kelownabomberfan

Look, you can be a giant jerk here, that's fine. You are just like every single other warm-monger I know, who just twists words and then calls you names if you dare disagree with the bogus "consensus". What I said was that there have been zero predictions about man-made climate change that have come true. Zero. So why is that if the "science" is so solid? That's all I said. I didn't mention evolution or gravity, so why even bring them up?

What was their record if they scored more points in the first and second half?

Except that Miami was supposed to be under water several years ago, and it still hasn't happened. If the science is "solid", why has every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?

Johnzo, that's a great comment on Conrad's piece and I want to tell you how much I appreciate it in that it shows that you actually read it and have an intelligent response that I respect, instead of just taking the easy way out and making some snide remark about his past. Thank you, I appreciate it immensely.

The sun will explode, regardless of human intervention. We all accept this is true don't we? Seriously, what's your ******* point? I think it's pretty obvious what his point is. We know the sun is going to explode, but Al Gore isn't printing billions of dollars selling people "sun explosion credits", and Canada isn't blowing millions of dollars sending 380 Liberal cronies to big parties in Paris to celebrate sun explosions. That's the point.

Little eh?

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/blue-jackets-make-johansen-a-healthy-scratch~772201 Wow. Johansen a healthy scratch. Think Chevy can swing a deal for Johansen? He's a great player.

LOL - every forum I posted this article on, there was always a guy that played this card, and always a leftist AGW fraud proponent. What is it with you guys? You can't handle what he is saying, so you just attack the guy instead? Shame.

I support rocket launchers for all, including kids, but I draw the line at nuclear missiles. Those should only be given out to Iranian Islamic dictatorships. At least, that's what Obama told me anyway.

In other news, Alberta rednecks plan to hold a Sunday prayer meeting, picnic and lynching for newly elected Premier Rachel Notley. For someone who is still being referred to as "newly elected" she's sure done a ton of damage to that province. I can't even imagine what the next 3.5 years holds in store for the poor Albertans. If they really are serious about ousting the NDP, it's time to start the recall campaign, and time to send the Starbucks baristas scurrying back to their mommy's basements where they belong, instead of creating horrendously stupid government policy.

Conrad Black sums it up for me: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-the-perfectly-respectable-environmental-movement-has-been-hijacked-by-climate-radicals

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?