Guest Post: Startling The Global Community, Canada Withdraws From The Kyoto Convention

Tyler Durden's picture

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:52 | 1987887 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

Bully, Canada, Bully!

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:08 | 1987963 RMolineaux
RMolineaux's picture

Canadians didn't know what they were letting themselves in for when they elected the Harper government.  It is beginning to resemble Newt Gringich's idea of heaven.  Pretty soon the Canadian north will resemble the Sahara desert.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:33 | 1988002 strannick
strannick's picture

But the only other choices were the institutional corruption of the Liberal Party, and the Socialist idiocy of the NDP. So it was quite a quandry. And actually, much of the north is already a desert in regards to percipitation, just a lot colder than most others.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:43 | 1988086 taketheredpill
taketheredpill's picture

The Conservatives, Liberals, and the NDP are all out of touch.  They appear to have different mandates (who can't have abortions, who can have rifles without registration, tough on crime, easy on immigration etc. etc.) but where it counts they are basically the same.  All 3 parties have economists who talk about 3% real gdp being "normal".  Where the economists differ is on which slice of society gets which slice of the growth pie.

Since 3% real gdp means over the next 20 years we use as much in resources as we used in the previous 200, and last I checked Canada's resources haven't increased (which necessarily includes clean air and water), I think ignoring the eventual crunch is a better measure of lunacy.

Which means the Greens, who we are all taught to believe are idiots, actually make sense.  And the others are the idiots.

I think the Greens will win a majority within my lifetime.  Unfortunately I think that will only happen when it won't make any difference.

Used to vote Conservative (once shook hands with Ralph Klein at a rally...pisstank), then Liberal, then NDP, now Green.

Good Luck!





Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:18 | 1988221 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

And you plan to get around, plow your fields, and heat your habitation with...WHAT exactly?
Something far more expensive, whilst you still have a century or two of much less expensive means available.

The far higher prosperity resulting from ditching Kyoto and the greens hair-shirt policies will result in lots of extra resources available to advance technology, which will then outpace the energy needs problem indefinitely. The other way to go is misery, decline, then war.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:36 | 1988597 trav7777
trav7777's picture

there's NO OPTION if you want that oil.

Actually, Alberta needs a nuke plant to generate steam for this...but of course the NIMBYs would rather burn NG, which is where the GGEs are coming from

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 05:59 | 1989595 prains
prains's picture

Correct trAv and the uranium is insitu one province away

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 14:13 | 1989994 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"Australian Minister of Climate Change"


Fri, 12/16/2011 - 19:56 | 1988831 omniversling
omniversling's picture


But ice snow and water don't absolutely and permanently TRASH the streams, rivers, lakes, wildlife and foodweb that are contaminated by oil sands production. Nor does H20 turn wilderness into moonscape.

Tar sands EROI is around 1.5:1 making it the most filthy large scale production yet, at a time when CO2 emmisions rose 5.9% in the past year, and 1000km2 fields of methane geysers (20-72 time more potent GHG than CO2 depending on where it is in it's lifecycle) have just been discovered in the arctic.

Time's up. We either go renewable right fkkn now, or we ARE in the doomsday closed feedback loop. We will spend what's left of our fossil fuels putting out fires and mopping up after big weather events.

We are in the 6th extinction. Whatever else contributes to climate change, we are adding to it, and stressing EVERY other aspect of our ecosystem. If we dont acknowledge this and get our shit together very very pronto, our species is doomed; just one more on the extinction list. And it's own our stupid fault, cos it's all there in front of us to see. Right now. The cumulative effects. The endgame.

I'm Australian, and I'm ashamed to be Australian at the moment. Our countries have been hijacked by the Energy Corps. We are getting trashed for gas, and selling uranium to non NPT countries. All remnant principles that our 'Labour Party' had have been utterly sold out for $. It's disgusting, and I know that Canada now has had it's 'clean international reputation' smashed too. Canada's dirty little nuclear secrets aren't secret anymore.

There's a total disconnect here between the blah blah blah of the redhead's 'carbon tax', and AusGov's intention to double our coal exports by 2020. Stated aim: " to make Australia an oil and gas superpower'. FFS, they're all totally deluded, and really don't give a fck about how this will impact the planet and coming generations. I just don't understand...they all have families with descendants.

