ReeferMadness

Oh, Good then. Software developers should just release their code without testing it because they can't prove their are no bugs anyway. CO2 poisoning is a real thing but it can't happen at levels that will reasonably happen in our atmosphere. You completely missed (more like avoided) my point. Oh, jeez. Do we have to combat the same ridiculous arguments over and over? We are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere at a rate that is orders of magnitude faster than what happens naturally. And thousands of years ago, the planet didn't support seven billion people. And climate science doesn't agree with what a handful of oil-funded deniers claim about how the world was warmer during medieval times. And if you look at the historical fossil record, dramatic changes are associated with extinction events. Then it's only reasonable that the burden of evidence (since everyone gets all antsy about "proving a negative") sit with corporations that are making huge profits from polluting the environment. In the 1980's, Exxon's scientists were coming to the conclusion that climate change was a real issue. Then they killed the research and started funding deniers. I'll admit it's a subjective statement, but I think extinction events are a bad thing. Nobody has demonstrated that CO2 increases occurred within the timescale of human history and certainly not modern human history where we have 7 billion people on the planet. And the cost of reducing CO2 are wildly overstated. It's amazing how climate change deniers call people who accept science to be "alarmist" but then make bizarre "the sky is going to fall" claims about how the only way we can get clean energy is to return to the stone age. Do you spend your day coming up with idiotic false analogies? Obviously you should find better things to do. Do I really have to point out that fossil fuel production, refining and usage is associated with enormous environmental and health issues? Really? How can smart people say such dumb things? Clearly, fossil fuels are not going to disappear tomorrow. But equally clearly, we should be looking for ways to eliminate them. Your unsubstantiated statement that fossil fuels have some role in giving the poorest people a decent standard of living is beyond pathetic. Fossil fuels are already expensive, even when most of the costs are externalized and pushed to future generations. Meanwhile, off-the-grid solar is bringing badly needed electricity to the poorest of the poor. Clean, renewable energy will come. It's just a shame that there are so many people so afraid of change that they will cling to dirty, damaging fossil fuels for as long as possible.

This is the type of BS that needs to be called out for the nonsense it is. You call out climate models because there is uncertainty but then you rely on economics which is mostly claptrap. The BC carbon tax is largely revenue neutral so the money was returned to the people to be spent again. So, you don't know whether it increased or decreased the GDP. The economists who studied this agreed that there was no evidence that GDP was significantly affected. And that's all we know. And GDP is very questionable measure. There is no evidence that a small fluctuation in GDP such as the one you've mentioned has any appreciable effect on the quality of life of the inhabitants of a relatively wealthy population. GDP only measures the amount of money a population spends, it says nothing about whether about whether the people who spent that money enjoyed themselves, whether it increased their overall happiness or even if they got anything of value for their money. It's a completely idiotic measure and that fact that it is so widely used as a measure of societal success is only compelling evidence that economics is an endeavor of limited value.

You're avoiding the issue. Go ahead and demonstrate that the benefits of a fossil fuel existence exceed the costs, including the costs to my grandchildren and their grandchildren. And make sure you include all the costs. And don't hide behind that "can't prove a negative BS" - we all know that's a dodge.

I always ask my doctor about non-pharmaceutical ways to treat health issues. I've turned down more prescriptions than I've filled - because of the uncertainty that the product will do what I want it to and because of the potential for side effects. And don't give me the same old tired BS that we need to load up pharmaceutical companies with money. While pharmaceutical companies run around looking for new maladies to "cure" (I'd never heard of ADHD when I was young), real diseases killing real people are ignored; either because the sick people are too poor to fill the pockets of the pharma giants or because the diseases lack sufficient victims. And you don't need to come up with idiotic conspiracy theories to account for why there has been remarkably little progress on cancer and other long term diseases. It's simple economics. Research is directed towards expensive, proprietary treatments because that's where the profit is. It's very simple. You get what you reward. And what our economic system rewards is expensive, long term treatment that can be patented.

That's a ridiculous premise that has brought us to a point where hundreds of thousands of people die prematurely due to atmospheric pollution, where our oceans are polluted with PCB's and flame retardants and plastics, where many of the ocean's top predators are so toxic we can't safely eat them. As technology continues to evolve, our ability to produce harmful effects continues to grow. It's idiotic to take the position that we can do whatever we want to the environment and the burden of proof is on someone else to demonstrate it isn't safe. You're right. Even with millions spent testing, there are still a lot of unsafe products that are allowed on the market. Primarily, this is a result of a broken economic system that provides almost unimaginably huge greed incentives for corporations to get new drugs on to the marketplace. Secondarily, it's a result of a system of medical science that hasn't learned to treat people as individuals and instead studies populations. So, let's agree that before corporations are allowed to sell products that will significantly alter the chemistry of the atmosphere, at a bare minimum, they should be required to perform the same level of testing as the pharmaceutical industry.

CO2 is a chemical with a very long life and atmospheric changes can cause climate changes that take decades to manifest. Waiting for a perfect forecasting model is risky and pointless. Also, climate change is only one of many harmful effects of burning fossil fuels. The carbon tax is a good idea but $15 is too low to drive behavior. It should be at least double that.

