid", then why do all of these shysters have to create these massive lies, and why is there such repression and cruelty directed to anyone who questions this hypothesis? Why? So there you go. I have to say that the discourse on this thread has been fantastic and the respect shown to both sides is admirable. Usually on other sites I visit, within seconds of anyone stating "I see that this man-made climate change thing isn't panning out as per what we were told" and within minutes they are descended on and called all the usual stupid names like "denier" and "right wing nutjob" etc. So it's good to see that we can separate the debate from the personalities here, and refrain from insulting each other. That being said, I will still refer to Al Gore and David Suzuki as "warm-mongers", because I really have zero respect for either of those two, especially since they talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

James Hansen is another example of a cold-monger turned warm-monger. As I said, these guys learned that if you tell big enough whopping stories of impending doom, it's amazing how many people will believe it. So no, the global cooling scare was not just "media generated". Actual "climate scientists" were involved in created that sham. Just like actual climate scientists are creating the current fear-fest about global warming, and other are saying "not so fast". One things for sure, if in 40 years we're 60 years into the current "pause" there will be a lot of stuff to put on Youtube to laugh at, just like I was laughing at Nimoy's "science" show from 1978.

Except when they are predicting ice ages!

Thanks for the post, and taking the time. A few misconceptions though. I don't think that anyone is saying that any one factor is responsible for whatever climate change might or might not be occurring. So no one is saying "it's just the sun". They are saying "Hey, what about the sun, why are you guys just ignoring that glowing ball"? Secondly, the comment "However, the idea that we were entering an ice age was pretty much a media creation - there are no scientific publications where any climate scientist claimed that" is inaccurate. There were plenty of climate "scientists" who jumped on board the 1970's global cooling scare/fear-mongering schtick. Some of whom are now part of the current global warming fear-mongering team. Steven Schneider was one of the more famous ones who "flip flopped" from stating that we were all doomed to freeze to death in the 1970's, and now was saying (before he died) that we were all going to burn to death. He even appeared on a Leonard Nimoy TV show talking about the global cooling theory. Here's a link to a paper that Schneider wrote in 1971, along with another climate scientist, in support of the global cooling fear theory: http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm He figured out if injected enough fear into the discussion, you could basically say anything, and people would believe it, be it cooling or warming. Here's the opening of the Nimoy "science" show on the coming ice age that was broadcast in 1978: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA Packed with fear. "Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way". I do like how Nimoy talks about "sea coasts long free of summer ice are now frozen year round". Those coasts froze because of the global cooling that "climatologists" told us was happening, and now those same coasts are now becoming ice free again. But now "climatologists", David Suzuki and Al Gore all say that they must be ice free because of man-made warming. So the coasts were once ice free in summer (according to Leonard Nimoy in 1978 anyway), long before the man-made climate change theory existed or CO2 levels were at the levels they are now, then they iced up in the 1970's, and it was because of global cooling caused by man, and now they are melting again, and it must be because of global warming caused by man. How can anyone be anything but skeptical given this track record? Sea coasts in the north ice up. Then they melt. Then they ice up again. It's what they do. How about this? Mankind has only been documenting various weather trends accurately for what, about 80 years? In our total existence? And we've only been able to even remotely monitor via satellite, to any degree of accuracy, the ice levels of the north and south poles for what, 30 - 35 years? Before that, who knows what was going on up in the North Pole. There are stories from the 1920's of coasts being ice free back then, that are now still frozen. But that's all we have, anecdotal evidence, up until the mid 1980's. Maybe, just maybe, there are cycles to earth's climate, that we don't even understand or get just yet. Like, why were the "dirty thirties" so dirty? Now, if there is a drought, it must be "man made climate change" that is causing it. But what caused the drought in the 30's? It wasn't man-made climate change. Perhaps, just perhaps, climates change naturally. But there's no $4 billion funding grants, and no fancy Paris parties to attend, if that's the case. So fear-mongering it is.

Just surprises me that he'd go from the Colts where the Jets clearly have a good relationship with management, to another team. Same thing happened to Morrisey his final year I believe. Yup - from PA to Kelowna.

Dude, if we could terraform Venus then Terran climate change would be ... simple. Venus is a nasty place. It'd be easier to terraform the Marianas Trench. No kidding, Venus is the poster child planet for the greenhouse effect gone insane. It rains acid there for gods sake and is too hot for people to live there. and the atmospheric pressure is so high that walking on Venus would be like walking at the bottom of Marianas trench. Actually not quite true - the pressure on Venus is equivalent to being only 1 km under the ocean, or 90 atmospheres. At the bottom of the Marianas trench the pressure is 1000 atmospheres. Slightly higher. Anyway, I've seen a lot of alarmists use Venus as an "example" of runaway climate change, but their atmospheric pressure also plays a role in why Venus is unsuitable for mankind to terra-form.

