speaker

Well we can certainly hope so. But I am more worried about those people who are getting more toys (power). May the grapes of wrath be kind to them in their old age.

I don't think the question is whether or not we would be better of with deep integration, I think that answers itself. If you ask why do we have to have secret meetings, the answer is that politicians always try to hide anything they are doing that is controversial. If it's that big, national level meetings, and controversial you just know people are going to be hurt by, and angry about, it. It's time we start living within our means, from an energy perspective, from an agricultural/forestry one, from a water usage standpoint. i would add fisheries but from here it looks like that baby went out with the bathwater already.

That's my impression too. So what do they gain from this, are they trying to prevent panic? At a time when the scientists believe that action to prevent additional global warming is required, and in fact that we should be trying to adapt our civilization to live with the degree of changes that we can't prevent, some level of panic seems necessary. The fact that they aren't trying to bring science forward showing that minimizing concern is more appropriate means that they accept the IPCC scientists conclusions. Perhaps it is only that the longer we can continue to milk the existing system the more toys we can get before we die. I guess.... depending on the toys, eh?

It seems to me that the UN, a community of the nations of the earth, have commissioned these reports. It is more like a small handful of nations that are obstructing the full effects by requesting (demanding) that 90%> be downgraded, that the reports impact be softened. the question has got to be what benefit do these governments hope to get from that?

If one were to check out the info at the following address one would find that the scientists agreed that they have a 66% or better confidence level in human effect on global warming in the working group one report. (WG1). http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html This of course doesn't cover the fact that in each of the last couple of reports, at least, the scientists warnings have been compromised by the politicians operating on behalf of governments that are running scared of what is coming.

I haven't seen anywhere that the ipcc or people in general who see that our practices, our emmissions, our deforestation, are ignoring the other global warmers that are forcing factors. Just that they recognize that our impact is something that the world hasn't had to deal with in previous warmings. It is in addition to. It will make things worse because of that.

54% Ganja smokin hangerson who think reality tv is a romp in the fields compared to reality and wouldn't have it any other way. who think that driving to work alone, consuming as much as possible, watching tv and ranting afterwards is a god given right because they have no experience other than that. get their slogans from old ross perot commercials and sign petitions giving away democratic opportunity because it might cause thinking. 30% corporate dust bunnies who use the anti environment movement to bring about more profits for their up ladders. 15 % who sincerely believe that the right wing talk show hosts haven't addled their brains on cocaine. and 1% scientists who believe they can make more money catering to the exxons of the world, because there is not a percentage of scientists that does not believe that global warming is being forced by human behaviour.

The difference appears to be that the sustainable development crowd is trying to help us avoid subsistence. What sort of light do you hold?

I am worried that the IPCC's latest report will be interpreted as a need to prepare for the worst, (I recognize that there are governments and individuals that are trying to ignore the worst,) rather than as a need to reduce future impacts by having a positive net impact on green house gas levels. There are positives in comments such as those from Nancy Pelosi. I haven't heard any response from Canadian officials yet. It's unfortunate that the report was issued just before the long weekend. Let's ensure that other new stories don't push this back out of the presses short memory.

Basicly what you are talking about is subsistance living. Subsistance is somewhat different from sustainability. It is true that global warming is inevitable but as posit was making plain there are varying levels to which we must accept inevitability. The more we are able to do in the way of conservation of energy resources, the farther from subsistence we will be able to live. It's an odd sort of thing that the survivor mentality that got so self absorbed in the last part of the twentieth century had some good ideas going for it.

I can appreciate that, I wouldn't mind seeing all the fuel taxes used at least in the short term to help people progress with these options. As a person you can plant trees, travel by transit, refuse to fly, buy locally grown food, support and buy energy from clean, local, and renewable alternatives, insulate your home and workplace, well maybe not the latter unless it's your workplace, put in efficient lighting systems, work for the greening of our cities, use your talents to spread the alternative means of achieving similar goals in the neighbourhood, region, watershed, nation, and internationally. I think it would be way more productive.

mayhem? I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. The object here is to avoid as much of the serious trouble as we still can. How would I measure the benefit? the usual ways, quality of life, state of the economy, personal freedom etc. How would you measure it?

On an individual basis that's a little like asking how much alcohol can you do without even though you are an alcoholic. As a person you can plant trees, travel by transit, refuse to fly, buy locally grown food, support and buy energy from clean, local, and renewable alternatives, insulate your home and workplace, well maybe not the latter unless it's your workplace, put in efficient lighting systems, work for the greening of our cities, use your talents to spread the alternative means of achieving similar goals in the neighbourhood, region, watershed, nation, and internationally. I get the impression you're not the type who generally underestimates yourself, Why start here.

Well that sounds about as innocent and innocuous as you can get, what I can't figure is why were pengrowth corp, one of the largest energy royalty trusts, and lockheed martin, experts in warfare who "never forget who they work for", there and I wasn't invited..... I mean I'm hurtin' here!! oh well I'm sure someone out there has an idea.

No kidding eh? them central planners, the beaurocrats, the multitude of little functionaries of the central planning divisions of the major corporate conglomerates trying to figure a way to make more money for their shareholding masters no matter what the human misery and environmental consequences of action or inaction. Free marketer middle men respond to threats of the global warming variety the same way ostriches do only with ostriches it's a myth. The merely ...riches though if you look carefully leave at least one hand up in the air hoping you will continue to put your money into it, just because it's what you really want to do.

lol

Hi Stignasty, ya, I have had a look at that one, For anyone interested in getting answers that's a good place to go. Argus, it is more likely that the activist set don't want to go back to a prehistoric cave lifestyle and can read the writing on the wall. Unless we accept the need to minimize our impacts on the planet those who find caves may be the lucky ones. In a situation like this I don't mind at all if the sociologists get involved in helping us design a more comprehensive and effective Kyoto accord. Or alternative energy businesses, or firemen, or farmers, or artists. At this point I think we need all the help we can get so Welcome to all of them.

Of course you are right, far better we prepare for war because we know the positives that can come out of that one. Naturally the DoD is going to look at it from a particular point of view. or alternatively we might try to lessen the extent of the damage by doing a little conserving and sequestering.

I thought there might be some use in showing how an organization with a somewhat different perspective from the lefties is looking at the facts behind global warming. http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf

I thought that a site like this might help people get some of the basics about global warming, other than that I'd encourage everyone to watch the red herrings trying to swim upstream. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...ming-faq.html#2

I think the war in sudan is an example of what I'm talking about, the war in afghanistan would be another, Iraq another. before you respond read my previous message.

So why is war between liberal democracies so rare? I think that wars between liberal democracies are as prevalent as any other given the number of liberal democracies in relation to all the rest. The difference is that western democracies are the arms suppliers and stategists fighting for the resources of other nations by buying and trading "partners" in those nations. International diplomacy at it's best is keeping the casualty figures at home to a minimum while aquiring the food, energy, technology, etc. for ones own country.

As a white middle aged bald guy, I would like to ask you this question. Why do you think that the heavily populated areas are the heavily populated areas? What I can't figure out is why so many people of all breeds want to live in these big reserves.

I are cold, eh? you are cold, eh? he/she are cold, eh? we are cold, eh? they are cold, eh? it sure are cold, eh?

The NDP philosophically may be more ethical than the conservatives but it succombs to the same sort of egocentric, and corrupt individuals as the conservative liberals when they get close to power for too long. The party might survive as an ideal a little longer but people are people and to expect anyone to have that kind of power and not abuse it is naive. The conservative liberals have just been there too long.