Wild Bill

Actually, I think YOU'RE showing your age! There is no population explosion and hasn't been for some time. We actually are having a huge DROP in population, at least in western countries. The demographics are pretty clear. You're right that the more people are educated the more they tend to restrict the size of their families. Even China is riding a surge in population that has already passed its peak. "One Child" laws means a reproduction rate of only .5. Pretty simple math! Russia might look like a ghost town in 20-40 years. France and Greece are running more than 50% immigrants in their population mix. Take a look around your own neighbourhood. Canada has had negative population growth for a few decades, despite trying to compensate with increased immigration. Just talk to your elementary school principal about closings of schools due to lack of kids. We're seeing it now in the kindergarden and early grades. There's the odd exception due to new housing developments but they are more than offset by closings in other geographical areas around cities. Some more primitive countries are still having big families but as they develop that too will change. The only difference between them and us is a few decades. No, this is just another fear from the 70's that never came to pass. We were supposed to run out of oil and gas by 1972 or so and a few years later be buried in an Ice Age. Fortunately, we're SO much smarter today!

Hey, I haven't taken a stand one way or the other on global warming. I just find the evidence to often be more religious and/or political than scientific. Still, even when the boy kept crying wolf that never meant there wasn't a real wolf one day. It just meant it was so damn aggravating listening to the kid whining that it was hard to keep an open mind for when he was actually right! Anyhow, here's a couple of links I found if you're still interested. I kinda like the idea of challenging the assumption that CO2 in the airbubbles in the arctic ice would be pristine and accurate. I can't imagine how a true scientist would not have checked that out in the first place! Unless he was just so excited finding something that seemed to fit his preconceptions that he couldn't be bothered... http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...af-5d9089a5dcb6 http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Arti..._CO2_Record.pdf As for Harper (no need to mention Baird 'cuz anybody in Harper's party is just a ventriloquist's dummy anyway) I don't mind him spending money to reduce our emissions at all! I have no problem with cleaning up some dirt! I just have a problem with giving unaudited foreign aid moneys in the form of emission credits INSTEAD of cleaning up our OWN mess!

Well, it was just that you seemed to single out Americans in general. From some of your other posts it didn't seem you were that much of a fan of theirs. Live and learn, I guess!

Absolutely they should have their own sovereign country! We don't have to give money to another sovereign country. That would be tribute if involuntary and foreign aid if not. If their country was just another sovereign country in the world we would pay them only a percentage of our foreign aid budget, which is FAR less than we give through Indian Affairs! This would also be much better for the Natives! They could establish for themselves the right to property, a right the Indian Act denies them. This means no bank or credit agency in their right mind would loan money to an aboriginal! Under the present system if the aboriginal refuses to repay the loan there is nothing the bank can do! The natives appear to be trapped in some kind of ivory tower academic socialist system that denies them any hope of every being truly self sufficient. I submit that it is impossible to ever become self-sufficient when you depend on the dole of others. The law should be changed!

Your post contained a quote referring to carbon dioxide levels being measured from air bubbles trapped in polar ice. I believe I saw a report refuting this method some months ago. The initial report assumed that the CO2 level in such bubbles would be accurate as to the atmospheric levels of the time because the CO2 could not have migrated, or leaked, out through the ice. Some researcher decided to test that assumption and found that CO2 DOES seep out through the ice! Very slowly, but we're talking thousands of years here. He came up with a number for the rate of "oozing" and when factored in to the reported CO2 levels it would seem that levels thousands of years ago were NOT appreciatively different from that of today! I know that to true believers such challenges to GW claims are wrong, irrelevant or from biased non-objective sources but I thought I'd point this one out. I'll spend some time to see if I can google up the original source later on...

I didn't realize you cared so much for Americans!

Don't take some posts too seriously, Julienne. As with any venue of free speech, we have some odd and colourful characters. Try googling for "Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy" and then "B Ark" for an expanded perspective...

You may be right but not necessarily in the manner you think! I'm sure Harper's crew understands perfectly that environmental issues are important in terms of getting elected. That being said, they may not believe folks on your side of these issues are correct about what's happening and the reasons for it. I do agree with their intent to actually clean up our emissions and not just buy emission credits, unlike Dion's method of catching up on all his lost years of no action. People can disagree without being evil, you know. Please don't pull a "jennie". They simply may not feel you've given them a good enough argument! The problem with many "greens" these days is they seem to accept it as a given that they are absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees with them must simply be following an "evil" agenda 'cuz they WANT all our children to fry! Politicians must balance popular viewpoints to garner support. They may cater to your views and then lose my vote, or vice versa. And as any Liberal knows full well, power is everything because without it you are powerless to do anything.

