Slashdot Mirror

That's not a bad point.

For the last few years, guys with the slightest connection to anything even remotely connected to the climate and weather are being called "climate scientists" or "climate change expert." Huh?

Case in point: David Suzuki, a Canadian zoologist who has done all his professional work in genetics. Somehow, he became a climate scientist in the press. This is also the guy that said " climate change deniers", especially ones in politics, should be jailed for their "crimes".

A canadian website has a slightly different take on it.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1473014

Cause the Quebec French apparently don't think just localizing into French French is good enough.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=d645a02a-9a24-4172-a92f-46cf1941cdb1

there is a distinct shortage of people who are actually able to provide DATA to support their opposition to it.

I am one of those people who can provide data to support my opposition to it. Namely, the very compelling data that Professor Patterson collected in the field.

Seems to fit with the idea of this back in Feb 2009 http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1285658
"An Ontario Superior Court, Canada could allow police to use Internet protocol addresses to find names of users without a search warrant.
"One's name and address or the name and address of your spouse are not biographical information one expects would be kept private from the state," Judge Leitch said."

If this were happening in Canada, I'd start publishing every link I could on every website I could, and ask (no, beg) for trial date, and with a jury.

I think we have some daft politicians in the Conservative Party here, but looking at Australia ... maybe we aren't as bad off as I though? Yet ......

In fact, it's the Conservative Party which is starting to rein in the excesses of the "human rights commision" Star Chambers which have been working hard at eliminating freedom of speech in Canada.

Staff at the "human rights commissions" have been caught breaking into websites, spreading hate themselves, outright lying, and even worse. One of their "prosecutors" even admitted it

Read the "human rights" stories on Ezra Levant's blog: http://ezralevant.com/

I like the one where a "prosecutor" refuses to do his job because he wasn't in a "serene state of mind".

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to you about global warming, aside from money and control.

• The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
• Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to you because their funding depends on it. If theres no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/staged_angst/a_climate_of_staged_angst.html
• Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets.
• Development and industrialization of third world countries will be stamped out, along with hundreds of millions of lives, all under the guise of "saving the planet from climate change". It's absolutely sickening. So, who's really on the "immoral" side? Us or the alarmists?
• Wanna talk about new taxes and restricted freedoms? Try carbon taxes on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing you that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and you must pay to emit them. Too bad they can't tax the oceans since they are the cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally, eh! Also too bad they can't go back in time and tax the dinosaurs since CO2 levels were MUCH higher back then and it must have been their fault.

The motives for deception are there. Do your part to fight alarmism!

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

Educate yourself!

Antarctica is getting colder and thicker: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/05/sea-level-rise-not-from-antarctic-melting/), and we know that any fluctuating warming/cooling is due to natural occurrences, and not human activity.

MUST READ LINKS:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
"http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/03/
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

You're nothing but a liar.

here's one listing.

an interesting look at the IPCC's fraud "scientists"

More...

Another one... this one a former IPCC member.

Now, you owe me an apology. A-hole.

The data, collected by the Canadian Hydrographic Service, in conjunction with a similar US agency, show that, for example, the mean water level for Lake Superior in 1918 was 183.33 metres. In 2008, it was 183.21. (Since you're probably SI challenged, that's a difference of 4.7 inches on a 601 foot deep lake.) That's a difference of .000645%. ZOMFG - 6.5 ten thousandths of a percent! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Polar bear numbers are not decreasing. The numbers that suggest they are are compiled by aerial surveys. Inuit hunters on the ground, and the residents of Churchill, Manitoba have a different opinion http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

I'd call you an f***ing idiot, but I seriously doubt you're smart enough to have ever had sex.

Lawsuits can still be used effectively to silence science. While this may draw temporary attention, it may have a chilling effect on future studies which would have supported the findings.

Another example - Taser has sued successfully to alter medical records to remove references to Tasers as causes of death. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Judge_orders_all_references_to_Taser_0504.html or http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=499151. The streisand effect might be acceptable in the short-term if the lawsuit helps you in the end.