Please do yourself (and the planet) a favour, and google some aerial shots of the tar sands wasteland before you expose yourself as such an extraordinarily brutal, ecocidal ignoramus in public again.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 01:38 | 1989489 francis_the_won...
francis_the_wonder_hamster's picture

Amazing how some still believe that the "science is settled"....Read "The Delinquent Teenager" and get back to me.


Sat, 12/17/2011 - 20:08 | 1990497 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Yeah Francis, the science is so settled that they changed from AGW to ACC, rebranding their in the hopes no one would notice.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 03:09 | 1989557 darkpool2
darkpool2's picture

Extreme . Nonsense.
Sure there are issues to be worked through, but hyperventilating is not a helpful path. I believe technology , and an educated, connected planet, can get us through. Your extreme paranoia can only lead down the road of " engineered " global population reduction. You first mate!

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 09:17 | 1989664 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Doomed we are, doomed, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, unless we pay carbon taxes to the UN, who will save us from ourselves.    But don't worry, 2012 and the aliens will get us long before the climate does.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 11:14 | 1989754 NumNutt
NumNutt's picture

Sorry did I miss something? When did China become concerned with the environment? Was it when they realized they have dumped to much industrial chemicals in the Yangtze river, or is it when they realized they could no longer breath the air in BeiJing? The truth is China could give a rats ass about the environment, but they do care about China becoming the next leader of the world.  The Kyoto accord restricts the developed nations carbon emissions but gives waivers to "developing nations". In other words, countries like the US, Canada, everyone in Europe, Russia, and anyone else that has a modern advanced economic, industrial, political, and military would suddenly have to completely change and restrict their energy consumption to meet these new standards. Developing nations would be allowed to continue to pollute. Guess witch camp China falls into? Yep Developing Nations. So for China this agreement is a win win. They get to sell crappy green technology to the rest of the world, while increasing their military power and economic position, while the current leading countries are force into poverty. Fuck China, and this stupid ass green movement, it is nothing more then a power grab and Canada called them on it. Good job Canada!

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:28 | 1988033 sondog
sondog's picture

Sorry bud, this is a very smart move. What a scam these handouts are. I might re-elect Harper just for this.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:50 | 1988117 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

Just  a question for those who believe humans are not contributing to global warming-


If you are not concerned with humans carbon emissions, are you concerned that all the other emissions and pollutants being spewed/deposited/ingested might possibly have a harmful effect?


Will the whole world have to look like this  before we realize we are killing ourselves and our planet?

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:53 | 1988127 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

There is a world of a difference between the pollution issue and the global warming / climage change (which is it?) issue.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:58 | 1988147 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

That is kinda what I'm getting at.  Let's focus on one tiny aspect of a problem and debate it ad nauseum, while the much larger problem gets no mention whatsoever.

So your answer to my question.......?

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:02 | 1988163 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Not sure I made myself clear. Pollution, when it happens, is a real and verifiable problem. Global warming is not a verifiable problem. Climate change isnt either, unless you think that natural changes to the climate should be fought against or unless you believe that the Earth's ideal temperature should be set by humankind at a given degree.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:08 | 1988174 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

No, you made yourself clear. I was basically getting at the fact that both carbon emissions and *real* pollutants are a product of our industrial processes, yet everyone focusses on the carbon, and not often is there a mention of the very real problem of the pollutants. I was just wondering what the 'no human made climate change'crowd thought of our other pollutants, and whether they might have an effect on humanitys' future.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:13 | 1988199 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

I dont believe in the global warming hoax but I am concerned about pollution. Reality is, the lands that get polluted are always those that are not privately owned. Industries don't pollute their neihbours' land if they can be sued for it. They pollute where they are licenced to by the State.

China being communist and totalitarian, along with such a large population with no real property rights, no surprise it's headed towards the biggest pollution disaster in history.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:23 | 1988231 Pegasus Muse
Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:35 | 1988285 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

Ever tried to open a business on the site of an old gas station?? I ask because I had to give up on exactly that because there were too many toxins on the site. And to my knowledge, it was never publicly owned.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:35 | 1988286 darkaeye
darkaeye's picture

Too right NotSee!!  That's my biggest complaint about the AGW crowd.  As more and more of the general population come to realize that the whole anthropogenic global warming scam was a giant money grabbing scheme for a handful of begilionaires, the masses will begin to lose faith in ALL anti-poluution campaigns and that is a huge problem.  People remember being scammed.

CO2 is not pollution.  Check this out (and the many footnote/references to REAL climate science):

We need to concentrate on reducing TOXIC pollutants, habitat destruction, supporting wildlife diversification, energy conservation, clean energy alternatives and many other REAL threats to environmental health.  Carbon emmisions are just a distraction.

