Canuck E Stan

CA, A politician signing a job contract? -CES

Whoa there. I support e-voting. I hate mandatory voting though. I'd rather not have disinterested people vote, only those informed and interested need apply IMO. Your dreaming if you think all the people who vote are informed.Too many vote not even knowing the issues ,and vote as their parents,friends,ethnic background etc. have. So why not make it manditory. Maybe a $50 fine will make people think enough to make sure they get $50 worth of smarts before they vote.

Doubt it, but it will be Dion's last as leader of the Liberals

Canuck, I suggest you take a look at Figure 2 in the following EIA web site. (The data comes from the IPCC 2001.)It shows that it is correct to say that, excluding water vapour, humans contribute about 5% of gross CO2 emissions (and natural sources the remaining 95%). However, this ignores that nature (oceans and plantlife) absorbs about 95% of atmospheric CO2. So, humans contribute to almost all net additions. Incidentally, this web site details the claim that humans only contribute 0.28% of GHG emissions (if water is included) or 5.53% (if water vapour is excluded). These percentages are based on gross emissions and not net emissions. They ignore the fact that oceans and plant life also absorb CO2. From the EIA site With less than 5% being manmade and 95% being natural and a bunch of uncertainty and inability to rule out some significant part of these changes being reflected by natural variability,basing the conclusion that less than 5% affecting 100% without knowing what effect the other 95% has, seems extremely unscientific to a conclusion that is supposed to have scientific merit.Or in not giving another explaination beyond the greenhouse gases theory as a cause to why the temperatures may be rising. So much for comprehensive science coming from the IPCC.

You're talking temperature, I want to know about natural vs manmade greenhouse gases......how much for each?

And you know this HOW? LINKS Because he(PolyNewbie) has the right to think and you don't need a link to think

As with most facts the devil is in the detail. In this case, I cannot find the orginal source for DOE chart that compares Natural additions vs. Man-made additions to the GHG. The analysis means nothing if it is not possible to verify that the DOE numbers are being interpreted correctly.In addition, the author of this page criticises the DOE source for not accounting for Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the different GHGs, however, the author fails to account for the GWP of water vapour. This means it is even more important to verify all of the numbers quoted in the report. Forget about the DOE. How about this from the IPCC. A Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural. Dobbin, Now that you have shot the messenger from my first link,how about shooting this one too,the IPCC. How much better peer review do you want than when the IPCC says the same thing? And if you don't like either,I suggest you give me a credible link to percentages of natural vs. manmade greenhouse gases.

I agree with you geoffrey.....e-lectoral reform..... as in e-Voting..... and as in Australia where if you DON'T vote it will cost you $50.

It would help if I knew what the link was for your quote. You could easily have found a source yourself. The information is not a secret, it's fact. Here's one source. You do the math. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils...house_data.html

You have asked this many times. I see Jdobbin has said "yes". What would you do? Seeing as shutting down Canada for 50 years would only make a .0006 change in the climate temperature I would ignore the fearmongering of the scientists who are concerned with the 5% of greenhouse gases that man is responsible for and say little of the 95% produced by the earth. I would forget about Kyoto's and it's credit system as a solution to solving any kind of problem.Kyoto is a failure. I would be more concerned with Air and Water quality in Canada and get that agenda on track. I would start a "Toronto" protocol and attempt get the US,China And India on side, to get them to clean up their aIr and water quality problems. And if I'm chosen Miss Canada, I would want peace and happiness for everyone in the world.

I'm sure Canadians in Ontario will jump up and down in glee sending $10 billion to build hydro electric projects in Brazil while they take deep breathes of coal fired air from generating plants in their province.

Harper and the CPC sink to a whole new low! Nice cherry picking of lines and quotes. Like that of a true Liberal, deception is your game. Here's the real story in the article.

Wondered that myself, maybe MLW feels emotions have no place in politics

Yes. So where is the $10 Billion going to come from? How is sending $10 Billion to another country going to solve the greenhouse gas problem right now,greenhouse gases that your scientists say needs to be reduced immediately?

Dobbin, Actually you know very well it really doesn't matter where it goes,once the $10 Billion is given away to buy credits, it's gone. So I'll ask you again, Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion in order to buy Kyoto credits?

