Saturn

No actually, there isn't a legitimate controversy. There is mumbling from the uninformed who simply want to ignore the problem, and therefore, just assume that there is no problem. The example is misleading, eh? What exactly is misleading in stating that if you dump more GHGs in the atmosphere than can be removed by sinks and other natural processes, then the level of GHGs will go up? Coincidentally, we've been digging up carbons out the earth and putting them into the atmosphere and since they cannot find their way back into the earth at the same rate, their level in the atmosphere is going up. Is that too complex for you to comprehend or do you believe in alchemy and that CO2 will turn into silver up there? Well, that's very interesting but completely irrelevant. Also completely irrelevant. Were you trying to make a point here or did you just throw this in to make your post longer? Are you trying to imply that you can safely increase your salt intake to 30% of your daily food intake or something?

from Saturn's link. haha Haha, you are too dumb to understand that the actual pH doesn't matter. What matters is that the pH is changing and that many sea creatures will not be able to handle that change. Haha, I'm sure that's too complex a thought for you to comprehend.

Yet this shows that many right-wingers don't have the brains to understand such a simple example. If they cannot understand that salt can accumulate in a bucket of water, it's no wonder that they cannot comprehend that GHGs can accumulate in the atmosphere. Well, we don't want to overwhelm you with complexity. We realize that we have to start very, very simple for you to understand but I guess I overestimated your abilities. What you understand is incorrect (again) - the ozone layer has stopped thinning out since the ban on CFCs came into place but there isn't much of a recovery yet.

Basically, this shows that you don't know what the % sign means. How did you get a high-school diploma? It's your fault and the fault of other xenophobes who treat immigrants like a disease. They choose to date outside of their culture...blah, blah. What? You expect them to want to date KKK members?

but that is simply NOT a fact. Enjoy the Looney Tunes.

Now I see that there are no aquarists in the house. If there were any, they would know that one very common way to reduce the pH in your aquariums is to inject CO2 into the tank (equipment for that purpose can be purchased at any aquatic store). CO2 is the cause of very low pH levels in soft drinks for example. Here is a bit of educational material on the effects of increased acidity on fish. What is also interesting is that the oceans are a type of carbon sink - CO2 from the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans lowering the pH of ocean water. In fact, the pH of pure water left in the open will drop to pH of 5.7 due to CO2 exchange with air. For those who were earlier concerned about the oceans, here is a bit on how increased CO2 levels are causing acidification of the oceans.

The original post was not meant to be interesting, what's interesting is the responses it has received, demonstrating that people will ignore obvious facts (that the concentration of substance X in a system will increase if the amount of X is added to the system exceeds the amount of X that is removed from the system) when those facts contradict their beliefs. Here is a simple experiment for those individuals: A simple experiment: 1) Take a 3 gallon bucket and fill it with tap water. 2) Add 5 tablespoons of salt and stir until disolved. Taste the water and record how salty it is on a scale from 1 to 10. 3) After 15 minutes, remove 1 gallon of water from the bucket and then add 1 gallon of tap water to the bucket. Repeat steps 2) and 3) 10 times. 4) Make a conclusion on whether the water is saltier than at the beginning of the experiment, less salty, or salinity doesn't change and why. 5) Compare your conclusion to the following: A. The water is saltier because you added more salt than you removed at each repeat of the cycle. B. The water is saltier but your actions had nothing to do with it. C. Da water is salter cuz da immigrants done it. D. The water is not saltier. Any claims that it's salter should be attributed to left-wing lunatics. E. The water is not salter because the invisible hand kept salinity constant. F. The water is not salter. Don't know why. If you answered A, you've confirmed the above mentioned fact and you pass the test. If you answered B, C, D, or E, read the Looney Tunes and then seek professional help because you have much bigger problems on you hands (or in you head) than global warming. If you answered F, repeat the experiment.

Nice try to divert the discussion to splitting hairs and avoiding the real issues. The reality is that the Afghan mission is failing just as the Iraq mission. There are 2 real options: 1) Expend far more resources and do what's required to finish the job. 2) Pull out and stop taking casualties and wasting resources for nothing. Of course, the Conservatives, Republicans, etc. are going for the unrealistic wasteful approach somewhere in the middle: Do a third of what's necessary to do the job; consequently, achieve nothing while taking unnecessary casualties and wasting resources. In the future, the Conservatives, Republicans etc. should refrain themselves to smaller targets, such as Serbia, where they can both satisfy the military and weapons industries and avoid casualties and excessive spending.

I don't know. The Americans are paying too much for beef and softwood lumber, so why are they doing it?

Imagine the following scenario: Mankind starts disposing of 1 million pounds of salt daily into the ocean (salt is a byproduct of many industrial processes). As economies grow the amount of salt dumped into the ocean doubles roughly every decade. Lo and behold, 100 years later it becomes clear that the salinity of ocean water has gone up by 30%. As a result, a third of ocean species have gone extinct and another 50% are projected to go extinct by the end of the century. The fishing and related industries are in turmoil. In addition, the salt threatens to make it into the fresh water supply, thus endangering the world's food supply, peace and many other industries (in addition to farming and fishing). Some argue that the disposal of salt into the ocean must be halted, others argue that disposing of salt in more environmentally friendly ways would be too expensive. Who do you support? A. The majority of the world's scientists who argue that the salinity of the oceans will continue to rise as a result of human activity and if the problem in not adequately addressed, it has the potential to spiral out of control devastating much of the world's economy. B. The salt dumping industries and a small contingent of scientists who claim that the salinity of ocean water is going up entirely due to natural causes and that disposing of salt in other manners would be too costly and will far outweigh any future costs of not addressing the problem. If you answered A, read here and here. If you answered B, read here and here. If after reading you still would answer B read here.

