stevoh

You act as if money is the only possible motivator for good service. Many of those in the medical profession find curing the sick and saving lives a different more meaningful reward. The problem with that is that it is in their best interest to find a way out of paying a claim. Less claims paid = more profit. The primary goal has to be patient care, as soon as it is secondary, there are financial and other factors that will influence the ability of paying policy holders to get treatment. Hospitals should not be a business.

If everyone has the potential to benefit, at some point in their lives, from the health care, then it is hardly a demand. That makes no sense either, who would determine who is strong and healthy "enough". Who would determine who is too old or too weak "not to qualify". Too much potential for abuse. We treat the sick, period. Choices around who is and isn't treated should reside with the families, and with medical professionals, never with government or private interests. Any health care system should always be in the process of efficiency analysis and improvement, so that the dollars can be spent on better and better care. A private health care insurance firm simply redistributes funds, from the healthy to the sick. The problem with private health care is the primary focus on profit over patient care. Patient care should always come first, and no company should EVER benefit from the denial of necessary treatment.

I agree with the concept, but universal health care has to pay for itself somehow, how would we fund this system?

Why is the assumption made that using resources other than non-renewable ones will somehow lead to a global meltdown in the economy? I mean, certainly, oil and gas companies will scream and whine as their business is whittled away, but isn't that business simply being directed elsewhere? When we use oil we: 1. Search for the most likely area to contain oil, and test. 2. Set up infastructure to pump, refine and transport it. 3. Deliver it to the customer. When we use solar energy we: 1. Search for the most likely area to have the strongest most consistent sunlight, and test. 2. Set up the infastracture (solar arrays) to collect and transport it. 3. Deliver it to the customer. Really, isn't using non-polluting (or less polluting) renewable resources just mean that someone ELSE, besides existing oil companies, still all working people, are getting money? Its not like we don't need power or transportation any more, its just that we will be getting it from different sources. Why is it that the jobs created by oil and gas are somehow more valuable than the jobs created by utilizing other energy sources?

Of course the climate has changed before. From absolutely freaking cold to tropical in the arctic. Weather has a lot of reasons for changing, many of which are used as counter points to global warming being caused by CO2 concentrations, like solar flares, other greenhouses gases, you name it. Just because the earth has cooled and warmed before, doesn't mean our influence won't have an effect now. If a comet hit earth and released enough contaminants in the atmosphere to change our weather, or if man released the same amount of contaminants over time, what difference does it make? A cause and effect can occur regardless of the source of the change. Myself, I am about 80% sure that CO2 is causing some kind of change. But, the way I look at it, even if it turns out that CO2 isn't making the climate change, I still see making better use of our resources, going away from using non renewable energy, and not changing the composition of our atmosphere as a good thing. In other words, if even global warming is a bunch of garbage, ending up with a cleaner planet, less polution, and people using our resources more efficiently is still a positive result.

I would think that you'd want to rephrase this statement, since it blows an enormous hole in the hull of your argument. Still can't answer the question eh?

Well, if it is, and that's very much up for debate, it begs for the question of why CO2 concentration was higher before 600,000 years ago? The CO2 concentrations up for debate thing is untrue. It is a proven fact. The debate mostly centers around the EFFECT of increasing CO2, does it cause global warming, or is current global warming unrelated? The concentration of CO2 before 600 000 years ago was not necessarily higher, thats just how far back the ice core samples go. While there are times in earths history that the concentration was higher than today, the climate itself was also very different, something we are trying to avoid if we can help it. So, instead of answering a question with another question, answer it. Where has that additional CO2 come from in the last 100 years, if not man? What event has occured in the last 100 years that has not occured in the prior 600 000 to cause this increase?

I am not talking temperature, I am talking CO2 concentration. Why is it higher, and why is it increasing faster, than any other time in the last 600 000 years?