So, your contention is that there is no potential for large atmospheric increases in CO2 (doubling, tripling) to be harmful? Fine. Same as I asked -1=e, provide the scientific proof. I don't think oxygen is bad. I never said CO2 was bad. I don't think mercury is bad. But they will all kill you quickly in high enough concentrations. And they will have long term effects on the environment in lower concentrations. The question is what right do you have to change the atmospheric makeup before you can provide proof it's safe to do so? No evidence of harm. That's wrong but let's say for the minute it's true. I've just invented a drug that will make you smart. I haven't tested it on anyone so, at the moment, there is no evidence of harm. Will Health Canada allow me to sell it? Of course not - I'll have to go through years of testing starting with rats to prove it's safe. So, why do you think you should be able change the atmosphere just because you claim there is "no evidence of harm"? Forget about the IPCC. No doubt they're a bunch of grant-seeking rabble rousing socialists trying to bring capitalism to its knees. Clearly, the oil companies know best what's good for us and they should just bring all their proof that the drastic increases in atmospheric CO2 are not only safe, they'll turn the earth into paradise. You go and bring back the proof. Let us know when you have it. Oh, and while you're at it, could you also prove that all of the other activities in producing fossil fuels are turning the earth into a wonderful paradise as well? Fracking. Deepwater drilling. Supertankers hauling massive amounts of hydrocarbons through ecologically sensitive areas. Refining. Show us the proof so we can all sing the praises of fossil fuels.

Then what is your position? You can't prove that changing the composition of the atmosphere is safe yet you think we should keep on doing it anyway?

That's it? That's your proof that everything will be hunky dory? Hey, mercury is a naturally occurring element found in varying concentrations in the earth's crust since before human history. So, I have a truckload of soil that has some mercury in it. Clearly, according to your scientific proof, you won't mind if I dump it in your backyard, right?

I'm still waiting for your proof of this wild premise that it's safe and economically benign to modify the chemistry of our one and only atmosphere. Given that most terrestrial life depends upon it, I'm sure you're just double-checking your work. Just tell me how much more time you'll need.

And it's a huge place. That's why there's a $10 million guesstimate for fixing it. It's not worth it - time to rebuild. History schmistory. It's only since 1951.

The reason they are short lived is that parties are always jockeying for advantage because they know that under the current system a small bump in the polls can mean a huge bump in the number of seats. And countries that use PR don't have, on average, shorter parliamentary durations that ones that have FPTP.

It's a big box that doesn't say Canada to me. It's typical of Canada that we didn't have an official residence for our head of government for the first 85 years, then we bought a "heritage home" and gutted it, then left it to waste away for another 60 years. Every PM up to the current one has been too chicken to spend money on it. I say put it to a national referendum. Options: 1. Spend up to $12 million to fix it ($10 million is bare minimum). 2. Spend up to $x million to replace it (residence only). 3. Spend up to $y million to build a White House style residence/Prime Ministers office with space for official functions. If it was 2 or 3, we could have public input to the design and it could be a sesquicentennial project. I'd vote for it.

At least wood is renewable, unlike fossil fuels.

Maureen McTeer has expressed the opinion it should be torn down and rebuilt. Frankly, I'm inclined to agree. It seems like when it was renovated in 1951, they ripped out anything that might have been of heritage value. I'm in favor of building a white-house style combination residence and Prime Minister's Office. And yes, I understand our PM is not head of state but as head of government, s/he does have 24/7 commitments.

You're absolutely right. Nobody can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what the effects changing the chemistry of our action will be. So, please, feel free to add as much CO2 as you like - just as soon as you prove it's safe to do so! Please provide your peer-reviewed science that shows the cumulative economic, social and health effects of CO2 as concentrations grow in the atmosphere. Then we can hold a global referendum and agree what level of impact makes everyone comfortable.

Campbell was popular until the public started to hear her talk. Remember her being quoted as saying a campaign was not time to discuss serious issues? The Conservatives had already lost the election by time the ad came along.

So, I'm not sure how you are defending the numerous war crimes in Iraq. Are you using the snobbery defense (rich people are too good to do anything wrong) or the stupidity defense (Bush and Cheney were just too dumb to know what they were doing)?

And your contention is that once these guys are immensely wealthy, they have no motivation to get more money? You've just kicked the legs out from under capitalist economic theory. Oh, they "fumbled". So, you think these guys are like the Trailer Park Boys, but with cruise missiles. Sure, they ruin economies, leave kids orphaned, bomb indiscriminately, cause death and disease by bombing critical services, but deep down they mean well. Is that your thesis? Is that your defense for their war crimes, not only during the invasion but long after? It might be mildly amusing to watch people contort logic to put the best face on events - if it weren't for the fact that real people have been killed and continue to die over there. Your defending war criminals and that's really quite disturbing.

Really. And what is your explanation for the claims that WMD existed when they didn't? Do you think whoops is an acceptable excuse for a whole range of war crimes?

Yeah, fair enough.

I'm wondering if you're in breach of bill C-51. I'd threaten to report it but I'm sure they read it before I did.

Damn. If only the Conservatives had been able to afford you as their adviser, we'd have Prime Minister Kenney. Instead, they had to settle for that Australian with a history of race-baiting. Yup. He's a wide-eyed devotee. And Socialist used to be a real socialist. :rolleyes: I only come around this place for the satire.

I'm not sure what percentage of the population actually agreed with the ban on wearing the niqab during the citizenship ceremony - probably nobody does. The survey that the Harper apologists keep referencing was flawed. The number one reason that people in focus groups gave for wanting the women to remove the niqab was to allow for identification. This showed that most people didn't know this was already being done. I understand that you consider the niqab a symbol of oppression of women but this was way down the list in terms of the reasons given during the focus groups.

Harper apologists like to think so. And yet, that was the point when the election started to turn against Harper.