Moonbox

No! He's way more thoughtful and analytical. He would first ask you what the daily inflation rate is before deciding don't you think?

No I'm not prepared for that and you don't even make sense. A hundred years ago those same poor would have probably spent more time hungry and in the cold than they do now. They still live in the city now and today they have bus service instead of having to walk everywhere. Relative to a poor person 100 years ago, things are better for them. Yeah totally.... It's all the fault of the suburbs. Damn all those greedy hard working people who made a living for themselves and pay their taxes so that today's poor can be looked after.

Topaz the US economy tanked further and thus a faster rate of recovery is not surprising. The Feds in the US are also pumping WAY more money (relatively) into their economy than we are here. I don't expect you to understand any of this though...

Or you could take what the 'scientists' say with a grain of salt and use your 'brain' for a second. I realize that, as I'm not a climate scientist, I can't really say either way what's going on. What I can do, however, and do intelligently, is question how a few years of computer modelling with a laughingly small amount of (relative) data proves that our VERY small and VERY short term history of temperature increase is man-made. I'm not saying we're not warming the planet. I'm saying we might be. While we should continue to fund climate research and clean energy alternatives, it's beyond stupid to claim the debate is over and that anything is even close to certain at this point. Myata you've already told everyone here we're not scientists. I know that so get over it. I'm extremely well educated, however, and I find it's better not to shut my brain off because an 'expert' told me what's what. That's your MO obviously, and I sure hope that's working out for you.

Yep that ALWAYS works. I mean, it's not like the 'scientists' have ever been wrong before. The world is flat right? That Ice Age we were heading for in the 70's sure was cold. You don't know anything about the science yourself and therefore your statement that we should 'trust the professionals' is nothing more than a matter of faith. You're saying nothing more than, "They are professionals. How can they all be wrong?" You've deferred the critical thought process and simply believe whatever the media and a very passionate and politically motivated 'scientific' community tells you. You've also decided that anyone who questions these 'scientists' is worth ridiculing. I'm REALLY failing to see the difference you 'distinguished'.

It's just speculators cashing in on short term gains. They'll drive it back up again and then sell again over and over.

Yeah I don't know why that got into my head

I was going to make a bankruptcy joke but then I thought it would be inappropriate. Oops.

GUYS! THE HEALTH INSPECTORS ARE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY! HALP! REVOLT!

Most people have some knowledge in the subject area. NONE of the scientists have comprehensive knowledge of the Earth or it's climate. Climate science is broken up into so many disciplines that putting it altogether is in itself a crazily difficult task. As for people who criticize it, among them are plenty of PhD's and even Nobel Prize winners. Their questions go unanswered, however, and they are marginalized as a result.

That made me laugh well said Like I said before, my problem is not with the micro science of weather, oceans, geology etc, but rather the macro study of long term climate change and the use of unreliable computer models to 'prove' global warming has been caused by CO2. Some of the more famous skeptics out there aren't exactly kooks. Among them are some of the most respected scientists in the world. Ivar Giaver has a Nobel Prize for physics, and says that the 'studies' and 'proofs' for global warming aren't even close to as compelling as the action plans are calling for.

Then what you're saying is that since you are clueless in matters pertaining to climate science, you're belief in the studies being done is a matter of simple faith in the climate science 'experts'. Blind faith...hmmm... So because you're ignorant in things pertaining to climate science, you automatically believe what they tell you? I already told you what my questions were with the 'science'. Nobody has been able to explain or predict the Earth's natural PROVEN tendency to warm and cool on its own (a trend which has been observed even over the last century). They don't need me to tell them that glaring fault in their 'science'. Would you trust a diagnosis from a doctor who didn't understand human anatomy? Probably not. So why are we trusting climate scientists without question when they have shown they cannot predict even short term weather patterns? They don't understand how the world's weather works very well and yet you're willing to fully trust them with long term climate predictions and trillions of dollars? I think we've already established your sentence structure and grammar/spelling need work, but nice try sounding clever. I find, however, that it works better when you write like an educated adult. Some of the meaning gets lost while decyphering fragmented sentences, garbage punctuation and verbosity. I know this is the interweb and all, but come on. This is not how the media is presenting it, nor is it how people are interpreting it. This is my issue with the 'science'. That is why I'm not talking to the scientists themselves, but rather the people like you that seem to blindly believe everything they say when even the layman can see some rather obvious faults. I question the reliability of ALL the models, because I know enough about programming to understand that no computer in the world right now could account for all the important weather dynamics like air and ocean currents, solar output etc...

