rover1

Not having strong opinions on the main discussion, I would say that it an interesting one, with good contributions As far as why Mr Harper is forthcoming as to financial matters, and not so much on social matters, perhaps he sees his popularity more linked to the social side, and prefers to go softly in areas where many are said to be frightened about some of his proposed policies. My observation is that Mr Harper is, by far, the best politician in Canada. This doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with him, but is a tribute to his skill.

A friend once said that it was not fitting that humans should know their exact time of death. These calculations put us in no danger of that.

France is under considerably more illegal immigration pressure than Canada will ever be or ever could be for geographical and other reasons. Ditto for Spain.

Bullroar!!!CO2 is 3% of all GHG's. Let's say 2.8% of it was there before the industrial era. Even if we take all of the cars off the road in all countries of the world and revert to cave-man living, do you think it would change one temperature at one (non-urban) location on one day? Forgive me, I meant to say atmospheric GHG's. I think that the 3% CO2 number might be a bit low, though.

Using your logic, I could claim that Al Gore is a saint when it comes to the environment. Al Gore may have used 221,000 kWh per year, but America used about 1,000,000,000,000 kWh per year or about 5 million times what Al Gore used. The problem here, of course, is that Al Gore is one person and America is about 300 million. You might think that Al Gore is a saint, and I might think Al Gore is a sinner, but it doesn't really matter what we think of Al Gore, or Joe Smith. What is important, in my view, is the total amount of emissions, and what they are doing. In the end, it is the total ppm of atmospheric CO2 that is held to influence matters. In this regard, the doings of a country which has an insignificant amount of emissions, no matter what the per capita figures say, can never influence the outcome, so far as science is concerned.

Yes, he is for real. But not as 'for real' as previously.

What? Canadians emit a lot more carbon dioxide than the Chinese. Per capita emissions really are a non sequitur, they simply don't make any difference. They might if all Americans consumed like Al Gore, but they don't. Joe Smith, the Canadian rides a bicycle, and re-cycles everything, and is a vegetarian, but not all Canadians are like him either. Per capita figures might be some sort of teaching device, but it is what is emitted, in total, that counts. The fact is that Canada emits more or less 2% of the world's greenhouse gases, and China, starting this year or next, will be the world's greatest emitter. Whatever Canada does, for good or evil, will make no significant difference as far as greenhouse gases are concerned.

Well, that's a bit simplistic, I think. It has been know since the 1860's that the calories-in, calories-out theory while it may be true in the lab, doesn't function that way in human beings. Briefly, whatever calories go in, are affected with what the body does with the excess. In some cases, what is necessary is used, and the excess is disposed of as heat. In other cases, the necessary is used, and the excess is mostly deposited in fat, with only a small amount disposed of as heat. This balance is probably mostly affected by genetic factors, but also has to do with food composition, the respective amounts of carbohydrates, fat, and protein. All this involves things like pyruvates and their effect on body chemistry in different people. In other words some people can eat like a horse and not gain weight, while others can eat a more or less normal diet, and gain weight, exercise remaining constant. There are a lot of complications, but that is the inconvenient truth.

Actually, I think that strawberries are ok, as are blueberries. Relatively low carb and high fibre.

Leading the pack? Canada is right behind, and negligible difference. Fats arent the problem as I see it. Our parents and Gparents used to eat and cook using quite a high amount of fat. Pure lard was always used in baking, frying etc. The sugars on the other hand were not available to our parents as much. After all the Atkins Diet does work!! These high density fructose preparations are not available in Canada, so far as I know. I agree that they probably play a role in the US however. In so far as fats are concerned, the fats so lavishly consumed by our parents were natural fats, not the partially hydrogenated ones so common now. Trans fats, have already been shown to play a part in heart disease and other maladies, and I guess that they will be shown to be a causative factor in obesity as well.

I hate to break this to you, but pollution and greenhouse gasses are not the same thing. Indeed pollution(sulfate aerosols) protect from global warming, at least according to the IPCC. It is a much more complicated problem that either Mr Gore or many here seem to think. Just what or who caused the problem is a different matter than just what or who might be able to solve the problem, anyway. Kyoto was never intended to solve the problem, but rather to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the leading industrial countries were willing to try in the hopes that the other countries would take heart and put in place the much more severe measures thought necessary to limit the problem. By the way, China is driving the SUV and Canada is driving the Smart Car, when not riding its bicycle.