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[6] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[7][8][9]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)
7) http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
8) http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742
9) http://www.pik-potsdam.de/aktuelles/archiv/aktuelle/dateien/G8_Academies%20Declaration.pdf

While a small minority have voiced disagreement with these findings,[10] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[11][12]

10) http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
11) http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
12) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

And honestly, I was being lazy and just quoting Wikipedia which hardly took any effort. Now imagine if you weren't being stubbornly predisposed in your opinion how easily you could have affirmed the scientific community's consensus yourself instead of wasting my time.

The best way to realize how strong the consensus is, is by looking at all the peer-reviewed literature published in scientific journals each year and tally up how many are dealing with global warming related studies and how many (if any) are attempting to contest global warming.

Honestly, I know you are wrong.
(yes, I do study environmental science).

Second Great Depression

We're no where near the Great Depression, not as far as unemployment is concerned. Economists expect unemployment will crest at 8%. However from 1932 to 1935, 4 years, unemployment was above 20%.

US manufacturing activity is now down to its lowest level since 1948.

Yea because manufacturing has been outsourced.

It's going to be a long recession.

Yea, recession not depression. Caused by as you say, the housing bubble. In the hopes house prices would continue to boom, too many people paid too much for homes. Then many got interest only or adjustable interest rate, ARM, mortgages. They hoped they could turn around in a few years and sell the house for more than they paid for it. Low down payments also hurt.

Falcon

It's called "winter". You may have heard of it.

Yes, I have. It's up 20%.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

You didn't cite any references which contradict the theory of CO2-based global warming

There's no need. All I need do is show a graph of the global temperature anomaly.

http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin

P.S. If you're so worried about forestalling the next ice age, you should be arguing that we save our excess fossil carbon for later when we really need it for climate control, instead of using it all up now when we don't.

The argument is that man changes the Climate and has done since he started deforestation and agriculture. It's hard to argue with this as it's obvious. What's also obvious (and should be obvious to any intelligent person), is that when you are "against" warming or cooling, you're against it given the value you associate with the status-quo. That is, you assign a value judgement to current climate as your starting point for "best". It's clear that no run-away warming can take place, given the paleoclimate record:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

, you can see that CO2 has been far, far higher in history than today, as have global temperatures. If these very simple facts aren't enough to convince you to at least question the hypothesis, then I'd say you are the one looking for evidence to support your position, not I.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

They survived hotter temps 600 years ago, im sure they can now.

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide." http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/09/29/bailout-marks-karl-marx-s-comeback.aspx -- Read all about it...

Global warming is real! But temporary. The real question is: "is it anthropogenic?" and "is it permanent?"

We have a very limited view of what weather should be like. Only now are we finding out that Cairo Egypt used to be a very fertile place, with water up to the pyramids. Of course, anthropogenic factors did not cause /that/ warming, but now for some reason, the /current/ warming is somehow our fault? Co2 has been 0.28 of one percent! Now it went up by 0.040 of one percent over two hundred years.

There are dicussions being started about the growing evidence to the anthropogenic contrary. How many outlier events do we have to have before the outliers are no longer outliers?

When is the warming trend over? And melting trend over as well? When are record lows a sign of a change in direction?

It seems there is as much more evidence against global warming continuing as there is for it to continue.

When will we see NASA AIRS co2 distribution factored into the IPCC models? (Right now they assume even atmospheric distribution)

We've already done geo-engineering by putting the greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in the first place. It requires less creative engineering to stop putting them up there, and we know that greenhouse gasses from (whatever) source raise ambient temperature. Therefore, not putting greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is a generally plausible solution, even if it means we have to change our lifestyle.

Greenhouse gases? But it is already getting colder, despite the fact that there is more CO2 than ever in our atmosphere:

Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof.

I love how some Slashdotters are libertarian until it's time to tell me how to live my life in accord with the Global Warming Spaghetti Monster.

A lot of the anti-climate change stuff uses similar tactics -- a couple of dissenting voices are used to support the idea that there is "widespread disagreement" on the topic.

On Wikipedia? Hardly. It has been my observation that Wiki is an echo chamber for the pro-climate change stuff. I had an article to reference, but it's gone. Apparently censored. It did exist on archive.org, but apparently it has been purged there too. Hmm, I wonder why. You can find a digg reference to it here, but again, no article text. I did finally manage to dig up some of the copy here... The cult of climate change has much more effective censors than the scientologists do apparently... For posterity, here's the interesting bit:

In contrast to the high-handed treatment that greet global warming skeptics, those who support the orthodoxy are puffed up and protected from criticism, their errors erased and their controversies hushed. This is the case with Naomi Oreskes, a scientist with a PhD who had arrived at an absurd finding: That no studies in a major scientific database questioned the UN view of climate change."

