Six In The Morning: Bad Movie Posters

6-in-the-morning1 EX-TORY MINISTER CHUCK STRAHL: ALL KINDS OF WRONG A former Conservative government minister has a couple of part-time jobs that don’t go so well together: he’s on the panel that oversees Canada’s spy agency, CSIS, and he’s a registered lobbyist for the Northern Gateway pipeline. Yikes. This isn’t illegal, but it is insane, given that part of what CSIS does is spy on people who criticize oil companies. Yes, really.

2 THEN AGAIN, THEY MIGHT WANT TO SPY HARDER A couple of climate change activists made it onto a stage behind the Prime Minister and held up protest signs at a Vancouver event. They were questioned and released without being charged.

3 REGINA WENT OVER ITS SNOW BUDGET LAST YEAR Story here. Perhaps we need a bigger budget.

4 INVADING COUNTRIES MAKES THEM WORSE Iraq is a mess. Al Qaeda control a major city. Good job, Bush, Cheney and their supporters. I took a quick look at Small Dead Animals, a popular website run by a blogger and occasional John Gormley Live guest who supported the Iraq war (and says climate change isn’t happening because it’s cold out right now, and attacks U.S. health care reform, and etc.) and I didn’t see an apology for supporting a stupid war that destabilized a country. Maybe I missed it.

5 RUSSIA IS SO HOMOPHOBIC It’s embarrassing.

6 CANADA’S OLYMPIC HOCKEY TEAM HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED Here’s the list of players. Good lord,  that Sidney Crosby kid made the team! A couple of Reginans, Ryan Getzlaf and Chris Kunitz, made the team. Meanwhile, a man who wears a constipated Gollum expression says there are problems with Canadian hockey, and he’s probably 100 per cent right.


Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth was carried to Regina in a swarm of bees. He's been with Prairie Dog since May 1999 and will die at his keyboard before admitting his career a terrible, terrible mistake.

7 thoughts on “Six In The Morning: Bad Movie Posters”

  1. #4 Smoking one cigarette doesn’t give you cancer and sucking back one freedom-loving 128 oz cola doesn’t give you diabetes and obese thighs, so why do these angst-ridden corporate-government-defending wackjobs think one cold day, week, or month doesn’t mean climate change is happening. The human effect on the climate is cumulative, people, the way 35 years of smoking will probably eventually give you cancer. And another thing, quit being so North American-centric. The global temperature increase INCLUDES the rest of the globe, over a year’s time, year to year, not just John Gormley’s flatulent driveway.

  2. Perhaps the reason why there are so many global warming deniers( and more every year) is because they can remember the Big Ice Age scare of the 70s. Back in high school I can remember scientists telling the world that in 20 30 40 years that much of the world would be too cold too sustain agriculture. I recently ran across a Time magazine from 1973 that had a big section in it devoted to the BIG FREEZE. Sometimes a person just has to think for themselves and………..?

  3. Sorry Paul, there is a few Time magazines from the 70s that had articles about global cooling that are not hoaxs. Not sure of the exact time, but around 73-77.

  4. Can someone please outline how rigorously Time articles are peer-reviewed?

    Thanks in advance.

  5. If you’d read the article I posted, Indy, you’d find that information. There were a few articles about global cooling from the 70s — note, “articles” not “features” and certainly not “cover features”. And one in Newsweek. They’re related to discoveries at the time around the effect that aerosols in the atmosphere can have upon the temperature.

    Many of those “global cooling” articles also talk about CO2, global warming and their impact on the climate. But few climate skeptics seem to ever mention this.

    However, that was all what was going on in the media. They latched on to a few veins of research and spun it into this story about an impending ice age. It was shitty journalism. And, if you look back you’ll find that it was a blip in the science reporting.

    As for the actual science… here’s a blurb from that article you didn’t bother to actually read…

    “A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has.”

    So there you have it… scientists in the 70s — as now — were saying that dumping CO2 in the atmosphere would warm the planet and change the climate.

    I’d suggest you read the article I posted or this one here ( which is also good but you’re clearly not interested in learning anything beyond bonkers anti-science conspiracy bullshit.

Comments are closed.