As in, suffering = dollars. If thats the only factor we take into account, then we will all experience another kind of suffering. The ice core samples show that CO2 concentrations have increased greatly in the last 100 years, at a much faster pace than in the last 600 000. Depending on the source, it ranges between 25 and 60%. Even in many articles critical of the causal effect of increasing C02 concentrations, they agree with this basic fact. The effect is in "debate", but that raw fact, CO2 concentrations are increasing at record pace, isn't. Two simple questions based on this fact: 1. If man isn't causing the increase, what has occured over the last 100 years that hasn't occured in the last 600 000 that is? 2. If man is causing the increase, but we can't be sure of the effect, should we ignore it until we can? We can bicker over kyoto and other agreements all you like, but if their effect is an increased use of renewable resources, less man made change to the atmosphere, and more efficient use of current resources, I am all for it.

One of the issues so many people seem to have with global warming science, is that they simply can't handle the uncertainty. They want absolute proof, not models, not trends, but absolute cause and effect science. The problem is, once we get to that point, significant damage may have already been done, and changes may have occured that are not easily reversable. We do know that carbon in the atmosphere has gone up 50% over the last 100 years. There does not appear to be any other cause other than human to explain this increase. What other natural activities have occured in the last 100 years that did not occur in the last 600 000 that would have produced this sudden increase in carbon concentrations? Luckily the dynamic nature of both capitalism and politics is already beginning to make a difference. Can you believe the conservative government has a "green" platform? Consumer choice is also making a difference. While some endlessly argue and wait for absolution, others with more vision can see the dangers and are taking action.

Wouldn't the government therefore have a vested interest in increasing tobacco sales? I don't see any evidence of them attempting to lure new smokers into the fold in order to increase their revenue. The effect of a carbon tax, even if we completely ignore how the revenue is spent, is also positive. It increases the cost of one specific source of energy. This means that other energy sources become relatively cheaper, more competative. Right now, the money invested in a hybrid car is done for political or social reasons, you won't end up saving significant funds at the pump due to the high initial investment. However, as gas prices go up, the investment starts to make monitary, as well as political and/or social sense.

I know, since we can't be "sure" that changing the composition of the atmosphere, the air we breath, is having an effect on the climate, let's do nothing!

I certainly don't deny that climate change has been a part of earths history since earth was first formed, that is fact. The question is the degree to which human activities are effecting it. One often quoted site to refute our influence is junkscience, a handy chart of CO2 levels and corresponding temperatures is provided: http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif While I am not going to spend the time to research this charts accuracy, one thing really stuck out to me. If you look at the chart, between 430 and 425 million years ago there was a big shift in temperature, about 10 degrees down. But this was over 5 million years! According to the current science, since 1920, our average temperatures have risen globally .6 degrees centegrade. At that rate, in 5 million years, the temperature on earth will be a toasty 30 000 degrees centigrade. So, no, there is no dispute that the world goes through climate change periods. However, it is the current RATE OF CHANGE that is cause for alarm.

Yes, those darn scientists, can't be trusted. Never mind all the advances in technology, drugs, health care, transportation, etc, that they come up with that we use every day, the minute we get to anything surrounding climate, they are to be doubted and second guessed at every second.

On the ozone layer (from wikipedia) The ozone layer depletion slowing is an example of science and environmentalism working.

Its just as daft to ignore the increasing concentration and assume it will have no effect. Equivalent to sticking ones fingers in the ears and shouting "La la la". Why is it that the same science people so easily dismiss surrounding global warming is then used to prove that there is no correlation between CO2 and warming? "I believe this chart that shows an 800 year lag, but I don't believe this chart that shows a correlation". A bit too convenient really. Sounds like you are seeking the science that supports your bias, over seeking the truth. I know from history that simply increasing the concentration of certain elements in the atmosphere can have a detrimental effect. Once assumed "safe" concentrations of mercury, lead, CFCs etc have been proven to be quite otherwise. How many times do we have to learn this same lesson before someone finally figures it out!

