Smeelious

Although I'm sure most people would welcome electoral reform, I'm not sure a majority of people would vote for Reform type B. Getting agreement on the type of system to use just wouldn't happen. A lot of people like STV, (myself included) but it just isn't viable in Canada, unless you want to increase the size of parliament significantly. AV would tend to favour the Liberals, MMP has it's own issues etc etc etc. NDP and the Greens won't support AV, and niether I think would the Conservatives. If JT put it to a referendum it would fail.

So long as they are following actual protocol I see them as a good thing. Any use of force could then be viewed in the full context as apposed to whatever fraction we see on other's recordings of the incident.

first thing I thought of.. Putin suddenly appearing and taking up the entire screen, thus freaking out everyone assembled. Honestly though, this sort of international agreement(ing) is best done in person.

Well, appointing pure Liberals won't help him in any case then. Better to appear to appoint non-partisans and then complain when the senate actually tries to do it's job. Or showing that his "non-partisans" are supporting his bill while the old rank-and-files are holding things up... Regardless the Senate is still irrelevant.

Of course he will. In what ratio is the question.

and that it would further limit the possibility of re-election..

Too much will be expected of him.

I suspect they would, and I suspect the government will ask for another extension...

I think that the next 4 years will suck for JT.

To be fair...The assumptions they make are that nothing much will change in how the world works compared to how it has worked in the last 50 years. Probably a reasonable assumption. (They do apply their own estimations to other people's assumptions based on their own assumptions.) Though reading that paper gave me a headache.

Lukewarmers and Ken Ham... Fun thread.

The biggest problem with public funding (as it was anyway) was that it gave the advantage to the party with the most seats. Still, it's better than privately funded elections. ..but is it in their interest to leave the union job? Regardless, unions need to re-evaluate what their purpose is somewhat. Also, I think it's a shame that when unions are needed the most (economic downturns) they are also the most derided.

Belief in magical fairy tails is the way the leaders of ISIS control or temp to reward. Means to an end. I don't believe for a second that the leaders of ISIS put more stock in fairy tails than you do.

Well, my statement was more of an emotional response to a logical statement. In the end I wasn't the one who suggest that a country would be 'lost' I was responding to such a post. Your statement is a deliberate exaggeration the effects of "management of climate change", which you can't know. Just as I can't know that the results of climate change will result in the loss of...well anything.

I almost didn't put that line in tbh. But something about the statement; Rubbed me the wrong way. After deleting and readding it a few times over I left it in. *shrug* We all have our swords to die on. That's why we need a global strategy, in which Canada has its own part to play. We can't just ignore international commitments on climate change just because global warming may benefit Canada (at the expense of others...and that would be my assumption, based on expert opinions of which I've read) I'll go ahead and die on this sword too...It's a shame this kind of hyperbole colours the debate. Always a good reason to be a skeptic.

Gains in Canada would be offset by losses in more equatorial countries. And yeah, it's apparently OK for a country to be wiped off the map so Canada can have a longer growing season...Oh my bad, it's just in the loss column on the excel sheet. No big. anyway; http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/climate/future-outlook/impact-of-climate-change-on-canadian-agriculture/?id=1329321987305

I assume you mean the IPCC's 2007 calculations. Current Calculations are hedging more on 3m (though that is the high end). http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/sea-levels-map.php

I would assume in the end that it'll continue eventually. Jt already has too much on his plate to make this a priority

Is there a better / older thread for this? I feel like I'm missing half the discussion, and I completely lost what I was actually going to say about the Paris talks. That they coincide underscores that they aren't linked?

Where do you think the ideological split would be?

What is your null hypothesis in this case? The only evidence for God is historically anecdotal. I do see your point, however. Still, I'd argue that the majority of evidence supports the non-exsistance of God, Just as the majority of evidence shows that man made climate change being significant is a real thing. What am I even arguing at this point? I have no idea. Actually I don't want it to look like:

40% of the vote, 55% of the seats, 100% of the power. So. Very. Broken.

I'm not sure in this case which would be "less simple". Against consensus might be better in this case. Frankly, the less popular position does need more proof, since you have a lot more people to convince. Less simple...I'm just not liking it, being less simple means it is harder to prove, not that it needs more proof. After pondering for a bit I'd say proving climate change is man made and significant is the less simple proposition, but then it also has the majority of evidence. The result of which is that "showing that it is not" requires more evidence. A strawman. I never claimed otherwise. I simply said there is no evidence of negative effects to date. I wasn't actually responding to you here directly, and "no evidence of negative.." and "no significant effect" are the same in this case, so I don't see the strawman. Here I'd say it's better to be safe. There is only a 5 degree difference between the ice age and now. Imagine what another 5 degrees north of that will accomplish. And yes, I have no evidence of what that would look like, and I'd rather work to never find out. It's already evident that the 0.7 degree raise has caused significant damage (Here is an article on the cost - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy )

I was on board with this paper, until figure 23. Suddenly I have to go back and read everything a little more closely. Until I do that generally everything seems reasonable, but that figure is a giant red flag. But really blaming climate change for Sandy was always a reach to begin with, and I don't think anyone is directly blaming it. Most papers I have read argue that climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of abnormal weather events like Sandy, not causing them. The burden of proof lies with the opinion that is more outlandish. In this case: That human created climate change doesn't exist, and/or that it has no significant effect on the global environment. The overwhelming majority of papers and scientists (such a lame turn of phrase) agree that it does exist and that it has a significant effect on the environment. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Source? Both claims are rather outrageous, and contrary to common thought.