Readers have been sending a steady stream of news links over the past couple of weeks. I've arbitrarily chosen a few - I'm sure I've overlooked some I shouldn't have. In addition to doing a lot of posting, I'm also starting to come face to face with some work deadlines. A lot of the stuff sent demands blog posts of their own, but sometimes I'm preoccupied with other things, other times (Steyn columns come to mind), the links have propogated across the blogosphere already, and I figure that most of my blog-surfing readers will have or soon will, come across them somewhere else.
"He was a founding director of a Scarborough mosque and a doting father who brought his children to the park for picnics on weekends. Now he's been named as a key commander of a terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda that's fighting against the Americans in Iraq."
(From August of 2004, background on terrorist groups in Canada.)
Pierre Pettigrew says the US State Department asked Canada not to add the Tamil Tigers to the list of terrorist organizations. Official US State Department response: "Say, what?"
Finally - Confounding the experts, scientists discover that ice melted before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Who knew?
There's also the Prime Minister's claim that the U.S. was never told Canada would participate in BMD ... despite the Canadian Ambassador to the US making public statements that Canada was participating in BMD.
"Finally - Confounding the experts, scientists discover that ice melted before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Who knew?"
Delighted to hear about another natural cycle that may buy us some time. But if your readers don't follow the link, what do you suppose they conclude from your comment? "Aha, like we knew already, there is no global warming!"? There were no "confounded" experts in the article, just responsible scientists reporting that sea ice may be able to cycle back somewhat, in spite of human-induced warming. If the natural cycle is still working, we can expect to see the ice start to come back in the next 5 to 10 years. We can hope that it will come back in time to prevent major changes to ocean circulation or the thawing of huge stores of frozen greenhouse gases in the north - at least until the next low point in the sea ice cycle. Shall we wait 10 years to see whether we're in huge trouble, or just big trouble? From the same article:
"In January, the international Climate Change Task Force warned that global warming could reach a "point of no return" in ten to 20 years by which time atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would be so great that any attempt to reduce them would be futile."
When will we stop wasting our breath on "Is so!" "Is not!"? The question is "How do we proceed together?"
We adapt as required.