Moonbox

It must be 100% true then. I mean, declaring speculative theories that cannot be proven as inarguable fact is totally intelligent. It's not like the Earth hasn't shown us thousands of years worth of temperature cycles right? "You're not a scientist therefore you're wrong to not believe what they're telling you." is about the dumbest statement you can make Myata, and that's exactly what you're doing. The 'concensus' that you and others talk about is not as strong as you think either. There are thousands and thousands of dissenting scientific views. They're just not popular on TV because of mainstream media. I'm not flat out denying global warming. I'm questioning the hysteria behind unproven theories and the clamour to spend trillions on questionable environmental initiatives. The blind are leading the blind here, and like sheep everyone is following what they say without question.

Kyoto was a non-binding treaty signed by indifferent politicians and drafted by worthless bureaucrats. Kyoto meant nothing then, it still means nothing and so will Copenhagen. Until pretty much the whole world agrees to play by the SAME RULES all similar treaties will be worth less than dust. All they'll be is tools for suckers to have their industries relocate to the third world.

Riverwind you said it right. Bravo

Thank you. My thoughts exactly. The climate is always in a state of flux and will always be changing.

It's not just obscure. It's totally hypothetical and interpretive research. Drawing and confirming 'conclusions' in this field of research without understanding the natural effects of things like air and ocean currents is idiotic. You can't ignore probably the biggest variable of them all and just say, "It's man made". That's like saying kids with abusive mothers end up gay. There probably is a correlation, but can you ignore the genetic factor? No. Just like you can't ignore Mother Nature herself when trying to come up with environmental theories. and proven to be cyclical over many thousands of years. The problem is that Co2 in the atmosphere and temperature cause each other. Temperature can increase Co2 levels, and vice versa. The cause has still not been determined. The dominant conclusion of the time is irrelevant by the way. A lot of dominant conclusions in the past have been totally bogus. The earth being flat, the next Ice Age in the 1970's, God and intelligent design, they were all conventional wisdom at the time and they were all wrong. I know enough about the scientific method to know that climatology is AT BEST an incredibly inexact and unproven science. Any scientist worth his salt, therefore, should be caveating their research papers with that fact. They don't know enough to understand and neither do you or I. That's a pretty tall claim haha. It's meaningless blabber to question 'scientists' who have no control over their research environment? This is really highlighting your critical thinking skills Myata. by over-polluting? Their population and birth rates alone are threats to the environment. Their rate of pollution is lower than ours because half the country is still medieval. The part that isn't pollutes far worse than us. Know anybody who's ever been to Shanghai? Maybe you should look into it. Emissions per capita is a pretty useless measurement when comparing Canada to China, for reasons stated above. If we had 30 million Inuits living up north in Igloos, would that mean that our environmental record was better? The irony of your statement I think is escaping you.

The paper was written by an obscure assistant prof and a couple of Phd students. Pretty questionable but nice try. The melting isn't being argued. Cause and effect is what's in question. There's also RECORDS confirming that the warmest years on record in the Arctic were in 1937-1938. Similar records also suggest that between 1917-1937 the pace of warming was faster than it is today. Then in the 1940's -> 1970's it cooled. Straw man argument. Dinosaurs have been dug up out of the ground and carbon dated. We have bones as proof. Denying that is a little different than questioning the scientific method of 'proving' a hypothesis that doesn't and cannot account for countless natural variables. I was talking about things like tailing ponds and water pollution. We shouldn't be crapping our own beds but at the same time we shouldn't be hold ourselves to a higher standard than the rest of the world. It's a prisoner's dilemna. We're also the coldest and biggest of the rich industrialized nations of the world and this should be taken for granted. We have ~30 million people living in an area the size of Europe. Our weather is extreme, our transportation requirements are greater and there is enormous demand for our raw materials, particularly our oil. You can't hold us to the same standard. China and India have the resources to work on the problem is well. They don't because they like the idea of industry moving there because of huge cost advantages. We should make it easier for them right? Let's screw our own industry over so that the polluting is done in China instead okay? There's no point in talking about global warming unless the initiative to prevent it is also global. Don't talk about leading by example either, because we all see how well China and India follow our examples on human rights. Finally, global warming is still at best now a theory. It's a theory that ignorants have adopted as conventional wisdom.

I speak from experience from my profession. I deal with clients all the time who I see right before they go to jail. They come to me after they go to jail, and I find out from their spouses a month later that they're right back in. I'm one person. I can easily name you three kids I know (by kids I mean early-mid 20's) who have been to prison twice this year for violent crimes. Rehabilitation ---- 50% of the time it works every time.

Depends on who you are and what you do for a living and what the economic conditions are at the time. It's helping me. My job is not in any way tied in with the export market, I buy things from China and inflation is negated. I'm perfectly happy with the rising dollar. It's the same for a lot of people. The people who are hurt by the rising dollar are exporters who depend on a cheap dollar to be competitive rather than on stong/novel business models.

What does this have to do with anything Jdobbin? Are you trying to participate in the discussion or are you just plugging the Liberal slogan of the day? Thanks for stopping by.

Thank you. I've been saying this on this forum for over a year now. If people were smarter and cared more, good things can be done. Sadly they're largely stupid, uneducated and apathetic, and thus we are where we are now. I don't agree with a ton of things you and other people say here on this forum, but at least I really respect that you're interested in your own fate and the fate of Canada in general.

Myata you mentioned 'science' but there's no credible science out there to prove global warming is happening at all. I'm not denying that it might be happening, because it could, but I do know that the temperature here hasn't changed much at all in the last 30 years and that we have millions of years of history to support that gradual climate change is a normal part of our planet's cycle. I know there are a ton of things industry in Canada does to harm the environment and we should be doing what we can to prevent that. Pinning some stupid back-assward responsibility for global warming on Canada, however, is an absolute joke.

He doesn't take you seriously enough to bother. I don't either. Global warming denial should be illegal? Dumbest thing I've heard in awhile here.

To summarize: "Canada is run by corporations who have no interest in the environment." Thanks for the rant though Oleg. You sure know how to throw a wall of useless text at us.

The right wing has plenty of media. So does the left. The Calgary Herald is about as credible, in my opinion, as the Star. They write what they think locals want to hear. Fox News, on the other hand, isn't just right wing. Fox News is a cesspool of paid off idiots who like to rant at dumb Americans. You can't compare it to anything else.

They can walkout all they want. They want a hand out and they feel that kicking up a stink is going to make it more likely. Their walking out is simply a lot less credible than a first-world nation walking out based on principle.

Are you in my head or something? That's what I was wondering....

As far as I'm concerned the Toronto Star has about as much credibility as Fox News. Okay maybe Fox is a little worse but the consistency of the bias is pretty comparable.

If you knew what the insurance sales tactics were that the banks employed you might feel differently. I'm not so sure what the method is online, but I do know that the banks are pretty sneaky in selling their rip-off insurance for credit cards etc.

The issue is clearly a matter of ethnicity and you can't even say it isn't. There's a reason the proposal is an embarrasment to the party and to Rhuby herself. It's so blatantly unfair to the average born and raised Canadian that the brightest minds in the world wouldn't be able to justify it, let alone a moron like Rhuby. The fact that she proposed it at all demonstrates that she doesn't give a crap about the non-immigrant Canadian. You can't just say "It wasn't my idea it was my constituents" and pretend you're not responsible for it. The drafting and presentation of the proposal is 100% her choice and if she proposed it knowing it would bomb she's at best an idiot. If she thought it was a reasonable idea then she's an even bigger idiot for thinking there was any merit to it.

Kimmy that made my day. I lol'd. Nicely said.

I'm going to go with liar, because all politicians are proven liars and we tend to be very forgiving of that.

She didn't get one or two questions wrong. She didn't know the answer to ANY of the above questions. Either she's a fraudster or she's the dumbest woman in the world.

I agree. Regulating prostitution does nothing but make it safer for the prostitutes themselves and the people who use them.

Because I am human.