I'm no fan of Herr Harper, but Canada has definitely done the right thing here.  Way to go Canada!!

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:28 | 1989820 russki standart
russki standart's picture
FYI, this is why many of us do not trust the scientists behind the AGW Scam. Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data?

By Maxim Lott

Are your tax dollars helping hide global warming data from the public? Internal emails leaked as part of “Climategate 2.0” indicate the answer may be "Yes."

The original Climategate emails -- correspondence stolen from servers at a research facility in the U.K. and released on the Internet in late 2009 -- shook up the field of climate research. Now a new batch posted in late November to a Russian server shows that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit refused to share their U.S. government-funded data with anyone they thought would disagree with them.

Making that case in 2009, the then-head of the Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection -- and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.

“Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.

Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data "has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: "They are happy with me not passing on the station data," he wrote.

The emails have outraged climate-change skeptics who say they can't trust climate studies unless they see the raw data -- and how it has been adjusted.

"In every endeavor of science, making your work replicable by others is a basic tenet of proof,” Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and climate change blogger, told “If other scientists cannot replicate your work, it brings your work into question.”

Is the Department of Energy to blame? The Climategate emails reveal correspondence only between Jones and his colleagues -- not between him and the DoE.

"What’s missing," Watts said, "is a ... directive from DoE that they should withhold station data gathered under their grant. The email may be there, but ... still under lock and key.”

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wants that key. He recently filed Freedom of Information acts with the DoE, requesting the emails they exchanged with Jones.

"So far no administration department has bothered to respond, indicating they … believe the time bought with stonewalling might just get them off the hook for disclosure," Horner told

"Not with us, it won't," he said.

The Department of Energy has until December 29 before it must legally respond to Horner's request.

When contacted by, DoE spokesman Damien LaVera declined to comment.

However, climate change researcher and blogger Steve McIntyre forwarded an email exchange from 2005 in which climate scientist Warwick Hughes asked an official at a DOE lab if he could get the data that the government paid Jones to collect.

"I am asking you to provide me with the following data … DoE has been funding [the data] since the 1980s," Hughes noted in his request.

But Tom Boden, of the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told Hughes at the time that the DOE itself did not have the data, and that "you will need to contact Phil [Jones] directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items."

McIntyre said he himself later had a similar exchange with the DOE, after which "I suggested that they amend this as a condition of further financing."

"I was surprised that the new emails show them actively taking the opposite approach," he added.

Asked about the connection with the Department of Energy, Simon Dunford, a spokesman for Jones’ Climatic Research Unit, told that Jones has changed his tune since the emails were made public. 

"Prof Jones has already accepted he should have been more open, and has since made all the station data referred to in these emails publicly available," Dunford told

Watts said that while much of the data itself is now available, the methods of adjusting it -- statistical modification meant to filter anomalies, "normalize" the data, and potentially highlight certain trends -- remain a secret.

"Much of climate science, in terms of the computer processing that goes on, remains a black box to the outside world. We see the data go in, and we see the data that come out as a finished product -- but we don’t know how they adjust it in between.”

Watts said he would like to be given the adjustment formulas to make his own determination.

"The fact that they are trying to keep people from replicating their studies -- that's the issue," Watts noted. "Replication is the most important tenet of science."


Read more:
Sun, 12/18/2011 - 01:24 | 1990560 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"CO2 is not pollution" ...therefore an inbalance of that or any other substance is nothing to worry about. Your logic and your science need work. Amazing conspiracy of thousands of scientists isn't it. Carbon tax scam neither proves or disproves anything.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:35 | 1988276 jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

Carbon is the gas of life. 

Here's a better reason why the whole global warming/climate change is it more important to stop the propaganda filled reasons that wrong computer models like housing can never go down say cause it, or is it more important for the human race to be able to adapt to any change in the Earth for whatever reason?  Because guess what, whether or not human beings are here are not, the Earth changes. 

It is far more important that Human beings learn to adapt to changing environments.  Our future isn't limited to Earth, and even ten degrees warmer will be better than most other celestial bodies out there that are capable of harboring life.  It's funny, all these planets considered in the habitable zone, maybe a few degrees warmer or colder, and colonizable, but we should shut off 99 percent of our industry, kill ourselves off, damn the human race to extinction, because a computer model (that has never been close to right, and never will be) told us we might warm a few degrees in the next hundred years?  The climate idiots are more dangerous than caron dixoxide by a factor of 10000000x.