"For this reason, when visiting Oreskes's page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes's correctness.

Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have, corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn't see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. Had I neglected to save them after editing them?, I wondered. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again! I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Nonplused, I investigated. Wikipedia logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop's. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wiki-etiquette, also explained why. "Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!" Tabletop said.

I undid Tabletop's undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."

Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.

Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop's undid and protested: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."

Tabletop parried: "we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."

Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I â" no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out. By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensur

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=61b0590f-c5e6-4772-8cd1-2fefe0905363

Yves Rossy has a long record of arerial stunts, he is definitely a pro. And he and his team have put a lot of thinking into this project.

If you think this is a stupid idea or that he'll end up in the Darwin awards hall of fame, think twice:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/04/25/brazil-priest-flying-party-balloons-lost-at-sea.aspx
This priest with too much faith but no brains had the brilliant idea of "flying" in a paragliding harness strapped to a lot of party balloons. The article has a nice picture.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. Any scientist anywhere will tell you that the ocean is a carbon sink - absorbing CO2. Only after the Ocean gets warmer does it release CO2.

If the climate is getting warmer, then the oceans, by your argument, would release more CO2. This is precisely my comment.

The point is that the Ocean wouldn't being emitting CO2 if it wasn't absorbing so much of it from man made sources in the first place. As you mention An Inconvient Truth, its this absorbtion that is wrecking havok among coral reefs and creating huge storms.

I am not denying the effects of the warming of the climate but precisely what man-made CO2 emissions are you talking about? What percentage of those emissions are not absorbed by the fauna of this planet that, in turn, releases O2 into the atmosphere? Presumably you can provide scientific evidence that shows this, rather than the spoutings of a corrupt ex-politician bent only on feathing his own nest.

Al Gore, while he mentioned a number of previous Ice Ages, noted that the CO2 levels directly related to temperature, and that at no time in 650,000 years did CO2 levels ever go higher than 300 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The historical high is 280 ppmv.

Any measurements of C02 in the past 650,000 years can only be estimates, presumably based on deep bore ice/strata samples - in reality, mankind has probably been congniscant of science enough for 100 years or so to actually measure CO2 in the air. The fact that Ice Ages occurred in the first place demonstrates climatic change before mankind.

Even so, those measurements can only "guess" the levels of CO2 and "guess" their causes.

In 1960, there was a concentration of 315 ppmv. Today we sit at 385 ppmv. There is no projection that it will slow down or decrease, but rather increase much more. By 2010 we expect to break 400 ppmv. But who needs words when you have a graph?

Again, you've just described an effect - you have not confirmed the cause.

Where's those facts? I dare you to link them. But you wont, because they don't exist.

Here's one. Let me know if you need more.

The only dispute is over the "average ice density" in the Arctic, but no one disputes the reduction of ice of the caps, or Arctic Shrinkage. The before and after pictures are shocking.

Ah, okay. So in other words, it's acceptable scientific methodology to acknowledge reduction of the polar ice caps but exclude ice density purely because you consider it to be disputed and serving to at least partially discredit your argument?

I personally love this part. A conspiracy theory that portrays Big Business and the Rich as the minds behind global warming. Yes, they are the ones who will profit by stopping the development of third world countries.

Don't be an idiot.

Rich "Western" countries went through phases of industrialisation and mechanisation that ultimately meant large workforces and the creation of unions that allowed for better workers rights, conditions and pay. Precisely the same thing most of the Third World nations have not gone through - therefore they can be exploited for cheaper goods.

Or am I missing something and did all the factories and production centres in the West just disappear down Alice's rabbit hole?

Yes, its not like Big Business would want to maximize their profit margin by cutting out as much environmental regulation as possible and decrease overheads so they exploit countries better. And its not like they have been buying scientists and congressmen trying to lobby against global warming at all by calling it a hoax! No, those were other people...

Now you're just playing a (pretty sim

> Where is your evidence of valid "scientific papers questioning global warming ending careers without ever seeing the light of day"?

