YellowDuck

Keep in mind that the guy has offered his resignation at least twice in the past, but GWB refused to accept it. To the president, "loyalty" was more important than having the right guy in place when you are making decisions with the potential to get thousands of people killed. Just one in a very long list of tragic misjudgements.

I'm just so happy to see Rick Santorum go away. Must admit though - his concession speech was probably the classiest I have ever heard. He is a lunatic, but he is a well-mannered lunatic. Can't take that away from him. Unfortunately, he is still a very young man, and I doubt very much that we have heard the last of him.

Thanks for the compliment. And yeah, I kind of wondered if you were serious about the "breathing" issue. Trust me, there are people out there who would actually buy that. I don't accept the "monetary tradeoff" line of reasoning. It's really just a red herring to say "let's ignore every problem that we don't understand as well as this other problem over here." What you are really saying with that argument is that you have decided to discount this issue, without yet really understanding it. Keep in mind that the current US administration has been reducing funding to research in these areas (and indeed, for environmental protection initiatives in general), and has also been monkeying with the consensus research reports before they come out. In my view, there are clearly political agendas getting in the way of the science - perhaps because of pressure from the petroleum industry? So it's not just a matter of choosing where to put your resources based on potential benefits - it's also about politics and money. That really bothers me. Cutbacks on fossil fuel use are not the only solutions, anyway. What about CO2 reclamation technologies? How about reducing CO2 emissions from the production of refined fossil fuels? The best estimates I have seen also indicate that reforestation has a significant role to play in reducing atmospheric CO2 over the long term. Yeah, we have limited resources avaialble to pursue all of these things, but redirecting all the money spent on climate change research to cancer research isn't necessarily going to solve that problem either, and I don't think we can really afford to ignore either. I guess my appeal is just to try to get the politics out of it (on both sides - the radical greenies are over the top too) and let the scientists do their jobs. What we don't need is another politically and economically motivated "scientific review" of the subject from some group like the Fraser Institute. Like it or not, the current scientific consensus is that increasing global CO2 is a profound change, and it is largely man-made. Because of the potential for long term adverse effects, that same community of scientists advocates taking action to address the problem. Exactly what that action should be is a political issue, but as a citizen I don't support the "do nothing on this because we have bigger problems to deal with" position. PM Harper doesn't either, as far as I can tell.

I actually don't disagree with you geoffrey. I mean, there is no doubt that global atmospheric CO2 is rising - that is easily observed. It is also easy to calculate that fossil fuel use must be contributing significantly to that rise. It starts to get a little sketchier when we try to calculate the exact temperature increase that is likely to result, and, in my opinion, when you get into the game of predicting long term consequences for global climate patterns, you are really sticking your neck out. I am not supporting the notion that climate models have been "sabatoged" to produce some foregone conclusion. But I am saying that the global climate is extremely complicated, and modelling it accurately is a pretty hard scientific problem. Climatology is NOT an exact science. But on the other hand, it is not a corrupt scienc either, so let's not be too cynical. If you look at good public climatology websites like that of the US NOAA, you won't find any hard iron-clad predictions about what global warming is going to do to the planet. And that is not just because President Bush's appointees have been busy with the red pen. It is because NOAA science is peer reviewed and reputable, and at this point there aren't any hard answers. That said, the increase in global CO2 is a profound change to the planet's atmosphere. I for one am in favour of at least paying close attention, scientifically, and having some kind of plan in place for moderating that change.

Hi all - First post on this forum. I wanted to point out that this idea about people "breathing and breeding" as a contributor to global CO2 concentrations is flat wrong. It is not just "environmentalists" who will tell you that - every serious scientist will tell you that. The CO2 you breath out is derived from one place - the food you ate. All of the carbon in that food originally came from only one place - the atmosphere. This is true whether it was fixed by the plant you ate (in the case of eating a fruit or vegetable or grain), or it was fixed by a plant that was eaten by the chicken or cow you ate. ALL of that carbon was taken out of the atmosphere, recently, so when you breath you are just returning to to the place it came from - no net change for the atmosphere. Same argument holds for burning wood, or burning biodiesel or ethanol. The NET change in atmospheric CO2 only comes from consuming fossil fuels, since that carbon did not come out of the atmosphere recently - it has been locked away under the earth for millions of years. Of course, the fly in the ointment is that we actually DO use a lot of fossil fuels to produce our food (energy to make nitrogen fertilizers, drive trucks and tractors, etc), so in that sense there is a net contribution to atmospheric CO2 from "breathing". But that problem is surmountable, at least in theory, since we could also do all of that using renewable fuel sources if we chose. The bottom line though is that saying "people breathing contributes to global atmospheric CO2" is pretty simplistic and essentially incorrect. Cheers.

I don't find him "likeable" at all. He was a disgrace during the party leader debates prior to the last election - always trying to talk over everyone else. He came of as unprofessional, dogmatic and a little childish. Much better in parliment though. Pretty much the only grownup on the playground during the last session. Got a hell of a lot of his election platform put through, despite having so few seats. Really brilliant management of the situation. Glad I voted for him. Not sure I would want him in the PMO, but he sure as heck is a positive influence on the legislative process at the moment.

Quebec is so self deluded that I am afraid we will deal with their whining forever. Alberta is maybe another story. The big gripe there seems to be with the political imbalance. Personally, I say if they want proportional representation and a triple E senate then give it to them. The west still wouldn't have the votes to impose its will on the rest of Canada, even if it was entirely unified in its opinions (which it isn't). So really, if that type of democratic reform is what you need to make you happy, I am right behind it. Anyway, as an NDP'er I think PR would help my party too. 20% of the votes, 20% of the seats. Sounds good.

Hi all. New poster. What are current federal expeditures? Something like $200 billion? So an $8 billion surplus amounts to 4% of the budget. If you ask me, that is cutting it pretty close. Surely revenues can fluctuate by more than that if you get your economic predictions a little off. So I'd say Goodale (and Martin before him) should be congratulated for so consistently getting the revenue predictions so close to the actual expenditures, without ever screwing up and dipping into a deficit situation. Just good fiscal management if you ask me. Sure, the opposition parties are screaming and wailing about the surpluses, but just imagine the ruckus they would make if it was in the other direction! We can argue about expediture levels and priorities, but in terms of balancing revenues with expenditures, this is EXACTLY how the country is SUPPOSED to be run. To argue otherwise is very disingenuous.