You should actually have said: I've said right wing organizations have tried to discredit PRO-MAN scientists.

I've seen the same story in Canwest papers, the CTV, CBC and heard it on CJOB. We're willing to spend billions in Afghanistan on security for Canada even though we weren't attacked. What makes this so different? You've seen it, and I've seen it because we take an active interest in it and in politics. I'm talking about most Canadians who among other things, can't even bother to vote, or don't get into the substance of an issue because it isn't that important to them. The almost 70% majority of people from the CTV poll who wouldn't want their fuel prices raised in order to cut greenhouse gases. Do you really think Canadians will be in favour of sending $10 Billion to a place like China that's in an economic boom? Or Russia? Again let me ask you, are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion in order to buy Kyoto credits?

Looks like the media is explaining it if you say it was written about in the Globe and Mail. I realize to you the G&M is "the" media, but there are others. After all these years of "Kyoto" has the media done enough to explain beyond greenhouse gases, about how the protocol works? I would think most Canadians would be shocked to know how much the credits will cost the country. Are you willing to give other nations $10 Billion+ to buy credits?

From the G&M article of yesterday, Canada will have to fork over $10 Billion + to make up the shorfall in Kyoto. Are you willing to give to other nations $10 Billion to buy credits? Do you think the media has explained this about Kyoto to the Canadian public?

You know not of what you speak. Canada's debt

Canadians contribute 2% of greenhouse gas emissions of the 5% that man produces. The other 95% is contributed by nature.Therefore,Canadians produce .001% of emissions.If the scientists claim for a 6 degree rise in temperature in the next 50 years is true, and Canada shut down every industry and every Canadian leaves Canada, our contribution to climate change will reduce the climate change by .0006 of a degree. In the CTV poll mentioned, Participants were asked how much of a contribution Canadians can make a towards global warming? Almost 92% said we can make elther a major or minor contribution. Can global warming be solved? 83% said either partially or completely I guess if you think that shutting Canada down for fifty years to get a maximum of .0006 degrees reduction is going to make a difference....

No they won't because they're paying the price for what the hypocrite Liberals didn't do for 13 years. Again let me say talk is cheap. Look at the poll, the only relevant question that pertains to the respondents and their pocketbook was: Are you willing to pay more for fuel and home heating? Only 31% said they would. Most the other questions either presented someone else having to foot the bill or do the work for change. I don't believe most people know how much a new furnace,windows or insulation would cost to retrofit their houses. If the question said would you be willing to spend $35,000 to retrofit your house to help the environment would you? I think most would answer as the fuel question. As for purchasing a vehicle, would you be willing to pay 35% more for your next car for the sake of the environment would you? Again I think the numbers would reflect they wouldn't.

It was a CTV poll. http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/02/02/GreenOpinion/ The Tories certainly have noticed the trend of what Canadians think but it is hard to say whether they think that their feet will be put to the fire in an election. Talk is cheap. Everyone says they are willing to do something,that's the easy part.And in their minds,they really feel they should and could do something, but when the actual implementation of the "sacrifices" hits them in their pocketbook or interfers with their lifestyle or work life, you'll see these respondents change to the true feelings about doing "major" sacrifices.

I don't know how easy obtaining either citizenship, language training or a law license would be. I was struggling with the language in my last visits, to Calgary, Algonquin Park, and Montreal. jbg, A sixty second film to help you get a Canadian mindset. Can't you just feel being Canadian now?

So it is better to do nothing,than to start at some point that would get the process moving. We have waited 13 years already, but you still want to wait somemore, yet you put some urgency to solving the problem. Explain. First it was you that said it was not unanimous. All you are doing is generalizing, I want to know why you refute some of the findings from leaders in their scientific fields who are being ignored or who's findings are not being acknowleged by the committee. When a scientist is the world leader in his particular field and the committee does not insert his findings in the report, you have to question why? Did I ever say we shouldn't do something about pollution? I totally agree Clean air and clean water are a necessity. Are you a GW scientist? So generalize about what I read and conclude you are the most read person on the subject. Give me a break. My concerns for the environment as as valid and justified as yours,you do not hold a monopoly on those concerns. My political views may differ from you,but my scepticism about how it is being approached by certain groups tell me they are not being truthful in their approach.