I listened to your show on the day you had Vosper talking about the issue of female leadership in the Church. Would it not be appropriate to also have someone on your show that is supported the male-only leadership in the Church or who accepted the Bible as the Word of God? Everything Vosper said that supposedly was flawed about the authority of the Bible can be rationally explained and shown how her views were erroneous. Even some of your callers who support the authority of Scripture did not have sound arguments. It made us look like simple fools who believe a fairy tale. This is hardly the case.

Ok Mr. science “Understanding” guy, understand this:

According to scientists, humans produce between 2% and 3% of the CO2 that the Earth produces annually (lets pick 3%). That means the Earth produces 33 times more CO2 than all of humanity combined. And Canada only produces 2% or 1/50th of that tiny amount. Ok so follow me here: 1/50th of 1/33rd means that the Earth produces 1650 times more CO2 annually than all of Canadians combined. Now, let’s draw a scale that is 1.65 meters tall and look way down at the bottom, there is Canada coming in at the 1 millimeter mark. Gee, we’re important huh?

Now according to the National Post, our Federal Government stands to earn $10 Billion extra taxes per year on either the Carbon Tax or the Cap & Trade scam (your choice). And will force us to reduce our carbon footprint over the next 40 years, so this will only cost us $400 Billion. But hey we’ll reduce our CO2 contribution to the .99 Millimeter mark. Wow what a difference that will make! We’re really saving the planet now! Wahoo!

No economic axe to grind? Are you joking? Here’s a quote from one of those science guys with no economic axe to grind: Dr. Richard Lindzen is one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world: a past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a lead author in the landmark report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He says “Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized ‘Summaries for Policymakers’ which are written by representatives from governments, NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored.” The IPCC report was only 20 pages long, dumbed-down for suckers like you, the Full scientific report was 1600 pages. He also says “throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators’ would go around insisting that criticism of climate models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood’ statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green’ credentials in defense of their statements.” Then he says “Scientists who dissent from the CO2 alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

Ya no economic axe to grind. Good one Andrew. Here on Earth, there is always an economic axe to grind.

Unfortunately, the mechanisms for confirming whether individual UFO sightings are real or imagined, we’d need less restriction on what should be public data (i.e. open access to radar data).

It seems the government is too busy taping everyone’s phone (a true statement that would have seemed paranoid not so long ago) to look into it.

At the same time, we’ve spent a lot of time and money at the official level trying to see whether there is life on other planets - pretty strange if you ask me.

The funny thing is, my mother would always look over my homework and any projects & essays I had to pass in to the teacher. She always told me that I had done a great job, even the science fair project I did on pollution & Global Warming. Yet, now when we discuss it or if there is a news article about it in the newspaper or on the television, she 100% totally denies that Global Warming is happening, due to pollution or other causes by man. She says that if there is anything happening with the earth (even though she thinks there isn’t) that it is God’s doing; that God made the earth and that he controls everything that happens to it, and he wouldn’t allow this so called Global Warming. I wonder if this is the reason with the nay sayers,and not their total lack of scientific understanding.

You don’t need to understand Science to see it, just look around and you see something wrong when flowers are dying because of being burnt from the sun that if you can see it over the trash the we as people drop just about anywhere.

Our biggest problem is we don’t want do anything as people of the earth to improve our earth and we want to drive these gas suckers while tossing trash out our windows and wounder why gas is going up. You know the “me” problem of this earth.

We as people of our earth should abanding bad ideals that are harmful for us and our world and use ideal that have the minimum ware on our planet.

I just one person but some times I cry when I thing what are we doing to our earth and that the worst crime that we can commit, and that worst then murdering of anyone or sexual assaulting a child.

I believe that we all are doom if we continue on this same path and no god or person can us after when we all die for being, I don’t know, stupid. I define stupid as being someone doing something that he/she knows he/she can’t do but still does it.

I give you/news 91.9 etc the rights to edit the content as long as the main message is maintain.

The vast majority, if not all, scientific literature is based on an interpretation of raw data. Some people can look at a series of seemingly random numbers and make sense of them. Take 340-493-1991 for example. An avid baseball fan would know that these figures represent the career batting average, home runs and runs batted in for Lou Gehrig. These three simple numbers tell someone who knows about baseball that Gehrig was one of the best hitters of all time, but someone unfamiliar with baseball would not even know what they represent, let alone have the ability to put them into any meaningful context.

The same is true with scientific data, although it is much more complicated because we are always talking about much more than three numbers worth of raw data. In order to present the numbers in a way that the general public can understand them (or even other scientists in a given field), MANY assumptions have to be made. As with all assumptions, these are made based on the education and experience of the scientist doing the study. Biases may also come into play, like when the government agency providing the grant that puts the food on the scientists table insinuates (and sometimes comes right out and demands) a specific result or specific tone the paper is to take.

Often these assumptions are explicitly stated in the research papers, but those boring sections never make it to Al Gore’s desk or the newspapers. That is why the people that want to know the truth, not just the propaganda, do their own research. The easiest way to figure out if something is legit or not is to follow the money, which in the arena of “global warming” leads directly to all of the governments that are trying to give us carbon taxes…..despite the fact that humans produce a very small fraction of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. But you don’t have to take my word for it, I’m just a crazy conspiracy theorist! There is lots of peer-reviewed scientific literature out there to prove my point.