You've said this several times, KBF -- that climate change alarmism is lucrative and will continue so long as people can get paid to study it. And I don't think this is unreasonable. People will do things to get paid, and people get invested in the things they get paid for. However, this argument has never been convincing to me because action on climate change will cause significant disruption to moneyed interests. If you say that climate change science is fueled by greed and avarice, surely you must also acknowledge that opposition to climate change action is motivated by greed and avarice as well, and not by ivory-pure devotion to the preponderance of scientific evidence. If I haven't stated it before, I will say it now. You are right, both sides are fueled by this, as is all mankind. It's our nature. What I object to is muck-raking by these stupid websites against organizations like Friends of Science, without any attention being paid to the other side. The Tides Foundation funds all kinds of disinformation, and the high cancer lie completely fabricated about Fort Chipewyan was a prime example of that. Yet when Tides was exposed when one of their numbered companies was found to be paying people from Fort Chip to fly around and give anti-oil sands speeches, when their cancer rates weren't higher than anywhere else, none of that seemed to interest all of these websites that have these Orwellian names like "Center for Democracy and Truth" or whatever. I firmly believe that these websites themselves are just front groups for big Green in the USA. Why else would they attack any and all skeptic scientists so viciously? I don't get these websites, but they sure have the potential to do harm. A website called "Canadaland" went after broadcaster Amanda Lang because she had the audacity to speak at an RBC event, calling it a conflict of interest because she was dating a director for the RBC. If you've ever watched Amanda Lang you'd know she's about as left wing as it gets. Her relationship with the RBC guy was so new, neither had even told their kids about it, and yet these guys just embarrassed her and called her out for no reason, and now she's had to leave the CBC. These sites do a lot of damage, and I don't get why they do it, but it seems cruel and mean.

Unless Mars is wayyyy more interesting than we think it is, there's no fossil fuels there. Mars colonies will need to be powered by nuclear or renewables, so we need to get on that in any case. Investing in Mars is a sound idea. Even if we don't bake ourselves out of a planet, humanity will eventually be extinguished on Earth. Supervolcanoes, gamma-ray bursters, asteroids, ice ages ... in the long view, we escape Earth or we die. Yup, I agree. Time to start terra-forming Mars right now.

Paul Friesen ✔ @friesensunmedia Welcome to the CFL and the #Bombers, Kyle Knox. No drug testing here.

Credit to Mark Steyn on that one! Speaking of Steyn, he was testifying the other day in Congress. Here's his testimony, and what he's been through since a SLAPP lawsuit was launched against him by Michael Mann, the father of the AGW "hockey stick", so loved by Al Gore and other warm-mongers. Well worth the read. What he's been through sounds a lot like the McCarthy era in the 1950's. Don't criticize the AGW fraud, or you will be persecuted! http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c6a57a91-8bbd-45f3-9eaa-51cc8f64e9dc/5DDB5BDF028B536F0A1A4E116D144E9D.mr.-mark-steyn-testimony.pdf This is just awesome:

Oh don't get me wrong, I am far from a doom and gloomer, I'm of the opinion that it's a lot of fretting over things we shouldn't worry about. We're better off doing what humans do best and adapting to the change rather than trying to halt said change. Fossil fuels will naturally be replaced at some point anyway, I'd rather let economics dictate when to make the change as opposed to forcing it at huge cost. I also don't agree with schemes like cap and trade and carbon taxes, I don't believe they actually address the issue. That being said, the science is pretty sound and the opposing science doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That's how science works, it's not about opinions it's about proving and disproving. You sound a lot like two guys I really admire, Bjorn Lomborg and Matthew Ridley. Both are self-described "luke-warmers", in that they agree with the hypothesis to some extent that man-generated CO2 may be having an effect on climate, but they say the costs and the actual cures themselves are far worse than actual man-made climate change. Matt Ridley actually describes a lot of the suggested "cures" for man-made climate change as wrapping a tourniquet around your neck to stop a nosebleed. I think a lot of people would agree with this, but are shouted down, Lomborg has a serious problem with wasting billions on solving "man-made climate change" in Africa while for a few million, all Africans could receive mosquito nets, and therefore not die of malaria long before they ever die of climate change. Lomborg has been attacked mercilessly by the AGW warm-mongers, and I'm sure the resident muck-rakers could in five minutes find several sites pointing out how Lomborg's aunt once spoke at a conference and the Koch brothers took a dump in the hotel during the conference so therefore his opinion is worthless, but that's beside the point. IF this is an issue, how big an issue is it? Is it the apocalyptic ****-storm that those being paid a lot of money to "study" this problem say it is? I agree with you, the answer is probably "no".