Michael Hardner

Good question: how long did it takes Einstein's theory to be accepted ? The link between CO2 and temperature has been known for a very long time now. The models have been in the scientific literature for years. You could never get to the point where people on the board would buy into your expertise. It makes more sense, I think, for us to stay up on the literature and discuss the conclusions rather than getting any deeper into it than that.

Ok, if that's what you mean then fine. But from your post, it seemed to me that you expect temperature to go up every year, which simply will not happen even if AGW is exactly correct and the models are spot on. If there is warming, you will still have cold years happening, but they will be contrasted by much warmer years in a general warming trend. Keep in mind we're talking about rises of a few degrees over time. I just wanted to point that out.

I understand that that is your position, and I think that it is the scientists' fault for not attempting to put together some kind of public relations arm to communicate the state of the science to the public. They have relied on the press to convey their findings, which has been a disaster. Climategate, to me, is typical of this. I suspect the emails were hacked by organized opponents of the AGW theory, who wanted to make it look bad. As such, a few badly worded emails leaked: some emails showing the frustration of the scientists dealing with skeptic bloggers and the subsequent sniping. But there was nothing like a smoking gun that one would expect to find if it were truly a coordinated conspiracy. Furthermore, there are large numbers of researchers not involved in this who still have confirmed the findings of AGW. Actually, my position is that Global Warming and Climate Change are two ways of describing the same phenomenon. Picking one way or the other way to say it doesn't say whether humans are causing it or not. So the question is, as they say, moot.

When I become leader, we'll shelve that whole voting thing.

So it's the same thing, but just how you think about it ? I'm ok with that, I suppose. And both are caused by humans, of course.

redacted

What is the difference between the two then ? Are you going to tell us at some point ?

The court has the final say. What does that mean ? We're not sovereign over our own laws ? Why doesn't the World Court overrule dictatorships such as NK then ? Are you talking to TB ? If so, I think you're overstating his influence.

I'm stunned to read this. You went to jail ? What for ? What era was this ? How did you leave the streets ?

I also see that. I see possibilities - for great things, and also for ruin - in everyone. I have known people who went from the bottom to the top, and some who fell down too. In each case it was their fault or their credit, but the ones who fell caused collateral damage all around them when it wasn't necessary. As society gets richer, the bottom line - the lowest level a person can sink to - should go up. It does naturally, anyway, but society should ensure that it does.

I see the argument for that, but I think that having children is a right that the state shouldn't interfere with. Come up with an example, and I'll give you an opinion. For now, it's a theoretical question - which is exciting to Libertarians, I realize - but doesn't help me answer the question. Somewhat. It's also the responsibility of government (in my view, anyway) to maintain the economic engine and make sure that the country is set up for success. The US did this, to great success, in the 20th century as did Canada.

PM of the world, my friend. I think these comments would come back to haunt me in any campaign... Then again, Stephane Dion was a citizen of France when he ran.

The poll makes no sense, whether you believe in GW, AGW, or neither. Please do make one that makes sense if you want people to vote on it.

Can you source the lack of warming over the past ten years please ? "Climate Change" is the updated term, from my understanding, because not all parts of the globe will warm uniformly. Neither term addresses whether human activity is the cause. If I'm not allowed to bring up Glenn Beck in these discussions, as Alta has said, then you shouldn't be allowed to bring in Al Gore. They're both blowhards, IMO.

Ok, well... you still have only TWO options here. What if you believe in neither ?

And their grandchildren, and their grandchildren. It's all natural, you see, as is leaving billions of dollars to your heir to run the economy as you see fit.

Because it makes for a better society, when you don't force children into poverty because of the mistakes of their parents. Our society gives people a better chance that way.

No, I would not. Besides, I see the beauty within. Also, I am a Scorpio who likes long walks on the beach.

There are people born with more advantages than others, and the topic at hand isn't whether we have a system that allows advancement, but whether we should take away the minimum wage and (IMO) allow disparity to increase.

You're talking about a subset of the population here - mainly anti-American left leaning types. They're not you or me, so don't use "we" when talking about them.

Certainly Quebec has no equivalent in the US. Nor does BC or Ontario. Florida has no equivalent in Canada. But, still, they're lands that are basically alike. What other two countries are more similar, excluding things like North/South Korea, Taiwan/China and so on.

You have edified me.

Their families, for example. I think that society has a right to stop people from making foolish decisions that we will have to bail people out of later and we do it all the time. We also do it for fast food workers. See the description of this radio piece: It's definitely a shift in policy to ship jobs overseas and yet onshore at the same time. You can tell that government is getting into it slowly and trying to keep it quiet, and why wouldn't they ? Basically every oil patch worker making big $ in Alberta can be replaced by a foreign national on a 2 year visa working for minimum wage now.

Right. I want to make it easier for those born disadvantaged. That's what I think is fair. Somehow you think it's fair to give more advantages to those born into wealth. I acknowledge that it makes the system more symmetrical, but not better for people IMO.

To protect people from making foolish decisions that they will affect others. We do this with finance (interest rate limits), medicine (make it illegal to make false claims), and other aspects of life too. We already do this, for agriculture as an example.