Yes! Interesting that we seem to have quite different perspectives. However, it's nice to know I'm not the only one. You're the first I've ever found on a discussion board, including and especially "Babble".

Not a logical parallel at all. A better description would be that a city's records showed that your front yard had been sold to them years ago. You disagree. Meanwhile the land had been bought with apparent clear and legal title and now an elderly couple lives there in what they think is their own home. You finally get frustrated with your dispute with the city and decide to take physical action. However, instead of demonstrating on the city hall front lawn you instead beat up the old couple and toss them off what you regard as your property. Then when the old folks complain you call them racists! Your action against the old folks upsets a bunch of their family, friends and neighbours. They used to support you in your beef with the city but not anymore! They are appalled at how you used the old folks as cannon fodder in your fight with a level of government. You call them all racists, blockade their streets, blow up a hydro transformer to black out the whole town and insist that you are the real victims! When tv cameras actually video tape your illegal and violent acts you first deny it never happened and when told it was on video tape you claim the tapes were total digital fakes! I actually heard Janie Jamieson say this on CHCH tv! My own ears, my own eyes. Undeniable! After a couple more embarrassing video clips you beat up the cameramen. I wonder why McGuinty has refused to go to Caledonia himself. The native protesters have never lifted a finger against him! Or any other government type, for that matter. Just ordinary folks, the older the better.

Your rebuttal claims are contrary to everything I have heard or seen for myself. You'll forgive me if I keep researching. I have a family member in real estate. He will have access to listings and prices in Caledonia. I'll ask him for some printouts. Talking about asking prices is misleading. A better comparison would be with prices before the protests broke out. You didn't answer my question about if you would be willing to invest your own money in a Caledonia business. Meanwhile we see in the paper that the Oasis burger stop is likely to have had its last year. The guy who opened a music shop is hanging on by his fingernails. I know myself from my own crowd where I live that NOBODY goes to Caledonia anymore! As I had said, you may make the argument that they're totally wrong in why they think that way but that's irrelevant! Scold them for not being as smart as you all you want and you still won't get them to go back. I suspect that ONLY Tim's and Crappy Tire are doing ok! Anyhow, it will be interesting to see if the listings data bears out your claims. I must admit that from the emotional nature of your posts if you told me the time I would feel better after a second opinion.

So if you can successfully tar your opponents with the same brush then that's reason enough to support the original sinners? This tactic of yours is quite common and has always confused the hell outta me! It just seems not just illogical but juvenile. Hey Mom! I know I was wrong to steal from your purse but my brother also did it so spank him but forget about it with me! Maybe the trick works better for you than it ever did for me.

Still curious. HAVE you ever actually read the Kyoto Accord?

You sound a bit naive to me. Just because the majority aren't overtly protesting doesn't mean apathy or agreement. It simply is the Canadian way not to raise a fuss, particularly if they don't have confidence that they can win. Like it or not and call it racism or any bad name you can sling and it still doesn't change the fact that after the tv images of Oka Warriors a large number of Canadians believe that natives will use violence up to and including firearms. You can spin all you want with examples like how it was the OPP who killed Mr. George at Ipperwash. With many such examples you will be perfectly correct. It doesn't matter. It's a political situation and in politics perception is reality. In other words, call me anything you like for saying it but you don't have to change my opinion. You have to change the opinion of large numbers of others, regardless if the opinion is wrong. So most Caledonians would feel open counter-protests would be dangerous to their personal safety. They already saw that the OPP would not protect them and would actually use force against THEM! This wasn't really a case of "taking the natives's side", as is commonly stated. It's natural for cops to take the easy way out. They want to keep a situation from escalating. If they push the natives too far things may boil over. Non-natives are more law-abiding and thus are easier for the cops to push around. Remember, cops like Fantino do not measure success in these situations by preserving the civil rights of ALL citizens, including those on the borders of the Douglas Estates who still get harassed by native protestors. They simply take keeping the violence level low as success. If a few non-natives are left unprotected (it's been published in the local papers of how when one of the homeowners were beseiged they called the OPP and were told that they were on their own and not to call anymore!) this is an acceptable price to a Fantino type, or a McGuinty either. Dalton simply wants to eventually have the Feds solve the problem he created in the first place with the initial botched OPP raid and not have an Ipperwash albatross around HIS neck! So you can't make the assumption of "silent majority" support or indifference. I don't see how anyone in that town can be indifferent when their life's equity in their home has been wiped out. No one will want to buy a home in Caledonia for a long time. No one will want to set up a business either, that's for sure. How quick would YOU be to open up a tourist shop in Caledonia? As for leaving the natives alone, I suspect that idea is already firmly embedded in the townsfolk. I think they will want as little as possible to do with their Six Nations neighbours for generations to come. Please don't accuse me of being happy about this. It's a crying shame! I don't like it at all. I have Six Nation musician friends, good friends who are also part of a "silent majority", just on the reserve side. Their views are PART of why I believe as I do! They tell me the protesters were for the most part militants from outside who just showed up and took over. It was natural for the local Six Nations folks to be reluctant not to want to publicly be seen as "against their own side" but believe you me there are a LOT of them that are not happy over what has happened and do not support the militants in any way! After all, when things are over the "foreign" militants will move on to the next protest, leaving those who have lived beside friends and family in the town with the problem of the built-up enmity. I also get my perspective not just from the media but from long time friends who live in that town. Come spring when the town normally opens up for tourism I intend to "go walkabout" in Caledonia and see how things are for myself. It's easy to take a position from an ivory tower, academic perpective. Usually that has little or nothing to do with what's actually happening among people in a political situation. As I said, you don't have to win the argument with me. You'd have to convince at least the majority of the population of Caledonia.