They do live in mud and stick huts and die early but instead of worshiping the sun god they've gone to worshiping our fire water.

Uhhh, strange interpretation. They passed what they could given the limits of a minority government. Enough bullshit RB. They implemented only 30 of their 52 promised accountability measures and a watered down versions of them at that, despite the fact that the opposition pushed them to implement more of the promised measures. "They passed what they could given the limits of a minority government" is a bullshit excuse. The CPC intentionally dropped half their promised measures because it's their turn to abuse the system after all. http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/ethicdir.html

Well, you have to pay for all the military equipment and the universal child handout, no? VAT are inefficient but increase the number of tax credits and watch out - that's even worse. What's this $1000 work credit anyway? All I can see is the Canada Employment Amount that's the lower of $250 and employment income.

True, had we left the natives alone to enjoy the Americas, they probably wouldn't have faced all these problems.

My top priorities are: 1) Environment (because it will become the Achilles heel the economy, global stability, and quality of life) - throw out the oil industry's representatives from the White House and 24 Sussex, - implement stricter laws on all forms of pollution and actually enforce them, - implement Kyoto and go beyond, - implement strict regulations and strive for energy efficiency + graduated increases in energy taxes 2) Education (because high-skilled labour is our only advantage over developing countries and we shouldn't let them surpass us) - invest in all levels of education by redirecting funds from wasteful benefit programs such as the OAS, UCCB, and wasteful shopping sprees by the military 3) Strengthen Canada politically and economically (because running 13 parallel systems is inefficient) - give the federal government more control and the provinces less control - remove professional and other barriers to movement of labour across the provinces - centralize programs such as health-care and education for gains in efficiency (larger scale of operations and eliminating duplication) 4) Health Care (because it is the largest drain on the economy and will only get worse) - give more control of the system to government and less to the medical associations - increase the number of doctors and nurses by raising additional funds though taxes and low user fees (which will also provide disincentive to go to the doctor for a runny nose) - apply stricter controls on the cost of medications - centralize the system for larger scale of operations, elimination of duplication and minimization of administrative costs and for removing barriers to movement of medical workers - keep private providers, private insurance and other leeches down to a minimum 5) Debt (because it will be a huge drag in addition to the costs associated with a large number of retirees) - just pay the damned federal and provincial debt down instead of cutting taxes further and further below the rates of neighbouring provinces and states 6) Infrastructure (because it is essential for a healthy economy) - invest in infrastructure as the $93 billion infrastructure deficit is growing and will eventually become a major drain on the economy

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...cfc8da2&k=75000

ROFLMHO!

I don't think they have an issue on their hands as the helicopters will likely be delivered after they leave office and any problems will show up years after that. This is the sort of purchase that a government cannot be held responsible for. Just one more reason why you'd want to consider a lot of bids - to make it clear that you are not handing the contract to a friendly company (unless that's what you are doing) as you cannot be held responsible for the purchase.

That article doesn't mention direct action's by Harper with regards to getting the aircraft, it was more about civilian oversight than anything else. Are you suggesting here that Harper or O'Connor would publicly state that the military has to buy those helicopters because they want the $3 billion to go to a conservative friendly supplier? You're nuts. The fact that there are many helicopters which can be used for search and rescue, that the specifications have been written so that only one model can possibly satisfy them, and that they did not allow any other company to bid (these things are made to order, they don't just sit in a warehouse waiting for a buyer), is a clear indication that they are handing out a contract to whoever they want, not giving a contract to whoever can deliver the best product for the best price.

Agreed. I would actually expect any marginally responsible employers to look at the actual costs of hiring male and female employees, instead of jumping to conclusions. I haven't seen any studies that have shown that hiring women costs roughly 20% more than hiring men and that it is reasonable to pay women roughly 20% less. I would also expect them to consider the shit they can get themselves into when word gets around and employees find out that they've been getting less for the same work based on gender and perceptions. WarMart certainly got into a lot of shit there. From what I've seen the wage gap between men and women is still quite large even the education, experience (which would reflect pregnancies), age, work responsibilities, etc. are controlled for. Do you have any studies that show the opposite?

Well, he didn't talk about what he will do but he apparently had a lot of time and interest in discussing what the Liberals didn't do. That's always a good sign

Or they can accept, as in most wealthy arab countries, that god gave all wealth to few individuals who can hoard it and run the show dictatorially, while a third of their citizens are iliterate and starve. After all the sheik needs 333 red ferraris and the commoners don't need more than a piece of bread to survive.

People use "economic thought" all the time but many forget that the conclusions this "economic thought" will lead to are only as valid as the information the thought it based on. If you grossly underestimate your chances of having a heart attack and using "economic" thought you decide to run for the bus, you may very well have a heart attack. Nothing wrong with the "economic" thought, just your info on your chances of having a heart attack was bad. People have a simple cognitive bias which leads them to underestimate risks and to expect a better outcome than they should. Everyone would prefer to dismiss global warming as a problem that will occur at some very distant point in time, and if it's not so distant then it doesn't exist, and if it exists, then it's not caused by humans and we can't do anything about it, and if it is caused by humans and we can do something about it then it's not worth our time and money because it won't be nearly as bad as projections show. If you convince people that the costs of addressing the problem will exceed the costs of not addressing it, they will choose to not address it. Nothing wrong with "economic thought", just their info is bad.

I don't want to disappoint you but your great ideas have been thought up long ago. Those are called emissions trading systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading