Goat Boy©

The theory of global warming is un-provable. You cannot draw a conclusion from an experiment when you cannot control the environment and contributing factors. The system is too complex. My problem with it, is that it has turned religious. "No!" "Because it is!" "Well, I believe it!" "We already have the answer, why look at other things?" Logical thinking has been lost somewhere along the way of group-think and money bags......things like kyoto are a complete waste of time, so by effectively doing nothing we end up worse than when we started because of the net loss in energy dedicated. It's time to go back to the drawing board, and start again. I don't think we'll like what we find.

I really don't understand this argument. I hear people complaining about making $12/hr, how they can't get by, yet in the next row down there is a single mother surviving off of $8/hr. I'm lower middle class and have never complained once about a wage, from $3/hr chopping wood as an 8 year old to $12/hr for throwing fish. As a resident of Canada, forget that, as a human being....how can one complain about not getting by, with shelter and a full stomach? Over half of the residents of the world have to choose one or the other, if they have the opportunity to choose. I'm going to complain about not being able to take a holiday, go to the school I want or buy an LCD TV tomorrow, meanwhile 40,000 people die of starvation? As a resident of North America (8% of world pop) we consume somewhere around 40% of the worlds resources. Combined with Europe, that number jumps to 60%. We're friggin rich, all of us.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/26/climate-change-hack.html Albeit, rather slanted like everything else on CBC these days. They'll soon be competing with fox news if they keep this up.

I really don't believe that this proves or disproves man-made global warming at all. This says to me, some scientists responsible for collecting and collating data lied. The penalties for lying are unparalleled economic consequences, however it doesn't mean that the possibility of us changing the planet in a negative fashion is disproven.

The Sun increases in both size and intensity every year. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980218c.html

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743589 Off topic, start a new one if need be.

That is one hell of a statement. Especially coming from a guy who posted in the same thread that we really don't know what will happen, and need to do more research prior to directing massive amounts of resources. To put that in context, my own positions are: -The global warming campaign is alarmist. -Al Gore needs to shut up and be banned from media. -The human race has "conclusively proven" something many times only to have it thrown out. -The current carbon campaign is tunnel vision, potentially ignoring other and far larger problems. -The current carbon campaign is ineffective regardless of reasoning, population growth will account for any gains made. It is not possible to return to 1990 levels of emissions without accounting for the pop growth rate as well as the 2 billion extra breathing bodies on the planet, as well as drastically reducing human standards of living which has not happened. -These guys should be put on the stand and punished appropriately. I also hope that they are sued to account for damages should they be found guilty. I still think we're rendering this place uninhabitable for our future generations, we're just monumentally conceited to think that we understand how we're doing it, and how to prevent it. Worst case global warming is the planet Venus: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/29/xin_39211042916580153004524.jpg Which is also possible however unlikely.

Oooh, Juicy! Although, admittedly one sided. Have to wonder if true, I wouldn't be in any way surprised. http://www.lowe.ca/Rick/FirearmsLegislatio...rViolations.htm

I'm still waiting to watch Montie's trial. I grew up in Tsawwassen where he killed the kid.

Registry continues to shine....aiding telemarketers now. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/24/...n-response.html

X2

Sound logic. The infared transmitter on your television was originally designed to send signals that kill people. Let's ban television remotes. Besides, you know.....cancer.

Really? This device's purpose is to shoot targets at the olympics. Given the nature of it's .22 barrel diameter, somebody would have to be shot a few dozen times for a fatal injury, heck that would be one heck of an accident. http://www.altiusguns.com/images/custom/08152006.jpg Do you also fully support banning all drugs? While we're at it, let's ban tobacco and booze as well. What about all of the lives lost in Urban Canada? If it saves 1 life, but takes 2 in grizzly attacks, is it still worth it?

I wish this was my work, sadly it isn't, but worth publishing:

