CPCFTW

Cool a book...

Ah yes, the impartial study by the dara institute? The study that said 5 million people died in 2010 due to climate change? The thing about these "studies" is that they don't account for any benefits of climate change. They do a SWOT analysis and ignore the S and O. Here's the "study": http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/CVM-Findings-and-recommendations11.pdf What a joke.

That's a shame, but I wouldn't consider it a "serious side effect"... You can do something else and buy salmon. Maybe develop some better windmills and solar panels? huh? I still haven't heard how it is not innocuous. Best you could come up with is that some salmon runs are damaged?

I haven't heard the majority of scientists say there will be "serious side effects". Can you give me some examples of the serious side effects? First it was that the majority of scientists (and remember we're talking about climate "scientists") agreed that global warming is happening and is happening because of humans, now the narrative is that the majority of scientists say there will be "serious side effects"? You guys just keep pushing it further. I asked in the other thread if any studies have been done on the economic benefits of global warming... no one bothered answering: I'm not afraid of a few degrees warmer temperatures? Are you?

I think that's a safe assumption.

We'll turn to the deep oceans next... then by the time we run out of that we'll probably be able to synthesize the stuff. Sorry to burst your ewok bubble.

anyone?

I know there have been plenty of studies regarding the supposed economic costs of GW, but I'm wondering if there have been any studies considering the economic benefits? For example the opening of the artic passage, greater exploration opportunities in the far north, longer resource extraction seasons, more arable land, lower road maintenance costs, less heating, less snow removal, lower incidence of traffic accidents, faster delivery, more opportunity to use alternative transportation (eg. Bicycles) all year round, etc.

This is the first I've heard of "cumulative emissions" and it is the most laughable GW position I've ever heard. What's next? Letting Japan drop a nuke on us to make up for the "cumulative radiation" difference? I still think I posted a workable solution in this thread: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21561

Why not just reduce HST and make carbon tax a consumption tax? Fill up a tank of gas, or buy an iPhone manufactured and flown in from China = big carbon tax Buy a milk imported from a local dairy farm = low carbon tax The tax amount will be based on the amount of CO2 created by buying the product/service. The carbon tax component of consumption taxes can be built into the retail price, and we can let consumers reduce emissions with their wallets. Also this could potentially restore domestic manufacturing. Problem solved.

You can't actually believe this.. You think there is no market without retailers?

Question for the enviro-nuts here: Does the increased GHG offer the earth additional protection from meteors/comets? I'm not suggesting that it's good to pollute, but I'm just curious if there is a silver lining to GHG emissions.

How is environmental damage permanent? A meteor wiped out nearly all life on the planet.. somehow I think the planet will recover from temperatures rising a few degrees due to GHG. What a horrible point.

I was just pointing out that using 2006 as a starting point in your evaluation was disingenuous. I actually don't care about our ranking on this report any more than I care about canada's rankings on oecd quality of life reports. Just remember what you said in this thread the next time the chorus of lefty sheeple start chastising Harper if Canada drops a few spots in the OECD report because our gini score was fractionally worse and our literacy rate was 0.001% lower than some utopian nordic country with a 75% top tax bracket.

The ranking went from 7th to 5th from 2007 to 2010... ie. the timeframe we could reasonably expect Harper to have any influence on Canada's position within the rankings. Hope that didn't go over your head again!

interesting, someone who claims to be lawyer dismissing a precisely written argument ... Intermingling various/assorted/multitudinous synonyms into an argument does not make the precisely/accurately written argument worth reading... hey? Come on now MLW esteemed member wyly hey? Hey hey? This link proves me right.

Yes, obviously Harper had the power to significantly impact the size of government, legal and property rights, international free trade, and the other "economic freedom" factors during his first 11 months as a PM with just 124 seats... The trend is clearly favourable since Harper assumed office and has had any time to make changes. Given that the report seems to consider size of government an important factor in economic freedom, the trend is likely to continue since the big government cuts didn't start until recently (thanks for pointing out that the data is from 2010)! Heck maybe we even crack the top 3 just in time for the next federal election... let's hope for a timely news release from the Fraser Institute!

Don't you need to file taxes to be a moocher?

A teacher isn't a police officer, banker, doctor, etc. Hate to break it to you.

That poster is an insult to all of those professions.

More nonsense. You're getting good at this.

I'm not vouching for the accuracy of polls... they are usually only accurate within the MOE 19 times out of 20. There's a 5% chance that the results are anywhere outside of the MOE. The poll results could theoretically be that 100% will vote for Romney, and the poll would still be "accurate to within 3%, 19 times out of 20". I just won't dismiss polls based on conjecture that Harper is an evil kitten-eating fascist so the results must be skewed. I'll leave that to you "science-loving" geniuses.

Good point. Highly paid executives and other 1%ers who work long hours probably don't have the time to respond to a poll. So wealthy 1%ers are being underrepresented! Making up s**t to justify why a poll doesn't provide the outcome I wanted is fun! In reality, I don't think any particular demographic is more likely to ignore pollsters, but from my experience working for a polling company when I was younger, it is actually the elderly that are most likely to not respond to a poll.

They use lists if they are targeting a specific segment... for example if they are calling a random sample of Bell clients (or generally cellphone users) to ask them their opinion on Bell's customer service (or their carrier's CS). When they are targetting a random sample of Canadians, there's not really a reason to use a list.

Nonsense. Also why would cellphones not be "called in these types of surveys"? They just call random numbers (including cellphones) and ask them where they live, age, etc. then aggregate the results based on location, gender, and age (to match the Census data). It's not rocket science. For those of you who are interested in honestly discussing the poll, the actual study can be found here: http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/2012-09-LeadershipE.pdf