ReeferMadness

Hurricanes and tornadoes are not the only damaging storms. And warmer weather should expand the range where tornadoes occur and the length of the tornado season Yes, that's exactly what glacier melt does. It helps keep the rivers from drying up in the summer after the snow has melted. Otherwise, the only water comes from the occasional rain. Oh, gee, thanks. I didn't know that. And do they store infinite amounts of water or do they get full? And during dry years, when snowfall is light and there is little rain, where does the water come from if there are no glaciers melting?

I'm not suggesting anything other than whatever wheeling and dealing gets done with a PR system would be no worse than we have now; and could be a lot better. Currently, a bunch of unelected party hacks in the PMO make decisions and communicate them to the ministers and the caucus. What about PR will be worse than that?

1. Elizabeth May is far and away the best parliamentarian of any of the party leaders. She is the least partisan, the most reasonable, the most willing to work with other parties and has the most integrity. 2. Their platform is most aligned with my values as measured by the vote compass website. 3. They are the only party that makes environmental issues a priority, not just a matter of preference when they happen not to conflict with other party favorite issues. 4. They were the first (or only) party to get behind things that are so blindingly obvious, they should have been done years ago, including proportional representation, marijuana legalization and guaranteed minimum income. 5. In my riding, the Conservative party candidate has no chance of winning so I don't have to worry about vote splitting.

Argue with the EPA. Glacial runoff provides water to rivers during the summer after the snow melts in many areas. When the glaciers disappear, that runoff will disappear as well. There may be an increase in precipitation in some areas. However, it may fall in too short a period of time to be captured by the dams and result in floods rather than more electricity. Dams need a steady flow of water not just a massive flood in the spring. Nobody really knows what the effects of acidification will be and it isn't just acidification. Warmer water temperatures will displace native fish. This year, when the salmon were returning to the Columbia River, the water was so warm that half the fish were dying due to the water temperature. http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Half-of-Columbia-River-sockeye-salmon-dying-6408287.php

They said surplus after first quarter. Which is partly due to selling their GM shares. There is no guarantee that the fiscal year will end in a surplus.

Sea level rise isn't the only consequence of climate change - it may not even be the worst consequence. Weather pattern changes will result in more violent storms and disrupt agriculture. Loss of glaciers will reduce the amount of hydroelectricity that can be generated. If warmer waters and ocean acidification cause a collapse in seafood, a lot of somebodies out there are going to be on a forced diet. Care to run a cost benefit analysis on all of that?

Former Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber's take on Harper's predicament.

That's comforting. Let's pick whatever option doesn't require us to give up the seat warmers in our gargantuan SUV's. Especially if all the flooding is going to happen to someone else.

And Miami is not the only place that will be affected. Here is a list of cities around the world that are expected to be hardest hit by a sea level rise of just half a meter. Potentially, there are trillions of dollars of assets and tens of millions of people affected.

Not if. It's already happening. There are a number of former freshwater drinking aquifers that are now contaminated by seawater and unusable. The flooding of Miami will be a gradual affair. Until the hurricane hits, of course.

Only if it's cheaper to replace the entire landmass of Southern Florida with something like that of the Netherlands.

By "taken care of", I assume you mean that we are safely on our way to another year of fiscal deficit? How many will that be in a row for our fiscal heroes? 8? 9? I've lost count.

hahaha So, here it is, folks. Harper can't be blamed for our weak economy but Obama can be blamed for theirs. Please, do go on with your lecture about intellectual honesty.

So, I don't know where you got the idea that 5 cm per year is a worst case scenario. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the anticipated global average sea level rise is between 8 inches and 6.6 feet. Your "worst case" is actually closer to the most optimistic estimate. It seems like a reasonably conservative position would be the above projection. Four feet might not seem like a lot but it's enough that Miami Beach will be under water.

Is Stockwell Day a scientist?

They're all empty suits. What a round-up. Paul Krugman A veritable convenience store full of nut bars.

Let's not forget stay at home parents. They can't vote, either. And you people working minimum wage jobs? No vote for you!!

I wonder if people are confusing STV with instant runoff voting. STV is a proportional system with multi-member districts. It isn't as intuitive as other systems but it is genius in its ability to produce proportional results while actually decreasing the amount of power held by the party over the candidates. It was recommended in BC by an assembly of citizens who studied proportional systems. Instant runoff voting is a way of forcing a majority where a natural majority wouldn't exist. It's useful for choosing a single leadership position (like president or mayor) but when used to choose representatives, it often produces even more disproportionate results than FPTP. It has a tendency to favor large parties even more than FPTP.

Sorry. I just find that there is so much misinformation when it comes to PR, after a while, I just get cranky responding to it. I think that's an assumption and I'd need to see some hard evidence. And the effect would certainly not be large enough to guarantee anything. If it did, then STV would not produce proportional results. Which it does.

So, how is the behind the scenes horsetrading any worse than the behind the scenes PMO meetings where all of the decision making is currently done? I agree that transparency would be better but there is absolutely no reason to believe that PR will result in more backroom dealing than already goes on. The only difference is that the backroom dealing will be between parties than within the party.

Boutique tax credits are just one of the many tactics that parties use to target relatively tiny numbers of voters. The reason is that FPTP elections hang on the tiny number of swing voters. Under proportional systems, targeting a tiny number of voters will only get you a correspondingly tiny number of additional seats so there is much less incentive to use these tactics.

To an elitist, I'm sure it seems that way.

Ranked voting would no more guarantee Liberal governments than the fact that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about guarantees that you won't express your opinion anyway.

Your statement isn't accurate. Instant runoff voting doesn't produce proportional results but STV does. The degree of proportionality can vary depending on there are many districts with low magnitude. Canada, with its population highly concentrated in urban areas could have an STV design where most districts are high magnitude districts and this would ensure overall proportionality. In any case, the results would be vastly superior to FPTP in terms of proportionality.

I find it odd that people think that MP's are somehow going to be more beholden to the parties than they are now. Is that even possible? Watch this. I would say they are like trained seals but trained seals show some modicum of individuality. If you want proportionality without party assigned seats, check out Single Transferable Vote.