So increasing the concentration without understanding what the effects are is fine? Its one thing to say that temperature and CO2 concentration are not related. Quite another to say, no matter what concentration of CO2 is in the atmosphere, there will be no detrimental effects.

Whew! What a relief! The last time the planet had a large concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere, there was a mass extinction! I feel better already. We can't be sure what the effect is. Sure, I'll buy that. But we also know that at historic concentrations, like the last million years or so, humans can thrive. Why would we turn a blind eye to the effects of changing that concentration?

It may be hard to imagine, but that's hardly a scientific analysis. It was hard to imagine millions of passenger pigeons being wiped out when the sky used to be black with them, but we pulled it off. Its hard to imagine that almost undectable amounts of mercury in the atmosphere can have a detrimental effect, but it does. We know that the CO2 levels in our atmosphere have gone up from 200 ppm to 320 ppm in the last 100 years, a higher concentration than has existed for the last 400 000 to 600 000 years. I have yet to hear another explanation for this increase in concentration that makes sense. The human influence is the only one that can explain the increase in the last 100 years. I don't need to understand the science in detail to know that increasing the concentration of one of the elements in the atmosphere without regard to its effect is a bad idea. If we endlessly bicker about its effects while doing nothing, then once the effects are known and proven, it may be too late to reverse them. Yes, Canada is not responsible for the majority of the worlds pollution. But, same as the excuses you see here, the countries that are responsible for the majority of pollution are claiming that the effects are not proven, and that the financial cost of moderation is too high. Dion is claiming that he can demonstrate that we will have a vibrant and viable economy even with the focus on emmissions reduction. He is claiming that not only can Canada reduce their emission contribution, but also that Canada can demonstrate the economic feasibility of doing so.

from: U.S. Geological Survey http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

We do know for a fact that in the last 100 years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from around 200 ppm to 320 ppm. We also know through ice core samples, that this concentration of CO2 has not existed in the atmosphere for at least the last 400 000 to 600 000 years. So, if we are such a minor contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere, where has all that extra CO2 suddenly come from?

Addressing the point about hybrid car batteries being bad for the environment:

Speaking as a left winger, I generally associate "crime reduction" with multiple solutions. I have no problem funding police forces where it is needed, but I also agree with funding drug rehabilitation programs, after school activities for teenagers, and a plethora of other tactics used to prevent the crime before it starts. I think that punishment gets to a point where increasing the punishment is no longer effective. Most of the crimes that occur are petty impetuous crimes based on opportunity, not planned out crimes where the consequences of the crime are carefully considered. A criminal performing an illegal act also believes they will get away with it (in most cases), so the level of the punishment is again not necessarily an effective deterent, since it will never be applied. I know its a generalization, but it does seem like the typical right wing approach to raising crime rates is more police, harsher sentences. I prefer an approach that focusses on what happens to make the criminal before the crime is committed, AS WELL as catching them after the fact.

Thats kind of a non-answer. Depending on the ice core samples used, some indicate that the CO2 concentrations have not been this high for almost 800 000 years. None show that it has. Its not that something changed 400 000 years ago, its that the ice core samples only go so far back. So I ask again, what has changed in the last 100 years to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere that hasn't occured in the last 400 000? At the current rate, we could be seeing concentrations in the region of 600 to 800 ppm by 2100. Where is this extra CO2 coming from? Why isn't it remaining balanced like it has for the previous hundreds of thousands of years?

The majority of CO2 does come from natural sources, and natural sources also absorb that CO2 in a "carbon balance". That is why CO2 has been increasing after industrialization, we release it, but we don't absorb it back through carbon sinks. Are you suggesting that the increase in CO2 in the last 100 years, from 288 to around 380 ppm has nothing to do with man? Because, according to ice core samples, this concentration has not been seen on earth for at least the last 400 000 years. What else has changed in the last 100 years that has contributed to such an increase in CO2 concentrations?