My epithets (you feel smart using that word don't you?) are directed at your comments and your broken excuse for logic. So why are you here talking about climate change with us? We're talking and disagreeing. That's what you do on a political forum. Fixed that for ya. What's unthinking and panicky is the reaction of the 'mob' towards the statements made by climate scientists. The science itself I'm sure is very planned and deliberate. Even with my limited background in science, however, I can see the GIGANTIC assumptions being made by the climatoligists and the enormous variables being ignored by their models. You still haven't addressed that and I've made that point about 100 times. Simply saying, "We're not experts and therefore we should just believe them and not bother talking/thinking about it" doesn't cut it either. If you're not prepared to use your brain and partake in the discussion, then why are you posting on this thread? The language being used today by the media and by the layman and climate-scientist alike is that man-made Global Warming is a proven fact. I could support the legitimacy of climate scientists if they were saying, "Our studies suggest..." or "We believe this shows," etc... I would even support further research and investment and incentives in climate-friendly technology. The opposite is happening, however. We've got a bunch of fools running around screaming that the oceans are going to boil unless we throw billions and billions at third world countries and shut down the oil sands. It's a joke.

Other than the 407 sell off, which was a fiasco, he did a good job. Mike Harris is well liked and and still supported by the vast majority of the people who voted for him. It took Ernie Eves and John Tory (both political idiots) to give crybaby Dalton a chance. Look how he's done...

Yes D as well. There are many types of corporate taxes. They Americans may have higher corporate income taxes, but much of Canada has higher capital investment taxes. Ontario has one of the worst rates in the world. A tax grab is a tax grab and any way you slice it it would drive business out of Canada.

The professional media? They're the ones we should be turning to for objective criticism? My god man. That's dense. The questions we ask are simple ones that the climate scientists are refusing to answer or account for. The Earth has always warmed and cooled over time. We've seen this even over the last century. Is it not then possible that natural factors are causing the Earth to warm up all by itself, or at least mostly by itself? Do air currents, ocean currents and a million other terrestrial and solar factors not cause massive climate change all by themselves? How are they being accounted for? Nobody is answering these questions. Don't be stupid. Climate scientists are just as human, have just as much of an agenda and are equally susceptible to bad conclusions and professional misconduct. Use proper English and intelligent sentences and maybe then we can talk about logic okay? Another brainless comment. Skepticism is not automatically believing what you're told. I'm not denying man-made global warming. I'm questioning the unthinking and panicky bandwagon that's automatically believing everything the climate 'scientists' say. Maybe you should do a little research yourself and find out what sort of people actually call themselves climatologists. You're absolutely wrong and I'm dumbfounded at how naive you're sounding. Chemistry can be proven. Math and physics can be proven. Even medicine can be proven. On the other hand, how do you 'prove' what the weather and climate is going to be like in 25 years? Right now they can't. Like economics, you can guess and hope you're right, but there are millions of inter-related variables that nobody can control and without accounting for them NONE of the computer models or predictions can be accurate. Global warming may indeed be happening, but only an idiot/liar would tell us that it's been proven. Take your pick.

