en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/669888 Comments by Spock2009 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/24/extreme-weather-warning/#IDComment95388065 Oops, I hadn't realized that you were so sensitive or I wouldn't have responded to your (what I erroneously had considered serious and thought-out) message. For your own information, I've been interested in and have been studying and learning about climate and climate change since 1973. Do I have all the answers? Definitely not but I'm working on it! However, one further question: You assert that I am 'repeating the same old denialist lies.' How do those who are skeptical of the climate change misinformation touted in the main media become denialist? Those skeptics don't have to prove anything. They are not asking for money or power. Rather, the onus is on people like yourself to explain your case and demonstrate proof of your statements. Good science is not done by consensus and is not democratic. Natural laws are not made by voting. Sun shine, clouds, oceans, etc. do not give a damn what Suzuki or Gore think. They are what they are and they do what they do and we need to understand that, not bend the facts to fit our desires. Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:41:21 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/24/extreme-weather-warning/#IDComment95388065 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/24/extreme-weather-warning/#IDComment95382682 JSC: Although the global warming fiasco has so often been connected/confused with environmental destruction, we can hardly be blamed for throwing up our hands in despair. Maybe there is possibly a positive outcome. If we can realign our focus on what is real and on reasonable actions where we can have a positive effect, then all may not be lost. If all this causes us to more seriously reconsider our unrestricted and unsustainable population growth, our abuse of the environment (much related to overpopulation), and worthwhile actions we can take (forget the CO2 nonsense) should we really be experiencing global warming, then all this might be worthwhile. Don't give up hope. Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:50:29 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/24/extreme-weather-warning/#IDComment95382682 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/24/extreme-weather-warning/#IDComment95379656 Many seem confused into believing that increasing greenhouse gases and global warming are the same. They are not but rather exist as two separate topics. Proving that there is an increase in greenhouse gases in no way proves that such increases leads to global warming. Four points pointed out by another writer noted: 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. Weather balloons scanning the skies have failed to find any sign of the telltale 'hot spot' warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. 2. In contrast to some of the older ideas, newer data has clearly demonstrated that rather than carbon increasing temperatures, that in the past global temperature increases lead the increase in CO2 by an average of 800 years. 3. Over a 10-year period of time, satellites circling the earth twice a day have failed to note any increase in temperatures. CO2 has been increasing but temperatures have remained relatively flat. Computer models simply don't know what it is. 4. Although CO2 molecules may have some warming effect, adding extra has a less and less effect. At a time when carbon levels were 10 times higher, the earth slipped into an ice age. In all cases, something else must have caused the warming. Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:36:13 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/24/extreme-weather-warning/#IDComment95379656 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/24/extreme-weather-warning/#IDComment95371842 Oh, I recognize the limits, of which there are many. That's the point. Thank you for your confirmation. Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:06:03 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/24/extreme-weather-warning/#IDComment95371842 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/24/extreme-weather-warning/#IDComment95356053 As (I believe) you've suggested, it's not so much whether or not we may be experiencing (possibly temporary) global warming but whether or not man has any influence. If we ignore the hype and instead look at the raw unadulterated data, there is zero (0) evidence that increased CO2 levels have any significant effect on global temperatures. In fact, recent ice core samples reveal that CO2 levels rose and fell hundreds of years AFTER any noted temperature changes. For those who might claim that CO2 may not initiate a temperature increase but merely amplifies the increase in temperature, they've obviously neglected to consider the outcome of their claims. They've failed to consider the vicious cycle effect which would result in steadily increasing temperatures causing the entire earth to be scorched of all life. Although we know of much higher levels of CO2 in the past, along with a much 'greener' world, we don't have any records of the earth having experienced such an event. If indeed there is global warming (doubtful but possible), we need to look for another cause. If we are really concerned about the future of mankind, then we had better lean how to deal with the predicted increase in temperature rather than wasting time, money, and resources running around claiming 'the sky is falling' and trying to bleed money away from the working people. Moving away from the edges of cliffs overhanging the ocean, out of the flood planes, and out of dyked lands might be a good start. Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:00:05 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/24/extreme-weather-warning/#IDComment95356053 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/17/what-do-you-think-of-the-government%e2%80%99s-handling-of-tamil-asylum-seekers-in-b-c/#IDComment94711715 For the record, I'm not an immigrant, I was born here. My parents and my grand parents were born here. Nothing in the most distorted imaginations can suggest that all Canadians are immigrants. It's quite likely that everyone on earth has ancestors which can be traced far enough to demonstrate that they originally came from somewhere else. It would be quite a stretch to simply call everyone an immigrant. So much so, that it would serve no purpose to even utter such nonsense. However, a simple review of history should provide enough information for even the most naive to learn of people who have lived in an area (a country) for a long period of time and whose influence has formed the basic structure on which the country functions. To discredit those people who, in terms of our founding Canadians, seem to have done a reasonable job in making our country a place when we can live with some degree of freedom, space, self-sufficiency, cleanliness, and health as simply one of the immigrants is short-sighted, naive, and insulting at best. We obviously don't need more people but we do need people who can contribute to our country in an unquestionably positive way. We definitely don't have the resources to encourage 'takers' or 'gimme' groups, resident or immigrant. Like society in general, there are no 'long term' benefits (to anyone) in encouraging irresponsible or destructive actions, which unfortunately, preoccupy the energies of far too many Canadians in an effort to be politically correct (an oxymoron). Unrestricted acceptance of immigrants is bad for our Country, regardless of your misguided reasoning or political stripe. Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:24:36 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/17/what-do-you-think-of-the-government%e2%80%99s-handling-of-tamil-asylum-seekers-in-b-c/#IDComment94711715 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/17/what-do-you-think-of-the-government%e2%80%99s-handling-of-tamil-asylum-seekers-in-b-c/#IDComment94708948 Let me see if I understand this correctly. If Canadians continue to permit the free flow of people from third world countries (your words), do we not risk becoming more like these very people, and therefore a third world country? After all, for some unfathomable reason, some in Canada are encouraging these people to bring their culture and traditions along and nourish these philosophies at great public expense. Consider that in many instances we are encouraging the growth of the very existence from which these people are escaping. We should instead ask, why do they want to come here? Could it be that they admire our existing culture (if indeed Canadians even have a culture), or that they admire our open spaces (because so far, Canadians have not indulged in massive over population), or maybe because we still have some clean air and clean water (again because we've so far been sensible enough to restrict our population growth)? Canada is still one of the few places which can claim some degree of open space and wilderness, some areas of smog-free skies and clean air, areas of clean and abundant water, areas suitable for agriculture, and so forth. Where do we go when we've wasted all this; when we've ceded to those who have chosen not to care for their own countries; who through rampant and unrestricted population explosion have destroyed everything in their wake; and whose irresponsibility has ruined everything they've encountered? What will we do then? Who will help us? Where will we go? We do not need a single additional non-productive person added to the Canadian soil or someone who so far has contributed absolutely nothing to our social system. If we can't afford to look after those who are already paying the bill, then we surely can't afford to take on more who have not, are not, and likely will not be able to fully pay their own way in the future. If none of this sinks in then ask yourself a single question: Can our children afford to pay for our myopic vision? Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:54:39 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/17/what-do-you-think-of-the-government%e2%80%99s-handling-of-tamil-asylum-seekers-in-b-c/#IDComment94708948 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/27/were-too-broke-to-be-this-stupid/#IDComment78969143 Mr. Intellectual: If a writer begins all English sentences with a lower case letter, is he truly an intellectual? As with many socialists, picking narrow infrequent situations to justify broad unjustifiable reasoning or statements seems to be your forte. If I'm understanding correctly, I seriously doubt that many following this thread would hesitate to agree with 'temporary' help for those who have been placed in unfortunate situations through no fault of their own. However, the reality is quite different. The majority of the so-called unfortunates are the results of poor personal decisions. The decision to get pregnant by an unmarried woman or to have more children than a person or family can adequately care for is simply irresponsible. Pumping money into these situations with little or no regard for changing the situation for the better (removing the children and placing them up for adoption, forcing the mentally and physically capable person to take responsibility and charge of the own lives. etc.) is simply short-sighted and impractical. In short, we can no longer afford this affront and cost to society. Our social programs should be better managed and offer assistance only to those who really need our help (e.g. , those who are physically or mentally unable to provide for themselves, too young, too old, or possibly in the midst of a totally unexpected negative situation for which they've not knowingly/willingly contributed). Then maybe we can handle the costs to the benefit of all. The free ride is (or should be) over. Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:45:12 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/27/were-too-broke-to-be-this-stupid/#IDComment78969143 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/13/a-slow-burn-bonfire-of-liberties-2/#IDComment77075506 In other words, don't act like God! (Ref. the Old Testament) Tue, 25 May 2010 17:59:39 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/13/a-slow-burn-bonfire-of-liberties-2/#IDComment77075506 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/13/a-slow-burn-bonfire-of-liberties-2/#IDComment77075095 Maybe that's why 'common sense' is so uncommon. Tue, 25 May 2010 17:57:05 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/13/a-slow-burn-bonfire-of-liberties-2/#IDComment77075095 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/13/a-slow-burn-bonfire-of-liberties-2/#IDComment77068816 "Global warming is a fraud to prop up collapsing socialism." It's refreshing to see that there are at least a few others who have noticed that the emperor is on the loose without his drawers. Claimed anthropogenic global warming is a good example of how our so-called 'human rights' people think and work. Good point! Tue, 25 May 2010 17:21:00 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/13/a-slow-burn-bonfire-of-liberties-2/#IDComment77068816 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/29/sign-up-to-fight-unilinguaphobia/#IDComment77050817 Perhaps it's you who should be reading the history. For example, don't forget to include the bit on the battle which occurred on the Plains of Abraham and the agreements which later followed (until twisted around years later, leading to the misrepresentations and outright falsehoods propagated in current Canada). I'm not bilingual although my wife is fluently so. However, one of the first things I would learn if claiming to be bilingual, would be proper spelling and grammar. MARK, If ... (why the capital I?) ...that I can officially that you are... (do we need another verb here?) ...learning another language as got to be (as or has?) ...would be to much.... (to or too?) ...candidates to one of the ... (or candidates for one of the) ...two founding nations culture? (Where did the myth of 'two founding nations' begin anyway?) Than you are also a fool... (Then you are also a fool (?) Doing the appropriate thing to keep this country together would have been to stay the original course as outlined in the 'original' history of Canada. Allowing a clearly defeated people to take over the running of the country just doesn't seem reasonable. You are correct in one thing... We do need to read our history to get back on the right track. Hopefully our bilingual judges will show considerably more understanding of Canada and the English language than you've illustrated in your offerings. Tue, 25 May 2010 15:12:11 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/29/sign-up-to-fight-unilinguaphobia/#IDComment77050817 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/29/sign-up-to-fight-unilinguaphobia/#IDComment77045389 Do you realize that there are more non-French speaking people inside Quebec than there are French speaking people in all of the rest of Canada? Tue, 25 May 2010 14:25:39 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/29/sign-up-to-fight-unilinguaphobia/#IDComment77045389 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment57640518 Unfortunately your suggestions and reasoning haven't worked in the past and are unlikely to work in the future. We can play around with semantics or we can take action to reduce our debt, as I've suggested. Wasteful government spending has seldom if ever, been shown to have 'long term' positive effects on any economy. Government spending money which it doesn't (we don't) have, to 'stimulate' an economy is poor economics, regardless where you sit. Like all other economies, we are susceptible to unmanageable debt loads and run-away inflation which eventually hurts us all. Far better, we decide on priorities and focus our spending in directions where (all) Canadians get the 'most bang for the buck.' Teaching and/or encouraging irresponsibility or self-focus at the expense of others is not an asset. Catering to the whims of the 'gimme groups' and other selective interest groups must stop. We simply cannot afford the waste. Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:15:54 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment57640518 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/03/credibility-is-what-is-really-melting/#IDComment55635116 As one who also grew up watching and learning from Dr. Suzuki, I pointed this very hypocrisy out in a personal letter to him a few months ago. In response to my inquiry as to why he had 'sold out' and turned against the very knowledge and science he touted years ago, his only response was to refer me to further research. A real 'cop-out.' It's a shame. Incidentally, I wonder how he (and the others) managed to get to Copenhagen without adding to the very pollutants they are constantly wailing about. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 18:06:28 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/03/credibility-is-what-is-really-melting/#IDComment55635116 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/03/credibility-is-what-is-really-melting/#IDComment55632069 "Global cooling/warming trends are acknowledged by the scientific community. No one is saying climate change isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon. Not one person. But the activities of humankind are most certainly helping things along." Kristen. Somehow we are reading totally different papers and watching/listening to totally different media. From where I sit, as a PAST member of WWF-Canada, the implication is that not only has global warming (later called climate change in an effort to save face) been caused by man's activities (mostly due to burning fossil fuels) but that the only means of correction is to change man's activities (underlying suggestion that we regress dozens of years to a much lower standard of living, where only those flying to global 'climate change' conferences will be afforded the right to use those 'nasty jets' and things). In a similar manner, the politically correct version completely neglects to mention that if mankind is in anyway involved, that extreme over population would most likely be the most significant culprit. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 17:22:05 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/03/credibility-is-what-is-really-melting/#IDComment55632069 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/02/awash-in-a-sea-of-debt/#IDComment55628432 Doesn't it seem 'odd' that our government is again encouraging us to do the very thing which got us into this mess in the first place? Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:32:14 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/02/awash-in-a-sea-of-debt/#IDComment55628432 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/02/awash-in-a-sea-of-debt/#IDComment55628214 I'm not sure where you might have your money so that it is safe. However, I do agree that, with government encouragement, many Canadians have been putting themselves increasingly further in debt. However, isn't this the 'socialists' way'? That is, no matter how irresponsible we are or what we do, someone (often the government, i.e. society) will bale us out. As I believe you've suggested, we have a big surprise coming. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:29:21 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/02/awash-in-a-sea-of-debt/#IDComment55628214 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/19/the-man-who-wants-to-kill-crunches/#IDComment55213900 I wonder how the number of male individuals who have won a physique contest using nutrition alone without exercise would compare to the number of contestants who have used exercise alone without any specific focus on nutrition. Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:01:18 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/19/the-man-who-wants-to-kill-crunches/#IDComment55213900 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment55192626 (Continues from above) Instead, every government expenditure should be put to the following test: Does it benefit or have the potential of benefitting ALL Canadians? If the benefits primarily focus on a single region or group, race, culture, livelihood, language, etc., the plan should immediately be disgarded. Rather, our efforts and moneys should be focused on benefitting all Canadians. Examples include education, health, environment, law enforcement, protection of our country, infrastructure, and equality. If we could find the 'government will' and the 'Canadian will' to finally take our economic situation seriously, then we could immediately start enjoying real economic improvements. Or, we can stay the current course; that of taxing and spending ourselves into oblivion. And, as our previous generation seems to feel (without remorse), we can simply load our current unnecessary excesses and the resulting debt on the shoulders of our children. Is this what we really want? Kids, be aware of what the adult society is planning to pass on to you! Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:40:46 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/note-to-stephen-harper-it%e2%80%99s-not-so-easy-cutting-federal-spending/#IDComment55192626