Michael Hardner

Allied with us doesn't equal good, that is true, but I do think it's preferable to have allies rather than explicit enemies. One would assume, for example, that allies attack us less often. And seriously, if they're on the same economic grid as us moving forward, then there's an interdependence there that can be used as a basis for negotiation.

They will never be able to prove causation, in my opinion. They will only ever have models, which is obvious. I mean, you can't create a planet-sized atmosphere to experiment with right ? Now, for the current models, they have isolated major factors and established correlation coefficients that have a broad consensus of support. So, it can't get much better. What can get better ? To answer your question directly: Yes, understanding of how these things work can always get better, and the general population can and probably will buy into the models more as time goes on.

Mr. Canada, why do you keep listing details of explicit sex acts you hope to videotape ? I don't understand why that's necessary.

This has been done as much as it will ever be done, IMO. If you don't believe in correlation coefficients and statistical processes, proxies, then you won't believe the models - but then again you will never believe them.

As I have posted over and over, these things have been taken into account in the models. It's not a mystery as to what effects these factors have - there is a consensus too.

Perhaps, but it's not a stated goal and therefore it is deceptive to say that a movement was founded on a principle that wasn't stated in the foundational documents. It's like telling someone who doesn't know better that the US was founded on making the rich richer. It may be your opinion, but stating it that way may lead the uniformed to misunderstand what was in fact intended. This is important.

Does it work ? I see no sweeping arrows. Where is it exactly ? Ok - I DO see it now - but the arrow is to the LEFT of the name for me. Maybe because I'm a leftist ha ha.

I missed it. I thought you just meant 'out in the open'...

Not even. Here's a scene that happened to me in about 2002. I'm on the patio of the Cloak and Dagger with a kind-of-obnoxious arts hanger-on. He's got a loud voice, a loud Tahiti-style shirt and is talking loudly. I'm having a cigarette. We both have beers. As he talks I look past him to see two cops walking towards us. This is an usual sight, since Toronto cops walking the beat is something we haven't seen in many a decade. Simultaneous to this, buddy takes out a large marijuana cigarette and goes to light it. Ahem, I say, and motion eastwards down College Street. He casually looks back over his shoulder to see the cops not ten feet away, walking straight for us and talking as they go. "It's ok", he says, "I'm a lawyer"... AND LIGHTS IT AS THEY PASS !

Yes, this street urchin pal of mine explained it to me: the police only use it as a means to arrest someone they don't like, when they don't have anything else to charge them with.

You have said this before, but you're taking out some economic factors in the low wage earner: They're consuming goods, providing a domestic market for goods and services and they're making money for whomever is paying them the low wage, as well as providing services at a cheaper rate.

Hey jbg - that's not really a study. I linked to a real study earlier in the thread that correlated CO2 and radioactive forcing to temperature, computing correlation coefficients and so on...

I don't agree with your definition. Value systems aren't even necessarily similar from person to person in a country. What is similar is the fabric of your day-to-day living - the colour, the backdrop of life. Perhaps, but after 6 months of kindergarten they're already more Canadianized than their parents. And by the time they're in their mid-20s, they enter the workforce - where I meet them, and eventually enjoy a beer with them at the completion of a successful project. That is culture.

Culture is no longer nationally based. That's an old idea now, and an expensive one to resurrect if you want to go that way. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by Canadian culture but I have more in common with a 2nd generation South Asian born here than a British national who has just arrived.

They considered it, but they were at war with other tribes and some thought that these newcomers could somehow help them. As I've posted elsewhere, I'm reading about the era of Andrew Jackson and the early years of parity with the native tribes were quite interesting. There was more equality at play than one would think.

World population is increasing at a decreasing rate. This means that world population will start to level off and eventually drop. That said, we're still feeding more people than ever, and the percentage of those who do without continues to fall. You should be optimistic.

Why would we do this ? Do we want to perform social engineering, and expensive social engineering at that - to do things like dissuade women from working ? If we don't like immigrants around, how much are we willing to give up economically to have less of them ? There are some strange values at play when conservative type people (sorry to pigeonhole you, A, but that's how I see it) start asking for social programs and higher taxes...

I was a recruiter for awhile, and was amazed that most Chinese people thought that they spoke English well enough to get hired, but they didn't. I couldn't figure out why, but my guess was that China represented a huge monoculture and they simply didn't have experience with learning about other cultures and their attendant languages.

That depends on what you mean by "scientists". A study in Science in 2004 found no papers that dissented from the consensus view from 1993-2003. There are several prominent and vocal skeptics, who should indeed be listened to but they are a handful and they haven't (to my knowledge) dismissed the effects of CO2 but rather provided other hypothesis for warming, or have projected cooling temperature in the future. As such, both you and the pro-AGW types on this thread are on either side of the truth. There is some skepticism in the scientific community, there is widespread skepticism in the public (due to poor media coverage of this, IMO), and there is also consensus.

When they create a correlation, that's exactly what they do - they figure out how much of a driver it is. That's what a correlation does.

But are were you allied with those allied boobs ?

Another example: the cops apparently looked the other way at the drinking at the olympic celebration two Sundays past. They will look the other way in the spirit of the thing, I'm sure.

And the Conservatives continue what the Liberals have been doing for years. Why do you think that is ? The answer is that we ourselves are not replacing our population, and aren't growing our domestic market. Come up with a better idea: maybe a planned economy that is administered by a politburo at the head of a large unelected congress for example.

Really, though, it does. Bettman is still looking to the biggest growth market: Americans.

Mainframes, like buildings, come in a variety of sizes. In 1985, as a student, I worked on one that took up a whole room. Predicting the future is a tricky game, but this Google exec is a little to excited about his own product offerings to be trustworthy I think. I, for one, will never use a cellphone to do my work. My father will never use the internet to do banking, no matter how whiz-bang the technology becomes. I still have my first DOS computer, and I will take it out if I have to.