The irony of your statement is once again flying right over your head. Not being an expert doesn't make someone 'clueless' about a subject. You don't need to have a PhD or an MBA to question the methods, conclusions and motives of someone who does. Look how well following the 'experts' worked out in the US financial crisis. You didn't need a heavy education in finance or banking to figure out that fully financing a 40-year variable rate mortgage on a tight income was a bad idea. You similarly didn't have to be a finance guru to understand that investing in commercial paper backed by previously mentioned mortgages was also not so wise. The 'experts' however, convinced everyone it was all very safe. The climate has warmed and cooled on a cycle for millions of years for reasons we do not yet fully understand. The research being done on the subject is in its infancy yet the 'experts' are presenting it to us as if it's an exact science when anyone with a brain can see it is not. These two reasons alone are enough to question their motives, methods and conclusions. Unfortunately, we have people like you mocking and ridiculing those of us with a healthy dose of skepticism. Blindly believing what the 'experts' are telling you and declaring that those of us without their 'scientific' background have neither the intelligence or legitimacy to question their conclusions is nothing short of dogmatic. You can directly compare this with the blind faith of a religious fundamentalist. Mock us if you want, but we're not the ones sounding stupid right now.

Hey I at least admire him for finally clamping down on the teacher's union. That wasn't very NDP of him but it was fiscally responsible.

The priests are all telling me Jesus is the son of God and who am I to question the experts? Not being a climate science 'expert' isn't an excuse for not having a brain. Apparently you think so.

The problem is that the 'qualified professional' is working in a field of research that has proven it cannot predict anything accurately. Our weather experts can't accurately predict weather one week from now yet you and the 'mob' have decided that they can accurately predict long term future climate patterns. The 'science' is about as accurate as throwing a bottle into the ocean and predicting what beach it will eventually wash up on. You and the bandwagon are VASTLY over-estimating the qualifications and capabilities of 'experts' in an unexact science and this foolishness is compounded when you lash out at people who actually use their brains and question the conclusions. Climate science is not anything like a normal professional science. This isn't medicine, chemistry/physics or engineering. There's no way to demonstrate cause/effect or treatment results. There are too many radical variables to provide statistically significant data. The problem with climate science right now is that it's DELIBERATELY ignoring these variables and encouraging self-serving knee-jerk reactions to conclusions that they still haven't come close to proving.

Add a bunch of zeros and it becomes interesting. Talking about a few hundred thousand being spent because the PM wants to be visible across the country every once in awhile is pretty freaking small potatoes. The adscam wasn't boring because it was outright fraud. This isn't at all. You've chosen to cry about it but that's because you cry about everything and anything Harper does pretty much no matter what it is.

Topaz man come on...this is some of the most boring and uninteresting sort of stuff you could possibly post here. There are a lot of other things you could be complaining about.

Dude are you even thinking before you're writing???? You're not allowed to critically question something you don't understand? Thinking that comment over again a couple of times. I sincerely hope you'll realize how brainless it is. If someone at NASA told me that the best rocket fuel is ethanol I wouldn't need to be an aerospace engineer or rocket scientist to question that. Absolutely false. Idiots can get PhD's. It's a matter of hard work. To say that we shouldn't at least 'question' the experts is so foolish I won't even get into it any further. Those PhD's may help people get into the nitty gritty on how to research and write articles, but they really don't help if the writer's fundamentals are totally out of whack, which appears to be the case in many global warming articles.

Myata listen man. We're not flat out denying global warming. We're questioning the logic, motives and conclusions of a group of people involved in a VERY inexact science. They're presenting conclusions as fact when they have not accounted for VERY important natural variables that have as much or probably even more impact on the climate than any man-made factor. Do you not think that it's possible that the Earth's climate changes naturally and temperatures cycle over the years? That's been proven by fact and research that nobody is denying it. If this is true then any conclusion based on relatively short term data is shakey at best. No. Not at all. You seem to think that critically questioning what you read and hear in the news equates to bible-thumping and conspiracy theorizing. Wake up. It's called skepticism and some people use their brains and actually try and decide whether or not what they're being told makes sense before they believe it. Try it some day.

It's already happened. That's the problem with climate science. It's become conventional wisdom and not science anymore for the majority of people.