Well, it's regrettably common that popular campaigns overstate the case. What is wrong, in my view, is that scientists allow to go forward statements which they know, or ought to know, are false or misleading. When asked about this they often say something about good ends justifying the lie. If they wish to do that, let them call themselves 'social philosophers' or similar. Having said that, let me say that my observation is that people in general seem to be a bit 'chunkier' than previously, with Americans leading the pack by some distance. Even in 'poor countries' an increase in weight, and overweight is observed. To a degree we seem to be suffering from affluence, with more food available, and people eating more. My guess is that in the end, trans fatty acids will be found to play a part in this phenomenon as well. Parrot makes some good points.

Econ l/r .88 Social Lib/Auth -1.85 Close to centre

A foolish gesture, a waste of time, in my view.

Euthanised?

Could May win in Central Nova? Not likely, as things now stand, in my view.

This story from Reuters, not widely reported, may have bearing on this topic: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....-AFGHAN-USA.xml

From what I can see, Dion is a pretty good man. Stephen Harper is, however, a very skillful politician, perhaps the most skillful politician in Canada.

We should realise that these studies and reports are published by people who are against GM foods from the start. In spite of the possibility of bias, this is an area which bears watching, and further study, in my view.

I have to agree with sharkman when he mentions personal attacks and accusations. It would be better to show how the proposition is faulty, than to worry about its proposer. I haven't read the Ukrainian statement, and I don't expect that I shall. It is not a subject of especial interest for me.

They are all the same thing, how do you not get that? Well, not really, although this is a widely held misconception. Sulfate aerosols or pollution in common parlance is what is nasty in smog, and actually protects from the greenhouse effect in that it reflects solar radiated heat, and prevents it from getting into the 'greenhouse' to the extent of about- .5 percent degrees of forcing. That is it reduces the amount of warming by about .5 percent or more. In Canada's case, since the total amount of emissions is insignificant on a world scale( around 2% of the world's total), we might as well go ahead and reduce these aerosols as much as we can and thereby relieve the respiratory distress which many, especially asthmatics, suffer. These aerosols are probably not good for the rest of us as well.

Well said!

With all respect, Guthrie, just trying without any chance of result, may be good for the soul, but it doesn't offer any chance of success, indeed it may be just wasting time that could be devoted to other important outcomes. I know that you wish to be helpful, but what you have suggested offers no solution, and is contrary to all the scientific evidence so far produced. I repeat, there is no scientifically accepted fix that will significantly reduce the damage already caused, or avert damage over the next 15 or so years, and there is no politically possible or scientific fix that will stop the increase in greenhouse gases ever. The best hoped for is a stabilisation perhaps around the year 2100. Even the stabilisation and at what level is in question. We would do better to try to improve some of our other environmental problems such as smog and pollution.

this simply is not true -- and the issue is not merely what happens, "in the next 15 to 20 years" certainly, drastic measures are very much needed - and yes, we cannot prevent some damage to human societies - but the real way we must face this issue is not to give up - but to re-double our efforts to do what we can -- and explore the science with the put-a-man-on-the-moon urgency JFK sparked I meant to say in any way known to science today. You are right that some new discoveries might be made. Just what do you propose?

I think that all the arguing about whether or not something bad is happening is beside the point. I for one have believed that it is since at least 2002, but so what. The real question, which is being avoided, is whether or not anything significant can be done about it. The answer is, unfortunately is no, at least in the way that is suggested. To begin with, if all carbon emissions were stopped today, there would be no change in what is happening or about to happen in the next 15 to 20 years. Of course all carbon emissions cannot be stopped today or ever, and the amount of reduction required to halt the process, let alone reverse it are not physically or politically possible in the foreseeable future. Whether or not reductions can effect any significant mitigation in future outcomes is somewhat doubtful, but remains to be seen. Reasonable hope would reside in some sort of new technological discovery, and in adaptation.