Riverwind

We have to first agree on what a diety is before we could agree on what constitutes evidence for such a deity. The problem you will immediately run into is the definition of a deity is subjective and therefore all evidence is subjective.

People who believe in a a diety get comfort from that belief. I realize that you are looking for explicit physical evidence but that is just because of the way you have defined the issue.

Here is a concrete illustration of how the peer review process has been corrupted by a pack a pro-AGW zealots. In climate science, peer review is code word for 'approved by the alarmist club' and has absolutely no relationship with truth or accuracy.Here is another example. The are many others which alarmists insist on ignoring.

What you are really saying is you have seen no evidence which you find to be conclusive. Evidence is always subject to interpretations/preconceptions of the observer. Others do disagree with your interpretations.

By whom? This is first time I have seen anyone make that claim about biology or geology. To be logically consistent you must also believe that all climate scientists are, one way or another, required to promote catastrophic AGW in order to get funding. If you disagree try proving that climate scientists are not motivated to do the science that gets them funding.

The Tibetans and the Uighurs would disagree.China fell behind the west because it became too arrogant and did not appreciate that trade brings wealth. There are many reasons for this but one I find more interesting is an ancient chinese prejudice against the mechant class.

If the climate stayed the same many will benefit and many will lose. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this debate is how any hiccup in nature is immediately blamed on CO2 - even if there is not one shread of evidence linking the two. CO2 has become the modern day equivalent of witch burnings.

You are missing the game that Myata is playing. One hand he challenges people to a reasoned debate but on the other hand he thinks he has the exclusive right to decide what material can be used in support of arguments used. When people point out the absurdity of his position he tries to justify it by saying that he does not have the ability to analyze material that comes up so he has no choice to limit sources to those which he chooses.

Exposed key pieces of climate science for the junk they are - something that is recognized by many even if the IPCC mafia insist on living in denial. But when people are asked if they would pay a mere $25/month support drops by 10%! IOW - support for regulation is a mile wide and millimeter deep. Politicians know that and that is why they try to hide the cost with cap and trade schemes that have no chance of actually reducing emissions. Show me a poll that says people would support regulation even if costs them $200/month and I might take your claims seriously.In any case, the most important result in the poll is how the trust of scientists is dropping. I feared this would happen if the public ever caught on to how dishonest the "scientists" like the ones that run RC really are. That has now happened so the question should is now how can the cancer of political activists posing as scientists be removed.

I was recently called for a EKOS poll on politics. A few questions came up like 'will a party's position on the environment affect my vote'. The correct answer is yes it would because I would never vote for a party promising to immediately waste money on brain dead CO2 regulations. Unfortunately, I knew that answer would be spun to imply I wanted action on CO2 so I had to respond that a party's position on the environment would not affect my vote.

The textbook definition requires evidence that people care enough about it to change their votes. The revelations bother me. It sounds like some bureaucratic incompetence and inept handling by the CPC. It matters in the sense that there are problems that need fixing. But it is near the bottom of my list of things that will affect my vote. I suspect many people feel the same.

IOW, all the GG can do is send the matter back to the people for a vote. A useful and necessary safeguard in our system.

Call in show on CBC local radio this week had nothing but callers opposing the Copenhagen objectives.

In Canada the mother can get support from multiple men for the same child. i.e. she can stick it to her ex(es) and while getting money from the biological dad too.

I bolded what the laws currently state. I did not parse your sentence correctly. Can I take your statement to mean that you feel the current laws should be changed and that a man has no obligation to children who he was fooled into believing were his even if he was their de facto father for years? If so I apologize for misreading your statement.

You just said that if a man does not find out about his wife's cheating until a few years later then the man is screwed. In your opinion, he has to pay for kids that are not his and pay the wife to be a mother to kids that are not his. It really does not make a difference how you rationalize such payments as being 'for the kids' the position you take is that women are entitled to screw around with no consequences as long as they can fool thier mate into caring for children that are not his.

Although volunteer bloggers are doing some good work the general rule is only science that gets done is the science that someone is willing to pay for. Over the last 20 years science that promoted climate alarmism was what got funded with a few exceptions. It should come as no surprise that the majority of the "professional" (meaning people who have to find someone to pay them) scientists think CO2 is a immediate threat requiring government intervention. The appalling bias revealled in the Climategate emails is the tip of the iceberg.Fortunately, the latest polls show people are waking up and realizing that the professional science establishment is not an unbiased source of information. My only hope is this will lead to a reform of the system.

So you are saying that a men should routinely get paternity tests just in case their wife neglects to mention that she has been sleeping around?Your hypocrisy is appalling. A man screws around - you say he should pay. But a woman screwing around. Thats fine with you and the man still should pay.

I know - but what is done is done. That does not make it right to repeat the mistake.

I oppose any changes to CPP because what they will do is front load it give the baby boomers way more than they deserve based on their remaining contributions and leave it up to the following generations to pay the bill.

A lot depends on the politics with the WTO and if there is no global emissions deal you can bet that carbon tariffs would be stringly opposed by the developing world. In any case, I think the chances of a US law that was "carefully calibrated" is next to zero. Any such tariffs levied would be arbitrary and driven by lobby groups so the would not even be able to meet the vague criteria set out the Krugman piece.

Let's say the conservatives decided to change the law to limit what can be done to protect a 'species at risk'. Any bets on what the response would be from the other parties?If you are looking for a sympathic politician you are most likely to find one in the CPC.

To be fair the laws being used to shut you down were not passed by this government.

What about women who screw around, get pregnant and then trick their husband into believing the child is his? Should they pay too?

Because there is no way to verify that there was value received for the labour done. If you give cash the charity has records that can be audited later to see if that cash was really received and that it was used for the correct purposes.