noahbody

Usually all I think about is whether my toilet is going to barack up.

Does he know there aren't any munchies allowed during Question Period?

No, it's just that you're analogy is over simplistic. In a controlled environment you should be able to predict when water would overflow onto the floor. That's assuming all your data is correct. If the water is draining faster than expected similarly to the study that suggests CO2 is escaping six times faster than expected, that will affect the accuracy of the predictions. I just mentioned the tub being outside, because it would be much more difficult to model. You'd have to take into account everything from evaporation to rainfall to thirsty critters. Models are only as good as their data. This is a big problem with AGW modelling. They don't understand enough to model it accurately.

What difference does it make if it can be identified?

Is this bathtub in a lab or outside? Regardless, if the water level begins to drop, or if there's a study suggesting water is draining out faster than previously thought, it might be a good idea to hold off on that new flooring. I'm sure you'll agree.

No it doesn't.

So if a lead author for the IPCC says it's cooling, is it because he's been reading this handbook? Why didn't a leading modeller not see this coming?

The 0.28% refers to manmade CO2. Does it make sense? I guess it depends on how it is used. If it's used to challenge the narrow focus of the those who are defining the problem it does give reason to debate. It also should be used to help determine any course. I mean, how much impact can humans realistically have on this 0.28%? How about Canada? Aside from feeling warm and fuzzy inside, what are we going to accomplish? I agree it shouldn't be eliminated from the equation, but it shouldn't be singled out. The earth doesn't distinguish manmade CO2 from natural CO2. Could technology be developed to convert or capture emissions from volcanoes? Possibly. Will we ever have that discussion? No. Nature is never the bad guy.

Just wondering what people think about this? My view is that Canada abided by the law at the time and he has no right to compensation. Further to that, we need to be able to deport non-citizens that don't hold Canadian values promptly. If you're associated with al Qaeda, you're on the next flight. If you're Jackie Tran, you're on the next flight. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091014/...oui_certificate

At least you acknowledge water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Do you believe taking the position that 0.28% of greenhouse gases (which is only one of the many factors involved) is, without question, driving recent climate change and this should not be considered debatable? And the models should be considered reliable even though, with global temperatures decreasing, they have proven themselves to be inaccurate? Should the recent peer-reviewed study that states CO2 escapes the atmosphere six times more than previously though not be a main topic of discussion? Because if it is indeed true, then then everything has been exaggerated six fold. One hundred years is 600 years and that is time for debate. As Canada's economy and services such as health care to a great extent rely on natural resources, we need to avoid knee jerk reactions. Unless you want your grandchildren living in a third world country. "Don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" should apply.

That's actually what people think of when they hear the word "torture." If you want to evoke sympathy say you were tortured. People will think the worst. It's like calling a spanking child abuse. When you think of child abuse, you think of a beating. At most, a term like 'inappropriate' or 'mistreated' should be used. Just not torture. Save that for people with taserticles. I think Ignatieff's comments on keeping sleep deprivation separate from torture were bang on. He believed (in 2004 anyways) that it sleep deprivation could be considered acceptable.

Actually, I'm going to side with Dobbin on this one (assuming he's going to criticize it). I can't imagine how any communications department could be this stupid. How could you not see that it's going to generate negative press? I'd like to know whose decision it was to include the links. They're either a moron or a brilliant liberal saboteur.

Obviously no party logo should end up on a cheque, but, regarding signatures, someone should point out to Andrew Coyne that this is a novelty cheque. Has he checked whether Chretien's or Martin's name ever appeared on a cheque? I really could care less. Maybe MPs should no longer be allowed to pose for photos either. What I really don't get is why the Liberals would try to make this out to be more than it is. The logo got on there because someone was incompetent. That was positive press for the Liberals. However, when they try to paint this as corruption all they do is remind people of Sponsorship.

You really don't need much of a scientific background to point out that no model predicted the Earth was going to cool. Still certain scientists want you to have faith that warming will resume. Should science be about faith?

Apparently not.

These days, if you don't tuck a prisoner in at night, it's considered torture.

The only sensible plan tabled so far was the original Clean Air Act. It focused on real environmental problems and had measures of precaution regarding the CO2 theory. I've likened spending since the rejection of that plan to a parent who's cautioned their child about buying a crappy toy with their allowance, to letting them buy it and learn by consequence. I don't support any money going toward carbon capture. I would support Canada spending money on an independent study, because I believe you don't kill your economy for no reason. I do give Harper credit for stopping the kyoto bus and pointing out that if China, India and the US weren't involved they were going nowhere. I'm amazed people criticize him for this. Pointing out the realities to the world is the role we should continue to fulfill, because the world just isn't getting it. But that's not a surprise. Committees and problem-solving aren't compatible. The first step should be reducing the number of participating countries to about five or eight tops. Maybe they'll come to the conclusion that since it's getting colder maybe the science it's settled. At least, the cold should buy time to debate.

So if there were no ice caps, would that not suggest the earth was warmer and that the level of greenhouse gases was far greater than it is today (this because the level of water vapor which accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect would have been greater)?

Is that the next hidden agenda theme the Liberals are going to push?

That's a misnomer. Crime rates have dropped because the aging of our population. Is crime going away? No. In fact, violent youth crime is on the rise. He was right. I'm amazed people who believe in rehabilitation are complaining about this. Isn't rehabilitation about learning? Should our schools get rid of tests and graduate everyone after 12 years, not caring if they can read or write? Before we started discounting sentences was our correctional system not Canadian? Put the American boogie man away. What do you think of the strict gun laws of New York state? Any opinion?

So you're arguing the models are correct because it is impossible to accurately predict climate? LOL.

It's completely understandable and predictable that you would want to attribute any controversial claim made by those who don't believe in AGW as voices from oil companies. You're echoing the voice of your church. "Don't believe them, the Devil is behind them." In the past week, something remarkable happened. Someone from the church came out and admitted it's getting colder. What does that tell you? Those voices you were supposed to dismiss were right. How can that be? Aren't they all funded by evil? 100% of scientists should agree that the models didn't predict this, because they didn't. What does that say to you about the models' reliability? Do you still have faith in them? Remarkably, we know the devil isn't behind this statement because he says that global warming should resume in the future though it might take 15 or 20 years. This is based purely on faith and hope. No model will tell you when Jesus is going to return. it's been over 2000 years, but he's coming.

Previous estimates were somewhere between 10 and 20 billion.

You misread my post. My point is that if the NHL puts a team in Quebec city, they'd owe Molson compensation.

I would really like to hear Bettman's argument why the NHL wouldn't have to pay Molson a $150 million fee for infringing on their market.