Start with the article linked by Slashdot, then wander over here, then Google is yer friend:

National Post: The Deniers

And just perhaps the average voter somehow does get it. They have figured out that the media aren't to be trusted so since the media have been flogging global warming for the last decade they assume they are wrong/lying. Which is pretty much spot on.

You can't turn on the idiot box without getting a sermon about global warming. Ya can't even flip on the weather channel and see if it is going to rain without first sitting through a sermon about what YOU can do to save the Earth. Every half witted Celebutard on a reality show is either out to save the Earth or 'raise awareness' about some disease everybody and their freaking dog has heard too much about for a decade.

National Post - The Deniers

The environmentalists are theorizing what could happen to the polar bear population. Unfortunately the empirical data doesn't support that hypothesis. linky

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/17/lorne-gunter-on-surveillance-cameras-in-public-places-expensive-intrusive-and-ineffective.aspx

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

Well, first off, your choice is not whether to believe me, your choice is whether to believe the actual facts as observed by satellite. I'll leave that up to you.

And, um, wikipedia may be a even-handed resource for some things, but climate change is not one of them. Indeed, in any academic setting, their conduct would amount to actionable dishonesty. Here, let us relate a first hand account of specifically contrafactual editing on their part: ... I undid Tabletop's undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."

Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.

Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop's undid and protested: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."

Tabletop parried: "We have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."

Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I -- no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out.

By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists...

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=1

A less reliable source of information would be harder to imagine, friend. Even if you refuse to look at the actual facts as I do and I suggest everyone else does, you really need to find an authority to mindlessly follow -- since that's your thing and all -- that at least makes some pretension to actual scientific process.

Think for a moment: not only would the treaty be illegal in, for example, Canada, but can you imagine the government touching this treaty with a 10' pole? After NAFTA? With a minority government? With the public and media attention currently on the unfair and heavy-handed tactics being used to pressure Canada into adopting US copyright laws right now?

Border officials may seize iPods under trade deal
International regulator could police copyright

Vito Pilieci, Canwest News Service Published: Saturday, May 24, 2008

OTTAWA - The federal government is secretly negotiating a copyright agreement that could make some information on Canadian iPods, laptop computers or other personal electronic devices illegal.

Called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the new plan would see Canada join other countries, including the United States and members of the European Union, to form an international coalition against copyright infringement.

The agreement is being structured much like the North American Free Trade Agreement except it will create rules and regulations regarding private copying and copyright laws.

Federal trade agreements do not require parliamentary approval.

The deal would create an international regulator that could turn border guards and other public security personnel into copyright police. The security officials would be charged with checking laptops, iPods and even cellular phones for content that "infringes" on copyright laws, such as ripped CDs and movies.

The guards would also be responsible for determining what is infringing content and what is not.

The agreement also proposes that any content that may have been copied from a DVD or digital video recorder would be open for scrutiny by officials -- even if the content was copied legally. [1]

The leaked ACTA document states officials should be given the "authority to take action against infringers (i. e., authority to act without complaint by rights holders)."

Anyone found with infringing content in their possession would be open to a fine. They also may have their device confiscated or destroyed, according to the four-page document.

"If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close," said David Fewer, staff counsel at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.

Michael Geist, Canada research chair of Internet and E-commerce law at the University of Ottawa and an expert on Canadian copyright law, said, "The lack of consultation, the secrecy behind it and the speculation that this will be concluded within a matter of months without any real public input is deeply troubling."

Both Mr. Fewer and Mr. Geist said once Canada signs the new trade agreement it will be next to impossible to back out of it.

In Canada, border guards already perform random searches of laptops at airports to check for child pornography. ACTA would expand the role of those guards.

The deal could also impose strict regulations on Internet service providers, forcing them to hand over customer information without a court order.

Er no it hasn't..
it was shut down not that long ago:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=308877

In an exchange during a case against a Canadian racist/antisemite named Marc Lemire, Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) investigator Dean Steacy was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" Dean responded: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=405744

Holy shite! Is this guy for real?

How much disinformation do we need on this issue? Let me clear up some of this.

