betsy

You bet. And you see the true colors really come out every time there's a threat of an election....CBC (even Evan Solomon) bends over every which way to switch the channel off any Liberal criticisms (especially on Ignatieff) and keeps re-heating and re-heating old news criticisms of the Conservatives (especially Harper). When a Conservative MP brought out the negative statements of Ignatieff regarding Canada not deserving any seat in the Security Council....Evan Solomon was quick to butt in and point out, "Liberal MP Martha Hall Findley already addressed that by saying they support Canada...," and took that issue off the table! Imagine that! It's Ignatieff who made that statement, not Martha Hall Findley! BTW, did these networks like CBC, CTV etc.., made such a big deal when the controversial AL JAZEERA was coming to Canada? The networks we have are mostly left-leaning and they want to keep it that way!

And what agenda is that? Why is that statement not so surprising seeing where it's coming from? Quite self-serving....sounds like the usual whines from the Opposition!

Yes. Especially if he's going to make a career out of it (what with his endorsement power as a former VP of the US and his experience with dirt-digging media and anti-GW)...I would've prepared everything before I even started just so there's nothing to throw at me. I mean, why give your opponents ammunition? Imagine, GW Bush even beat him to it, as far as going green is concerned.

Some do give inaccurate report - as in the recent case of CTV Tom Clark (a veteran at that) who accused the Conservatives of reporting to the RCMP that investment scandal that broke out during the election campaign 4 years ago (it was the NDP MP Wasylysalys who reported it to the RCMP), and when Clark was corrected by the Conservative MP about that inaccuracy, Clark didn't even bother to acknowledge his mistake and let it slide! That is either irresponsible....or dishonest...or both! Some reporters and journalists have thrown away their principles and become too slanted and partisan - to the point of manipulating and moulding information that suit their agendas! Sadly they've compromised their credibility. Of course those who don't follow the political scene will not realize the untruth and the slant. Heck, some of them will not think twice about spilling strategic info in the Afghan war if and when they can! With total disregard for the consequences that's not to our best interest! Scientific research, as in all areas that are deemed sensitive, there is a time to divulge indepth info to the media! This "Public's got a right to know..." is being used, and MIS-USED!

Then get funding from somewhere else. Others do.

So that means we call the shot then? The government, being paid by you and me, must not make his decisions without consulting us? All decisions should be decided by polls? We just have a puppet government? Explain please.

deleted. double posting.

Scientists have become so outspoken these days. What used to be researches and experiments done in cloak of secrecy (especially those highly sensitive)....are now handled like tabloid news! On one hand it is nice to know what is being researched/analyzed/experimented on..... but I can very well understand the position of the government as well. Science is being manipulated and used for politics. Some scientists, just like some media, have cooperated and thrown away principles and actively joined partisan politicking. Anyway, these are federal employees! The article stated that they needed PRE-APPROVAL before disclosing any information. That doesn't translate to "zipping." Since it's my dollar that's funding these experiments, I'd like a tight control on loose lips thank you.....

He's done it alright. At $300,000 per lecture....hah! Pays better than the presidency, not to mention the power that goes with it. Flying first class is not good enough....it has to be his private jet! Environment (that includes GW) is an I N D U S T R Y! GW is a cash cow for Gore! Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/al-gore-house-47062202#ixzz11Lk4tFBF He made changes to show that he follows what he preaches after he got criticized for his seeming hypocrisy! It wouldn't be profitable for him to lose his credibility if he wants to continue milking the environment cause. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm We won't get into Al Gore on this topic. I mentioned him on my reply to one of the posters for the relevant reason why we couldn't count on everyone to do their share.

That is the problem. If Al Gore, the greatest spokesperson for the environment couldn't inconvenience himself to be a model of example.....relying on voluntary cooperation from everyone is a hopeless exercise.

Assuming that AGW is man-made, then we need to get to the root of it all! What about man caused this? That is what we have to seriously address. It will be an overhaul of our lifestyle and the system. It only makes sense, doesn't it....after all it's our lifestyle and our system that caused it. Assuming we can reverse the damage, and assuming the concern for our children's future is sincere....then there shouldn't be any halfway measures about it...We reverse it! At the same time, teach and show the future generation how to go about it. We can't have it both ways....continuing the way we live, then wring our hands with guilt and cry crocodile tears.

We're all hoping that we can come up with a better solution....but while we're still hoping, what are we supposed to do? What if that hope never materialize? In the meant time, we just continue on? If the need for change is truly that crucial and so desperate - judging from some of the opinion(s) here - then I assume that we do not have the luxury to wait for a solution. We can do some BIG changes starting NOW. Just with one major step, we can start making the damage to the environment from getting any worse, or reversing it (if it can still be reversed). We simply just have to change our lifestyle. Our way of life. For starters: let's just impose public transportation for everyone. And I mean, everyone! Private transportation allowed will only be those that don't use fuel. Cars will be a thing of the past! Yes, we do need to impose and enforce the drastic measures if we are truly serious about wanting change. No more private vehicles. Private planes and other recreational vehicles that uses fuel, whether large or small will no longer be allowed. Private homes will be downsized dramatically depending the numbers of occupants. A standard size for rooms for everyone (no exception) will be enforced. Cheaper to heat or cool. Existing large houses and mansions will have to come down....no exception. There'll be no grandfather clause on this. Everyone has to do their share. Etcetera. You get the pic. The 1st worlds will be the models of example to all the world. If we can do it, so can anyone else. Actually, adaptation to this new lifestyle will be easier for most third world dwellers imho, since there's not that much luxury to give up. We enforce this by refusing to trade with any countries that do not do what we do. With those steps alone, think of the C02 reduction! There are other ways to drastically cut back. UN will work on the target years for transition to this new lifestyle. The question is: Are we willing to make this change? Put money where our mouth is?.... ...Or are we just posturing and all talk?.... ...Or the threat isn't real after all?

