Oops, I hadn't realized that you were so sensitive or I wouldn't have responded to your (what I erroneously had considered serious and thought-out) message.
For your own information, I've been interested in and have been studying and learning about climate and climate change since 1973. Do I have all the answers? Definitely not but I'm working on it!
However, one further question:
You assert that I am 'repeating the same old denialist lies.' How do those who are skeptical of the climate change misinformation touted in the main media become denialist? Those skeptics don't have to prove anything. They are not asking for money or power. Rather, the onus is on people like yourself to explain your case and demonstrate proof of your statements.
Good science is not done by consensus and is not democratic. Natural laws are not made by voting. Sun shine, clouds, oceans, etc. do not give a damn what Suzuki or Gore think. They are what they are and they do what they do and we need to understand that, not bend the facts to fit our desires.

JSC:
Although the global warming fiasco has so often been connected/confused with environmental destruction, we can hardly be blamed for throwing up our hands in despair. Maybe there is possibly a positive outcome. If we can realign our focus on what is real and on reasonable actions where we can have a positive effect, then all may not be lost.
If all this causes us to more seriously reconsider our unrestricted and unsustainable population growth, our abuse of the environment (much related to overpopulation), and worthwhile actions we can take (forget the CO2 nonsense) should we really be experiencing global warming, then all this might be worthwhile.
Don't give up hope.

Many seem confused into believing that increasing greenhouse gases and global warming are the same. They are not but rather exist as two separate topics. Proving that there is an increase in greenhouse gases in no way proves that such increases leads to global warming.
Four points pointed out by another writer noted:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. Weather balloons scanning the skies have failed to find any sign of the telltale 'hot spot' warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave.
2. In contrast to some of the older ideas, newer data has clearly demonstrated that rather than carbon increasing temperatures, that in the past global temperature increases lead the increase in CO2 by an average of 800 years.
3. Over a 10-year period of time, satellites circling the earth twice a day have failed to note any increase in temperatures. CO2 has been increasing but temperatures have remained relatively flat. Computer models simply don't know what it is.
4. Although CO2 molecules may have some warming effect, adding extra has a less and less effect. At a time when carbon levels were 10 times higher, the earth slipped into an ice age.

In all cases, something else must have caused the warming.

Oh, I recognize the limits, of which there are many. That's the point.
Thank you for your confirmation.

As (I believe) you've suggested, it's not so much whether or not we may be experiencing (possibly temporary) global warming but whether or not man has any influence. If we ignore the hype and instead look at the raw unadulterated data, there is zero (0) evidence that increased CO2 levels have any significant effect on global temperatures.
In fact, recent ice core samples reveal that CO2 levels rose and fell hundreds of years AFTER any noted temperature changes.
For those who might claim that CO2 may not initiate a temperature increase but merely amplifies the increase in temperature, they've obviously neglected to consider the outcome of their claims. They've failed to consider the vicious cycle effect which would result in steadily increasing temperatures causing the entire earth to be scorched of all life. Although we know of much higher levels of CO2 in the past, along with a much 'greener' world, we don't have any records of the earth having experienced such an event.
If indeed there is global warming (doubtful but possible), we need to look for another cause. If we are really concerned about the future of mankind, then we had better lean how to deal with the predicted increase in temperature rather than wasting time, money, and resources running around claiming 'the sky is falling' and trying to bleed money away from the working people.
Moving away from the edges of cliffs overhanging the ocean, out of the flood planes, and out of dyked lands might be a good start.

For the record, I'm not an immigrant, I was born here. My parents and my grand parents were born here. Nothing in the most distorted imaginations can suggest that all Canadians are immigrants.
It's quite likely that everyone on earth has ancestors which can be traced far enough to demonstrate that they originally came from somewhere else. It would be quite a stretch to simply call everyone an immigrant. So much so, that it would serve no purpose to even utter such nonsense.
However, a simple review of history should provide enough information for even the most naive to learn of people who have lived in an area (a country) for a long period of time and whose influence has formed the basic structure on which the country functions. To discredit those people who, in terms of our founding Canadians, seem to have done a reasonable job in making our country a place when we can live with some degree of freedom, space, self-sufficiency, cleanliness, and health as simply one of the immigrants is short-sighted, naive, and insulting at best.
We obviously don't need more people but we do need people who can contribute to our country in an unquestionably positive way. We definitely don't have the resources to encourage 'takers' or 'gimme' groups, resident or immigrant.
Like society in general, there are no 'long term' benefits (to anyone) in encouraging irresponsible or destructive actions, which unfortunately, preoccupy the energies of far too many Canadians in an effort to be politically correct (an oxymoron).
Unrestricted acceptance of immigrants is bad for our Country, regardless of your misguided reasoning or political stripe.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. If Canadians continue to permit the free flow of people from third world countries (your words), do we not risk becoming more like these very people, and therefore a third world country?
After all, for some unfathomable reason, some in Canada are encouraging these people to bring their culture and traditions along and nourish these philosophies at great public expense.
Consider that in many instances we are encouraging the growth of the very existence from which these people are escaping.
We should instead ask, why do they want to come here? Could it be that they admire our existing culture (if indeed Canadians even have a culture), or that they admire our open spaces (because so far, Canadians have not indulged in massive over population), or maybe because we still have some clean air and clean water (again because we've so far been sensible enough to restrict our population growth)?
Canada is still one of the few places which can claim some degree of open space and wilderness, some areas of smog-free skies and clean air, areas of clean and abundant water, areas suitable for agriculture, and so forth.
Where do we go when we've wasted all this; when we've ceded to those who have chosen not to care for their own countries; who through rampant and unrestricted population explosion have destroyed everything in their wake; and whose irresponsibility has ruined everything they've encountered? What will we do then? Who will help us? Where will we go?
We do not need a single additional non-productive person added to the Canadian soil or someone who so far has contributed absolutely nothing to our social system. If we can't afford to look after those who are already paying the bill, then we surely can't afford to take on more who have not, are not, and likely will not be able to fully pay their own way in the future.
If none of this sinks in then ask yourself a single question: Can our children afford to pay for our myopic vision?

Mr. Intellectual:
If a writer begins all English sentences with a lower case letter, is he truly an intellectual?
As with many socialists, picking narrow infrequent situations to justify broad unjustifiable reasoning or statements seems to be your forte.
If I'm understanding correctly, I seriously doubt that many following this thread would hesitate to agree with 'temporary' help for those who have been placed in unfortunate situations through no fault of their own.
However, the reality is quite different. The majority of the so-called unfortunates are the results of poor personal decisions. The decision to get pregnant by an unmarried woman or to have more children than a person or family can adequately care for is simply irresponsible. Pumping money into these situations with little or no regard for changing the situation for the better (removing the children and placing them up for adoption, forcing the mentally and physically capable person to take responsibility and charge of the own lives. etc.) is simply short-sighted and impractical.
In short, we can no longer afford this affront and cost to society. Our social programs should be better managed and offer assistance only to those who really need our help (e.g. , those who are physically or mentally unable to provide for themselves, too young, too old, or possibly in the midst of a totally unexpected negative situation for which they've not knowingly/willingly contributed).
Then maybe we can handle the costs to the benefit of all. The free ride is (or should be) over.

In other words, don't act like God! (Ref. the Old Testament)

Maybe that's why 'common sense' is so uncommon.