No, British Columbia doesn't. British Columbia can't, as that would be a criminal law, which is of federal jurisdiction. It is a federal law which establishes the Human Rights Tribunals and it is federal law which bans hate speech, see the criminal code http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318. While there have been somewhat questionable cases before, it is usually the ilk of white supremacists and neo-Nazis who run afoul of hate speech laws, generic criticism of Islam without advocating, for example, the expulsion of Muslims from Canada, has generally not been found of a criminal nature by the courts of Canada.

Human Rights Tribunals, for the most part, are for discrimination complaints in housing and employment and the provision of government services.

This particular issue has come up before with Mark Steyn's articles (including an excerpt from his book America Alone to Maclean's magazine, a leading news magazine in Canada. Complaints were lodged with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Ontario Humans Rights Tribunal issued a statement in April of 2008 condemning Maclean's publication of the work, but acknowledged that material printed by private citizens is outside of its jurisdiction and dismissed the case http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=433915.

In addition, while the Humans Rights Tribunals are easily abused and perhaps too quick to jump to censorship, their rulings may be appealed to proper federal courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, should they deign to hear the case.

The limits of free speech in these matters is hardly a settled matter in Canadian law and until superior courts or the Supreme Court give guidelines on the matter, it is probable that a variety of conflicting rulings will come out of the lower courts and tribunals.

Where was the "media storm" (or for that matter, the slashdot outrage) when David Ahenakew was successfully prosecuted for hate speech against Jews?

This sounds like just another anti-arab double standard. That is, it's perfectly fine to promote hatred and intolerance towards arabs, but criticizing Israel makes you a Nazi.

Umm... No. The poster was not exaggerating. One of the cases heard by the commission's tribunal was over a male hair salon student being called a "loser" by girls in the class.

...a male hair salon student complained that he was called a "loser" by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900.

I don't think the GP poster colored the reporting overmuch.

That is why Marvel invented the X-Men, they are mutants born with the X-Factor gene that gives them super powers. Stan Lee got tired of gamma rays, cosmic rays, radioactive spider bites, etc. It made it a lot better to write if one is born with that gene and it activates when they reach adolescence.

Stan Lee did Iron Man on a bet that he couldn't take a rich guy and turn him into a super hero using technology instead of super powers. So he used Tony Stark's genius and money to invent the Iron Man armor. So Stan based Tony Stark on Howard Hughes.

Here is a story verifying that the BCC admitted that global warming ceased in 1998: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=436616

Ahh mistook who the OP was the way threads were nesting at first. My Bad =D

The thing i always wonder is how well such things would hold up in court in the EULAs and whether they ever had. We had in the TOS of the company i worked for that they actually werent liable for the actions or mistakes of their customer service reps. I would LOVE to see that in court.

I've never once been able to find a case of someone contesting these things though, beyond the SAF/911 class action here in canada and the current expressvu late fee suit.

I seriously wonder how many of these contracts that are presented as legit and slammed down the customers throat transfer after transfer wouldn't hold up in court. And whether it has ever been tested. Much of that could simply be a case of "well no one stood up for themselves yet"

Do you know of any sources along those lines for the US or elsewhere? I know we here in canada had a class action go through against Bell concerning the division of fees but i dont know if theres a result yet. Sadly the division of fees is one of the least tricksy and evil things they tend to do and I'm not having much google luck but that doesn't mean the cases arent out there.

Also, if you worked where you worked, you probably would get a kick out of this one i mentioned earlier, even if its the wrong country.

wait a minute..submission time perhaps =D

AP/Washington Post

BBC

LA Times

Bloomberg

National Post

Too bad its been cancelled. See here.

National Post, Feb. 25, 2008 article

On the way into town, a Hebrew billboard is addressed to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, accusing him of indifference to the plight of Sderot. Qassam rockets are fired at it from Gaza, on average three to five per day this year. The billboard announces the number as 5,726 since the second intifada began in 2000.

Links:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpposted/archive/2007/11/05/bell-sympatico-admits-to-blocking-bandwidth-traffic.aspx
I know I'm being throttled because at one time, I would routinely get 200KB/s on torrents (I have a 5MB DSL line). Then suddenly, in the November 2007 timeframe, I was at 30KB/s during the daytime. I have experimented and found that right after midnight, it will increase to about 50KB/s, then to a higher speed at the top of the next hour (200 KB/s). But clearly, many customers are clueless about this and therefore not aware that they are not getting what they pay for. I encountered this pattern of decrepit service with non P2P traffic each time I moved. I was consistently getting 2M service when I was paying for 5MB. It took a lot of patience, blood, and hair-pulling before I got to a senior technician who corrected the situation. My three experiences convinced me that particular problem probably affected thousands of unsuspecting customers and was grounds for a class-action lawsuit.