Well, if you took a poll only in Caledonia it's a cinch that Six Nations has taken an a-bomb to any goodwill and amity between the two communities! A lot of folks are going to have to grow old and die before this is ever patched up...

I'll still vote for Harper, but only by default. I really don't like his old Mulroney-style control freak party policies. Yet what are my other choices? An ivory tower professor leading a party of crooks, a dip and a Liberal Party suckup? No real alternative but nothing to vote proudly for in Harper either...

You didn't specifically mention any one of us but your post followed mine. Did you aim this at me? If you did, I'm still laughing! I'm not a conservative and I'm not religious either. I am just a guy whose first book was a science text and I've never stopped having an abiding interest in science since. By science I don't mean botany like with David Suzuki but rather hard sciences like physics and chemistry. Even then, I think you missed the point. Most of us don't disagree with Kyoto over global warming. We just aren't convinced by what evidence is offered that first, global warming is truly happening and second, that it is caused by mankind's actions and therefore presumably we have some control in doing something about it! These are two quite different issues. Most Kyoto supporters just roll them into one, which is a very political, faith-based and unscientific thing to do. Near as I can figure, most Kyoto supporters have never read the damn thing (have YOU?) and are simply running on some kind of faith in the new religion of "Save the planet from evil capitalists by buying chickens for every pot in the poor, disadvantaged third world that we white folks ripped off for generations". A bit much for scientifically minded folks to swallow. I might support some kind of international agreement but not this one! If the problem is real there are far better ways to deal with it. More simply, I'm not saying the idea of global warming and its effects is lame. I'm saying KYOTO is lame! Where is it written that this is the best and only possible solution? A better question might be: "Why is Kyoto always presented as exactly that, the only right and true way?" So for me at least, your straw man ad hominem attack is way off the mark. I'm not some social engineering bible thumping neo-con. I'm just a guy that would rather study electronics than left-wing economics. I'm no scientific expert but I like to think that I'm better prepared than most of the "green" folks I talk with to understand these issues. If you haven't already, you might want to do a search on youtube.com for some of Penn and Teller's "Bullsh*t" videos that debunk the lack of true intelligence in many of these areas. They do one where at a California "Save the Planet" festival they sent a young girl around to gather signatures in support of banning "Hydrogen Dioxide" as a greenhouse menace, when anybody with any scientific wit at all would know it is simply - water! They got hundreds of signatures, including from highly placed members of green lobby groups! These guys are masters at debunking popular pseudo-science.

Why not? The same folks would pin Mulroney's scandal on Harper, when Harper came from the party that was born as a reaction AGAINST Mulroney and his party! Once again it's "hockey team" politics. If I can make your team look bad then mine must be good. I support my team through thick and thin, regardless of how they actually fare in the standings. The truth of course is that ALL parties have their faults! All parties should be measured ONLY by those actions for which they're TRULY responsible! Simply throwing muck hoping something will stick shows you run on blind faith and not objective reason, like a "scientist" who believes his premise FIRST and then hunts for an experiment to prove it, ignoring anything he trips across that shows he was wrong in the first place! All parties LOVE these kinds of supporters! There were always a few that still sent money to Jim and Tammy Fae Baker...