Pollution is a whole other beast, and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  Again, it's the gas of life.

You also might remember....why is it that it's hard to find ancient habitats?  Because they're underwater.  Guess what that means?  What's currently above water by up to a couple hundred feet, will probably be underwater for awhile, until another ice age drops sea levels by a few hundred feet.  The oceans have been rising since the end of the ice age, and will continue to.  So people built shitty houses along the coasts, most of which will probably be torn down and replaced again before the waters innundate them.   This was a given no matter what.  Plus a lot of people tend to think the Sun and cosmos radiation have a lot to due with our warming.  Ceasing our industries won't change that.

Even if Global warming was real, it's not going to create a tsunami flooding everything in a split second, and us human know how to adapt, and can adapt.  If we choose not to, and say a levee breaks, then THAT is OUR fault, not Global Warming's fault.  But then again in monetary sophistry, there is no money for levees, so the global warming/monetarists are fucking us at both ends.  There is no money to adapt, and we must shut everything down.  That is what we face, and both of those pressures on us are completely made up.  There is money to adapt, and the human race must continue onward and upward.  The only green energy is fusion, the rest is complete bullshit.


Remember, the British Crown created Green Fascism.  Don't ever forget that. 

They also are the figurehead for this bankster sophistry monetarism fucking up the world's 'economics'.

All that they touch is mired in bullshit.  How about us humans use our brains and adapt, invent, and move beyond this manufactured idiocy? Instead we believe their bullshit, and play their shitty game.  Life isn't about their bullshit, except it is, because we act like idiots and accept their bullshit.  It doesn't need to be this way.  It's idiotic to be this way.



Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:45 | 1988326 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You really do work hard at being a moron. I am impressed.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:03 | 1988438 akak
akak's picture

He's a LaRoucher --- it comes naturally.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:38 | 1988606 trav7777
trav7777's picture

yeah i am going to have to side with the scientists on this one, but am concerned also about Mars' warming and why pan evaporation rates have fallen.  CO2 is probably not the cause, but a coincident effect.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 22:33 | 1989158 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Thus speaks the Fagmeister, he of the phony PHD.  Unlike most soft headed greens, many of us on ZH are capable of critical thinking and can parse statements. The computer models prove nothing and correlation is not causality.  Empirical experiments by CERN demonstrate that, surprise, the sun plays a role in global warming. I will not spend time here rehashing old arguments as there is plenty of material freely available that conclusively demonstates that AGW is a myth.


 Since you enjoy insulting others, let me return the karma: You are just a stupid pretentious ass, a pompous oaf who cowardly hurls gratuitious insults behind the anonimity of a keyboard.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 21:19 | 1990565 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

says he of anon avatar. Global warming is not a simple subject nor has it been settled with any academic, economic, or political scandal. Too much data, too many scientists. Statements like "the sun plays a role" pretty much reveals the sophistication of ones approach. Yes it is the sun that heats the earth, it's all the stuff covering the earth and its changing nature that complicates things... 

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 07:46 | 1991081 russki standart
russki standart's picture

DaveyJones, if you make extraordinary claims, that our environment will face a critical tipping point that is irrecoverable, and the solution is to pay Trillions to the UN, you better have an incontrovertible case. The process must be clear, transparent, verifiable by disinterested 3rd parties and include a very broad spectrum of scientific specialists.

Instead, what we ended up is a small insider cabal reviewing each other work and blocking alternative views. What we have are political and ecological ideologues masquerading as scientists, making asinine claims that the science is settled, when it clearly WAS NOT, and calling skeptics deniers, ad hominem attack designed to shut down debate.

I do not care what studies are published if the authors lack basic objectivity and integrity. When Phil Jones was compelled to produce his original unadjusted data, why he misplaced it because, get this, he is an absent minded professor type. So without verification of the original data, we now have science fiction instead of science fact.

Guys like you, Flakmeister, Use of Guns and the rest of the greenie cabal will never get that if you lack credibility, whatever you publish, even if it is grounded in empiricism, does not  matter. Beyond the usual cheering squad, it is all BS to us.


Sun, 12/18/2011 - 11:41 | 1991432 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

if one scandal refuted all the direct and circumstantial evidence and all the scientists, you'd have a struggling point. This was one group. There's more than one. Not everyone who is concerned about this subject supports a carbon tax in fact many intelligent folks see it for the non productive scam that it is. Scam artists will always exist. If you were a scam artist, why wouldn't you leach on to an important subject like this? Thus, it proves nothing. I forgot, what step in the scientific method involves calling someone a greenie or a fag?   

