noahbody

I don't think Chretien would appreciate you referring to him as a backroom boy.

If the $300K isn't related to AirBus, the reason for the settlement, he won't be asked to give it back.

My personal favourite is that if he gets a majority, he's going to bring back capital punishment, though he's stated he wishes not to open debate. But for the scary, scary crowd, his words can't be trusted. And even if you believe him, a private member's bill could still be introduced. We can't take the chance. Worst case scenario, should this be his hidden agenda the number of people executed before he'd be soundly defeated in an election is 0.

If they were informed the 300k was for future work it wouldn't have made a difference. From here, the only thing they can go Mulroney for is perjury based on his statement he only met Schreiber once or twice for coffee. This could very well be a true statement being based on physical meetings. Misleading most likely, but nothing that's going to get Mulroney prosecuted for perjury. I would assume some committee member will step over the line, Mulroney will launch another lawsuit and the government will hand him another 2 million.

He didn't say he had no memory. He wanted papers to back up his words.

Do you think there's a noose large enough to fit over his head?

Possibly you should take the time to see what free trade has done for the economy and GST has done for finances. Signing ontokyoto when you have no intention following through on your commitments is idiotic. Holy spin batman! I believe Dion was just about to act before the election call. That would be 13 years of inaction. How you can call that statement "total crap" or infer it isn't accurate is beyond me and Ignatieff. "We didn't get it done." So far they've saved between ten and twenty billion in estimated credits that would go to countries for little or no work on the environment. I guess they could invest that here at home on the environment and actually get some results. Signing onto a plan that will not solve the problem and giveaway money that could be used in a domestic plan is in no way responsible.

So that's that then.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7112929.stm Crazy rings a bell.

Basically you've got 50 mice and 3 elephants on an elevator. Together they have to shed 1200lbs. The mice can run around a wheel all they want, shed their ounces and squeak to each other about how much they're doing. But if the elephants don't partake, the elevator isn't moving. And there's nothing the mice can do about it. Let's all get drunk and play ping pong.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...71126/20071126/ I think he means "when you're Canada, you lead by following."

Is there anything stopping Quebec from voluntarily buying credits for being over targets on a provincial basis? I think they should. He likely wrote the letter in French.

So if it's a left/right issue, we can agree that Harper is on the left. I knew it!

This is about lawyers scheming to make money by launching a frivolous suit against the government to take your money. Nothing more. Government policy and rights are separate issues. No constitutional or international laws have been broken. Regardless, the policy change was made after Smith's life was lobbied for unsuccessfully.

Nukes don't kill people. Crazy people kill people.

I believe that request was for further study. It would be nice if all parties took the better safe than sorry approach here too before sending billions to other countries for no reason.

I'll send him a message on Facebook.

I can't speak for him since he's not in my living room, but he might mean that the peer review process can give some scientific theories false validity. If the paper is on CO2 in its role in the dramatic increases in global temperatures since industrialization, there is statistical and circumstantial evidence that can be used to create a convincing argument and get peer approval. Enter the knowledge that the dramatic rise is not an unprecedented event but what appears to be part of a natural pattern and what the peers approved as good science might a theory that requires further study or debate.

Graeme Pearman and others I guess are saying he hasn't paid his dues, so why should we consider what he is saying. Either that or they're in denial. It would be embarrassing if some nobody like Carter came along, looked at the problem a different way and made their accomplished career look like a wild goose chase. Damn him all to hell! This doesn't use the corrected data. I believe Carter has the corrected version in his lecture. You should watch it again. This time with popcorn.

Maybe there is too much CO2 in the air and not enough oxygen.

That's on a map of the U.S.

Is this Harper's hidden agenda?

So in one post you try to attack Bob Carter's credentials, then you provide a link to a rebuttal by someone who goes by themaiden. That's funny. Themaiden seems to want to frame the debate around the validity of computer models. He fails to address the point that the climate pattern we are now seeing is not unprecedented. A spike in global temperature is nothing new. I don't have a problem with reducing emissions and taking a better safe than sorry approach. But do it responsibly. Saying we need drastic cuts by 2012 or it will be deadly and spending trillions on what could very well be an imagined problem is idiotic. If you want to believe in the 2012 or deadly mantra, then you realize without India, China and the US, the world is doomed. And the only one will to stand up and save mankind is Stephen Harper. More than likely the 2012 has more to do with "they're on to us, we'd better get their money while we can."

Faith and science don't mix. Hansen used false data. That's a fact. If you can dispute Carter's data and conclusions based on historical evidence please do so. As far as 'changed the data very insignificantly,' I'd disagree. With the correction "six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere." Also, seven of the hottest 15 years occurred over seven decades. Five before ww2. Four of the hottest years were in the 30s versus 3 in the 90s. All the hysteria was based upon this is climate change we haven't seen in the last 150 years. Unfortunately, even with such a narrow focus, this doesn't appear to be unprecedented. Viewing a broader view of historical data, the case for an unprecedented climate pattern is non-existent. Unless you believe God put that data there like the dinosaurs to test our faith.

You still haven't told me why polar bears don't exist?