Forget Global Warming, it's all just hype. We're experiencing the coldest winter since the 1960's http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

Well, before you go basing your opinions on just one argument, you might check out this article in the CANADIAN National Post yesterday: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289 Which tells us that the sea ice that we so loudly mourned the loss of is BACK! So what are they suing about? The point I'm trying to make is that you can't take a warming trend over a ten year period and use mere correlation to prove that CO2 is going to send us into a global melt-down and that the oil and power companies are responsible. The climate is much more complicated than that, and I think the effect of solar output is pretty obvious. This is just a move to vie for a piece of the media attention pie. Mmmmm... pie.

That would be the right group to sue.

As far as this particular village, if it is not cold enough for them, maybe they can move Canada where it seems to be getting colder.

Hillary has a point
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is collapsing, a victim of this one unsolveable problem: Hillary's opponents hate her -- but her supporters do not much like her.

Please do not be too quick to judge nor to summarily dismiss differing hypotheses to the Global Warming Hypothesis

-We do not have enough long-term and statistically significant data to irrefutably prove the emerging Theory of (AKA still a 'Hypothesis') of "Global Warming".
I agree there has been some warming of at least short-term, however, looking at ice cores and other scientifically determined climatic evidence from the fossil records, it has been quite a bit warmer than it is today. (And mankind was *nowhere around* to "liberate" captured CO2 to cause that 'Global Warming".)
I agree CO2 can become a problem involving surface temperatures, but the average global surface temperatures are the results of much larger cycles with time huge time frames (and sometime small timeframes in the cases of massive Volcanoes and large Meteorites, etc..) These time frames humans are only now beginning to understand.
NOTE: CO2 is actually rather insignificant compared to the sunspot cycle and the resulting diminishing/increasing amounts of sunlight (radiant energy) reaching the earth's surfaces.

Some could argue it the other way too:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080227/D8V2CFRO0.html
http://www.ana.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=6157497&maindocimg=6154941&service=6
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1203343699258&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

Global warming is an http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289 absolute scam.

The wording of the argument sounds a lot like the "No true scotsman" logical fallacy.

Face it, both muslims and christians have done horrible, unspeakable things. This in no way says that your average muslim or christian is about to cut someone's head off or burn someone at the stake. Also, those awful things that muslims in very conservative societies are doing are very similar to what certain parts of christianity are doing. Anyone who cherry-picks their literal interpretations of a book written centuries ago is going to get *something* wrong.

I liked the last pope better than this guy. As I recall, the last pope was the one to pardon Galileo and admit that science may have some merit...

Aside from the normal round of robot-asteroid-which-corporate-cocksuck-for-president-will-fuck-us-next news, how about something for US, the people of this country:

Marijuana vending machines are a reality in California:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2248565,00.html
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/01/28/vending-machines-in-california-dispense-medical-marijuana.aspx
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/01/hot-button-medi.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7212778.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/28/wvend128.xml
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_8104481
http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/01/29/Cannabis_to_be_dispensed_from_vending_machines
http://www.kwtx.com/medicaldirectory/headlines/14453477.html
http://wkrg.com/news/article/marijuana_vending_machines/9588/

Offtopic, flamebait, troll, pony, whatever, at least this news will appear before the next Slashdot pro-marijuana, pro-nature, pro-peoples-fucking-rights-in-action story hits ten years from now after marijuana is legalized in this still-puritanical, but now we can butt fuck legally, backwards cross-licking country.

Even if nothing goes wrong, they've set a dangerous precedent of basically telling their watchdog group "Well, we'll let you do your thing, but even though we know little about the engineering behind a reactor, we are also going to basically feel free to disregard you and tell you to suck it if we don't like what you say."

And on top of that, beyond just ignoring the advice of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, our incorribly partisan Prime Minister decided to attack them as the "Liberal appointed Nuclear Safety Commission".

(Yes, the head of the commission is an appointee of the previous administration. But deriding the concerns of nuclear experts as a partisan issue is not one of Harper's better moments.)