I agree, we do tend to think small. We seem to hold this naive assumption that if things ever got really bad we'd have all the time we'd need to build up to a necessary level of military resources. This is utter nonsense, of course. In today's world, things happen in days or weeks. Wars are "come as you are" wars. You either have the capability today or you lose, period.

Well, enlighten us! Throw it out so we can analyze it and decide if it is practical or not. These days I'm becoming much more of a "Utilitarian", in that I don't have patience for "Wouldn't it be nice..." or "It really should be THIS way..." proposals. I crave real world approaches that might work! And I like to go back later and audit their effectiveness. Spit it out and we'll read it! Just please don't pull a "Jennie" on us if we can't agree it has "workability" and say that we just like to blow countries up or whatever...

I said dominated, not unanimous! You can't plot a curve with only one point. I always like to read these things for myself before I take a strong stand. It just amazes me how most people obviously don't! Everybody seems to take an almost religious approach, where they go with what emotionally appeals to them. Who would be against saving the planet? Who wouldn't want to help poorer countries? The perpetual problem as I see it is that usually these resolutions and agreements are really long on the emotional appeal and very short on proven science. And after reading the documentation you often see that the real goal is quite different from how things are presented. I guess I'm saying that environmental issues are more political than scientific, at least to me. Perhaps you've also read the Kyoto Accord and can cite where I'm wrong. I'd be interested in checking my own premises.

Not necessarily. I'd like to actually read the resolution before I make up my mind. I waded through the Kyoto Accord and through all the legalese I could see how it was a poor vehicle to "save the planet" and really based on global welfare politics. The problem with these international resolutions seems to be that the votes are dominated by all the warm countries! Sure there are a few exceptions like Norway or whatever but by in large it always seems to be a bunch of third world tropical climate countries calling us down! Canada has different energy needs, like the need to keep from freezing! Besides, none of these countries want us to clean up our own act. They want us to buy emission credits from them! They want the money! I will agree that Harper's government is costing us more money. They actually are moving to have us clean up at home and this will be expensive. The Liberals were much cheaper. In all those years they never spent a dime!

Alex, it's a newspaper! Read some of the other stuff on their page! They obviously have an editorial bias against Britain supporting "The War on Terror". So of course they will pick and choose what stories to run and what points to highlight or play down. All papers do it. Take a look at the Toronto Star. All the more reason that people should read more than one viewpoint instead of just one hymn book...

Do you seriously expect me to watch a 1 hour and 49 min video clip for YOUR pet peeve? Will you promise to watch one of mine? I did watch the first few minutes to hear the initial premise. Even if I accepted it as gospel, what does that have to do with me or any of my arguments? If my ancestors were evil and yours were all saints as you constantly suggest, how am I responsible for my great great grandfather's actions? Oddly enough, I think your arguments are illustrating a basic difference between the viewpoints of an aboriginal and a non-native. Natives think in terms of tribes and the rest of us don't! To a non-native, such collective guilt is by definition racist. Anyhow, another board I frequent has a great feature that might be useful here. It's called an "ignore" list. You can used it in your user control area to lock out any poster who you feel is too wacko, preachy and screechy. Just for yourself, of course. Others would have to make an "ignore" choice for themselves. We had a couple of preachy, screechy types on that board and this feature was marvelous! Rude and uncivilized types tended to disappear quickly when they had no audience. Meanwhile, I guess I'm just going to have to train myself to ignore such displays of bad manners. Someone who can't be at least civil has no claim on me to pay attention. Perhaps that's why such types often escalate words into violence. There's an old biblical term that might be useful in dealing with such people: "pariah". Maybe we should put aside some land for militant protesters of all stripes and put them in there. Then we should put up walls and fences and refuse to trade, feed or interact with them in any way. Throw all the tools they need to farm for themselves over the wall but don't let anyone out until a few generations have passed and some individuals show signs of having learned basic manners. After all, WE believe that their children are NOT responsible for the actions of their fathers and mothers! Freedom means being able to ignore those who screech...

Once again, if I don't think you have a convincing argument then I must be a racist and/or stupid. Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds? So far you have not blown up any of my illusions because I find all your arguments LAME! You throw something out as some kind of gospel and if someone won't swallow it you call him nasty names! I think you are confusing passion with truth. You seem to feel that if you thunder all the louder, care more and hate the opposition harder then that will make you correct in your beliefs. That is not reason. That is faith, which is believing without reason or evidence. Debate degrades into religious argument, which can never be resolved because someone with faith will never change their mind for reason or new found facts. Must be nice to have a monopoly on reason and truth...