Nature 's survival of the fittest. Any specie who cannot adapt become extinct. A people with a self-destructing culture will become extinct.

Yes. Why should the 1st world carry the guilt? Everyone has an equally guilty hand in this. If we're going to point any finger of blame - if we want to be specific as to pinpoint where this all came from - it could very well be SCIENCE and technology. Besides, whether the poor countries starve and die is not the point of this discussion.....they still did atrocious things to the environment such as de-nuding their forests among other things! I've read somewhere just one single forest fire alone emits more CO2 than all cars emit in a year! How many forest fires - started by natural causes - do we have in a year? All over the world?

And I would think that Canada and USA will work together and become allies on this since it is to the best interest of both parties. Two rich countries ....sharing the same values...and are both financially able to adapt.

What do you mean?

If the situation comes to that point then, civilians will do their share of patrolling the shorelines and borders. After all we're now talking pure survival. True. So no one will sit idly by and just watch swarms of migrants coming to shore. They'll protect what they have!

deleted. Misunderstood statement.

Yes. I edited my post above and added those of two different religion. If we were talking of this several years ago....I would probably say I can compromise with someone who don't believe in the same God and doctrine that I do....or even with an Agnostic or Atheist. I would've adapted a "to-each-his- own" attitude in the marriage. But now, I cannot compromise at all. In fact, religious belief will be my top priority - the deciding factor - whether there would even be a second date at all. It's practicality...relationships even with two compatible individuals needs constant working in order to survive, so why make it any tougher?

I agree with you about the huge difference that would make it impossible for the relationship to last. Mind you, I'm thinking about union between a religious person who really takes the teachings of his/her religion seriously and an Atheist. Also the same in the union of two religious individuals from two vastly different religions.

Well I got 15 out of 15. I answered "Moses" on the Exodus question. It is an interesting article. Btw, did they say what age groups were surveyed? As for the result of the survey....how many Americans can answer "basic" questions about USA? Or Canadians about Canada? Some people, especially those who are "seeking for the true religion" will tend to question and read more. Furthermore, it seems that to many people who believe in God or in a god, just their personal belief in God or in a god suffice. I"ve heard of this said a lot of times: "Whatever belief, it's all one and the same God."

Funds available will determine I guess which is more viable. If it's an end-of-days-scenario (as Wyly envisions)....I guess it will be every country for herself (or every allies grouped together for themselves to weather it).

We don't wait for the worst case scenario. Don't waste time and money trying to reverse something most likely irreversible. Preparation for adaptation....encouraging other countries to prepare as best as they could is a definite must. Large part of foreign aid must be directed to this preparation. How can the first world accomodate to adopt an entire nations affected by global warming? This reality must be made clear to every country. Worst case scenario will have us not fully prepared to deal with GW through lack of time....lack of proper planning (boondagles and trial/error)....maybe lack of funds.

Coupons,make-up, haircuts....what I'd say average women can relate to. Lures. Bait. Enticements. Incentives. That's why I likened Hirsi Ali's suggestion to businesses competing for a specific target market.

Well what can I say...that's what popped into mind. Mind you think of the newly-arrived immigrant Muslim woman.....feminists coming on too strongly right off bat with the "I-am-woman-hear-me-roar" message, the poor woman will most probably get a massive shock! Melanie, how did Communist recruiters go about enticing college/university students and got them to listen to their ideologies? There is a way....a method...and recruiters I bet go through training on how to go about it. Well the government don't have to help out any religion then in this endeavor, if that will cause too much a problem. Actually, from what I hear there is already a gungho group of Christian youth going about the multi-cultural communities of Toronto spreading the Word. From the smile on the Pastor's face when he informed the congregation of this....looks like it's getting some traction. I don't know though if these communities include Muslim communities. But surely you've got no objection to the government helping out the feminist group....or the humanitarians....in this scenario?? How are we discarding individual choice? Freedom of religion? You keep bringing that up....please explain why you say that? How? I don't see it. That's what I think of democracy too. Each individual is equal to everyone else, and has the same opportunities, rights and freedoms as every other citizen of this country. So again, please explain why you think Hirsi Ali's suggestion will knock those down. How? In an ideal world....yes. But reality these days prove that any special interest group with a powerful lobby group can actually think for you and make the choices for you....what they deem is right or healthy or safe for you.