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 19:45 | 1988814 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

We currently live near the END of an INTERGLACIAL period within a long series of cycles of MOSTLY glacial periods.

Global warming is a good thing that we should research, urgently, in order to ensure we can keep the current, relatively short interglacial period of warming permanently "ON".

This would be any sane person's conclusion looking at what an ICE AGE, just about overdue now, would do to man and all other life on this planet. Yeah, greenies, suck on that thought for a while. Al Gore too. A mile thick sheet of ice would scrape NYC and every single canuck creation off into the ocean, which is worse than NYC getting its feet a little wetter fifty years from now.

Yes I am serious, we ought to have a bias toward keeping anthropogenic global warming fully ON for now, by "principle of precaution," even if it means the oceans continue to rise slowly for a while...... as they have fairly continuously since the end of the last incredibly long, fauna and flora Apocalypse we call the last (of a great many) loooong ICE AGEs.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 21:50 | 1989074 fuu
fuu's picture

"A mile thick sheet of ice would scrape into the ocean"


And this is bad why?

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 22:34 | 1992705 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

Huh?Even the most pessimistic projections put the next ice age out over 50,000 years into the future....where are you getting your information from? You should probably question everything that your source is giving you if that's the kind of information you're getting...

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:06 | 1988173 Hippocratic Oaf
Hippocratic Oaf's picture

Doesn't matter, China is going to gobble up this resource and pay hi-mother-fuckin'-dollar for it. The technology isn't quite there yet.........but China has love-me-long-time money. 

Opti Canada tried and ran out of dough. They welcome China and their bad habits. What more doe Canada have as far as choices with the economic destroyer-in-chief in office?

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:09 | 1988185 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Oh and to your question. The images are disturbing, no doubt. But the fact that there are no real property rights in China makes it all too easy to pollute all over the place. This is mostly a political problem over there if you ask me.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:11 | 1988183 Manthong
Manthong's picture


 OK.. OK.. so some of the crap in the air that just might add to the temperature one way (or the other) we put there, but don't forget about termites, animals, volcanos and other geologic gasses .

 And to quote Ann Barnhardt :"maybe you didn’t get the memo, but the two octillion ton fusion gas ball up in the sky that we lowly riff raff call the sun is what determines the weather.. not cars or factories or car farts :"

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:20 | 1988224 darkaeye
darkaeye's picture

Exactly!  If I could thumbs-up this comment by 100 I would.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:42 | 1988315 Whalley World
Whalley World's picture

The sun with a little help from cosmic rays.  Henrik Svendmakr (sp) has done extensive studies on the interaction of cosmic rays with solar activity create earth's cloud cover.  Worth a read.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:10 | 1988348 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Could you then cite any observational evidence to back up you assertion? Also explain how the solar cycle contributes to the acidification of the oceans?

Basically changes in the TSI cannot explain what is observed....and if you don't know what TSI stands for, simply STFU

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:21 | 1988519 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Why waste your time on these morons? They always say carbon dioxide doesnt cause a greenhouse effect, yet just 40 million km away is Venus, covered in a blanket of carbon dioxide and swelting at 450 C.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:40 | 1988614 trav7777
trav7777's picture

refresh my memory but water vapor is a byproduct of combustion as well and is a significantly more powerful GGE.

Venus is also way closer to the sun, jackass...Mercury is even hotter

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 19:09 | 1988716 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah, but water vapor is not forcing, whereas C02 is.... Water vapor is basically in global equilibrium, i.e. peturb the system and you will return to equilibrium in short time scale....

Nice discussion here

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 23:24 | 1989262 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Methinks you don't even know how to even figure out what is what.... You have displayed absolutely zero scientific acumen in your posts here....

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 09:15 | 1989663 nmewn
nmewn's picture

The only scientific acumen needed to rebut your nonsense is what trav said above and has been known for years.

The sun is hot. Mars got warmer.

Its understandable though, the Martians love their SUV'

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 22:42 | 1989176 russki standart
russki standart's picture

I do not bother reading real climate any longer since it is nothing more than the propaganda mouthpiece of  greenies masquerading as second rate scientists.  Maybe one day one of your idiot eco nazies can explain away the Medieval Warm Period, or the passing of at least 5 known ice ages, all without the benefit of SUV's.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!