ReeferMadness

The Tories believe whatever their masters in big business tell them to believe.

8. Scientists are pinko, Nazi elitists whose book learning doesn't work in the real world.\

The tax split is not the root of the problem and changing it is not the solution. The problem is the artificially skewed distribution of income. Fix that and you don't need to mess with tax rates.

It's because investment is flowing back into the USA.

What benefits???

Maybe it's a story untold because it's nothing more than a blatant PR exercise. Let's balance the picture a little, shall we? Oil Sands firms warned on tailings ponds Toxic Lakes may emerge from Alberta's Tar-Sands Projects Doesn't sound quite as good as that slick video, does it? Wow, that sounds tasty. Maybe you can volunteer to drink from this pristine lake.

BC doesn't agree with it!

If you really believe in democracy, then larger governments shouldn't be a problem. People have allowed themselves to be talked into the idea that government is the opposite of choice. But in fact, collective choice allows possibilities that markets never will. The trouble is that people have been conditioned over the years to see the worst in governments. As the saying goes, right wingers believe governments can't do anything right and then they elect governments who prove it.

So, I guess if your chart proves that climate change isn't happening in the US, then this chart proves that it is happening globally. Check out all of the records set since 1990. Or maybe neither chart really means anything. Climate change doesn't affect all areas equally. As weather patterns change, some areas may be getting colder as the overall average is getting warmer.

I think August means you have a bubbly personality.

You're right. It is shameful behaviour and people who live wasteful lifestyles should feel guilty.

Nobody is completely independent, least of all priests and bishops. But when you have to search hard to find someone with some qualifications who tells you what you want to hear and that someone has an obvious conflict of interest, you should really take that as a sign that you might want to re-examine your views. Or just keep your head in the sand and keep on wrecking the planet.

Why? It's much easier to just do nothing and make excuses. Not cheaper (not in the long run, anyway) but easier. Also, you can make your ass toasty with those oh-so-necessary seat warmers in your big-ass SUV.

Now, that's just unfair. Tim is in his happy place and doesn't like all of this negativity about rising sea levels and ocean acidification and changing climates. In fact, he has clearly done his homework in reading the research of oil company shills so that he can "educate us" and the rest of us can all stick our heads in the sand too. So, be grateful. And don't worry, be happy.

Oh, I see. So, I guess you wouldn't mind if I start dumping chemicals in your backyard. I'll stop as soon as you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are harmful.

You're right - the environment will be just fine. It may not support 7 billion humans as it goes through these changes but the environment will be fine. Now, you just go back to enjoying your warmed seats in that gargantuan SUV of yours. And don't worry about a thing.

This is true only according to a handful of scientists who you've chosen to listen to because they've told you what you wanted to hear. The fact is that we are changing the composition of our one and only atmosphere at rates that are unprecedented in human history. Now, if only you and and people like you were going to suffer the results, I'd say go ahead and bury your head deep in the sand. But you don't have the right to risk the safety and well-being of my children and their children. I'm sure I've seen dumber statements on the internet but I can't quite remember when. You're presenting a false dilemma. Nobody has suggested that humans stop using fossil fuels, at least not immediately. There are a myriad proven ways to reduce CO2 emissions and many of them are much cheaper than the current behaviour. Smaller cars, smaller houses, better insulation, public transit. There are other things that would require lifestyle adjustments but are still well within the realm of reason - like living closer to work. And as for the ultimate goal of eliminating fossil fuels, that may never happen completely but there are lots of ways to drive the usage way down.

I agree but I'd say this understates the issue. In organizations, attitudes and behavioral norms flow from the top. Christie's top people evidently believed that Christie was OK with this type of behaviour. How did they come to this conclusion? For Christie to say he accepts responsibility is a good start but it's only a start. He needs to examine how the behaviour was allowed to happen and what he will do to prevent it in the future. Saying that he was "humiliated" is a lame attempt to portray himself as a victim - a notion that should be rejected out of hand. And as for Harper, well, someone needs to tell him that finger-pointing isn't leadership.

Just keep right on telling yourself that. You and a few believers will keep the faith right up until the bitter end. If Christie didn't know what was going on, it's because he didn't want to know. Just like Harper, another slimy right winger who pretended to be above it all is shown to be in the thick of it. Pathetic.

Y' know - in a way you're right. The climate is a complex system. Nobody can possibly know for certain what the long term effects of changing the atmosphere will be. But here's the thing. You have 95% of the scientists on one side and 5% on the other. And many of the holdouts have established ties to oil companies. So, who are the real "true believers" in this equation - those who accept that the 95% are more likely to be right or those who desperately look for the few scientists who tell them what they want to believe? But here's what really gets me. There is one undeniable fact and that is that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere, the very thin, very finite, very precious layer of gas that all life depends upon. If I were caught dumping an unknown substance into the water supply, I'd likely be arrested. And likely so. And yet, you are insisting that it is your God-given right to keep on changing the composition of the atmosphere upon which all life depends. And somehow, it is up to those of us who object to prove that there is harm rather than on you to prove there isn't. Whatever happened to the precautionary principle? I suppose it has no chance against the forces of greed and the arrogance that supports it. So, go ahead. Be a useful idiot to the oil companies. Keep on driving your SUV. Hopefully, you have no kids or grandkids who will pay for your arrogance, your wastefulness, your thoughtlessness.

I have to believe that even Americans aren't crazy enough to elect a degenerate like Cruz. The theory is that as long as the republicans put forth unelectable candidates, the Dems will win. Doesn't really matter that much, though. Seeing Obama in action, I'd have to say he's only moderately less destructive than many of the Republicans.

Again, your undying loyalty is touching but you have absolutely no basis for you claims. You don't know (and may never know) Christie's actual level of involvement. At an absolute minimum, this calls into question Christie's leadership ability. Or are you arguing that leadership ability is an optional trait in a president?

Absolutely agree - and one of those human traits that needs further study is the morbid obsession, among a segment of society (most prevalent in the US), to possess and constantly carry devices that were designed specifically to kill humans and animals. The costs of having so many guns freely available are easy to quantify (see Jacee's figures) but the benefits are nebulous at best.

hahahahaha gun nut humour. makes me laugh until tears roll down by face. really.

Atta' boy. Give us a few more talking points from the NRA. Guns don't kill kids. Mentally unstable kids kill kids.