To further on this: Heaven forbid the cops ever show up at my place; My PAL is registered to an address in another city. No penalty for failing to keep it up to date, 'Hey, I've still got my paperwork.' If they did manage to draw a correlation between my drivers license and PAL, they would then learn that their are no firearms on the property. They are evenly distributed between my brothers house, and my friends house. Alas, I don't have a safe, and as a responsible firearms owner, more responsible than the federal government, I feel it necessary to go above and beyond the regulation of, 'One secure barrier.' IE: Locked plastic gun case. This is legal, never mind the fact that you can just pry it open. On top of which, I own two additional guns registered to my brother, which belong to me, which are stored in my friends safe, and we are all in 3 different cities. The extent of the 'Zero penalty honor system' applied to this registry is just absolutely amazing. For two billion dollars you would think that they could at least consider enforcing the rules as they are. Not to mention, that in my case as with many other friends, the registry does absolutely nothing to accomplish it's intended purpose. It also never ceases to amaze me that the gun-control crowd is up in arms over something as ridiculous as this registry, but utterly silent and ignorant to the actual policies that could use some help, such as storage, transportation & ammunition. Walking down the street with an empty 30/30 in your left hand, and a box of ammo in your right.....awwww, that's ok, it's legal. Heck even if you put the rounds in the tube, that's ok, we'll just confiscate your firearm, don't worry, you aren't to be punished. We don't punish people, or even try and enforce the law before attempting to add new laws too it, or reform it. And don't you dare try and mock our registry, it's a nice registry, what has it ever done to harm you.

They can't afford an election, as well as they are currently lacking the support they would like to see for said election. Open and shut.

Ok, lets explain this with the scientific method. -You've asked a question. -You've done some research. -You've constructed a hypothesis. -It is now time to conduct an experiment. I would suggest you go out and actually try doing this, it's only $80, why not. You might be surprised with what you find out.

So you are contesting something that I actually went out and did, and experienced against something that you looked up on the intra-web? I don't even know what to say.

I don't really think that we need to worry about defending our nation, our neighbor to the south will happily do it for us, not entirely free of charge of course, but free of direct charge. Beyond that, the commonwealth ties remain strong. I don't think that is an excuse to underfund the military, they do a lot more than just kill people. Especially based on the fact that Canada chooses to send soldiers into conflict zones, and has been notorious for not equipping them properly. Warfare isn't one of those things you can do half-way, after all, if two billion dollars spent on the gun registry is worth it to save one life, do we not owe the same to our soldiers? My $.02

OK. Every single person I shoot with elected to pay the extra $20 for restricted, even with no intention of ever using it. It is not a different test. You check an extra box on the form, and write a cheque for $80 instead of $60. The actual written element of the test covers general firearms safety, things like ACT, PROVE, etc. Nothing to do with the difference between restricted/non-restricted. The element of adding restricted, if you have an instructor that cares; He will explain to you what the regulations are, what denotes a restricted weapon, how to transport, ATT, storage, secure barriers, etc. If he cares, many do not, and they just send the extra money. There is no difference, you pay $20 more.

Nothing to do with the long gun registry. The POL is ridiculous, but liscensing firearms owners is a good idea.

OK, lets start here. Have you ever taken the firearms test? Tell the truth.

The comment was in reference to the Liberal parties published goal of a complete ban on handguns, not the registry. Regulation is the banning of certain firearms which are construed as dangerous in my view. I agree, and their is no reason for anybody to own a fully automatic weapons, derringers, sawed-off shotguns, etc. They did get a little bit silly with the restricted list, like the fact that an AR-15 is considered restricted, but a Mini-14 is not.....by ballistics, they are nearly identical. It is possible to convert a Mini-14 to an uncontrolled fully automatic mode with simple machined parts, an AR-15 needs custom illegal party that have to be smuggled across the border. I agree, the registry isn't going anywhere which stands as a tribute to stupidity. Like throwing money into a fire. But all in all, gun control laws in Canada are fine, which is why I find it so silly that they seek to reform them and further punish innocent firearms owners, without even taking a shot at enforcing the current set of laws. It is the justice system that needs reform, if the current laws were actually being used, we might have some sort of a foundation to base reform on. Were it not for the Liberal Senate, this may actually be the case today. I also agree that gun control should be directed on a more local basis, but provincially. Ontario can have their ban, and the issue is closed.

If hand guns were never to be banned, then why waste a few more billion on frivolous legislation, as well as further taxing owners forcing them to to go out and pay for an ATT to avoid having firearms be confiscated. And yes, you can buy a restricted firearm with a PAL, you simply pay the additional $20 to have 'Restricted' printed on it, which is essentially standard procedure.

What Rubbish. Handguns are by no means banned, nor are the grandfathered Prohib 12 (4) & 12 (6). The Liberals proposed banning all handguns not registered under an ATT (Another extension of the misfiring registry, and one hell of a tax grab), 'Specifically for target shooting' is political propaganda. Handguns have been registered in Canada for a long time, they have never been banned, and the Prohib 12 (6) for a very short time.