TimG

Harper's politicking accomplishes two objectives:1) Woo the right of center Liberal voter who dislikes the NDP more than the Reform elements within the CPC 2) Forcing Iggy to repudiate the coalition before the election which will make him a liar if he tries one after the election; Iggy will obviously want to be non-committal but that will alienate right of center Liberal voters and play into Harper's hands.

Nature magazine has long since abandoned any pretense of scientific objectivity and regularly engages in political advocacy. They have no more credibility than Greenpeace.If you want to hear a rant about out of touch scientific elites I suggest this: http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/biotechnology/clips/3762/ It is by David Suzuki. He sounds like a AGW sceptic. The only difference is he is complaining about political advocacy on the part of scientists researching genetics. It amusing how his attitude towards 'elites' changes when scientists push policies which he is ideologically opposed to. My personal opinion is every defender of the current batch of 'scientific elites' is only defending them because this batch of elites happens to saying things that they personally support. If these elites said something they opposed they would turn in the 'anti-elite luddites' in microsecond. In fact, we see this behavior when it comes to GM foods or nuclear waste. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Do you really think she is alone? Do you really think a drug addicted streetwalker with aids would stop doing tricks because she can't get a license? The fact is the women who are best able to deal with a regulatory regime are already taking care of themselves via escort agencies. The women who are really at risk because of psychological/drug issues won't be able to deal with the rules. These women need shelters, detoxes and rehab. They don't need the government to enable their addictions.

Cities can ban some types of businesses entirely. No business has a right to demand that the city allow them to operate (just ask WalMart who has been banned from many cities/towns). There is no such thing as a right to run a business wherever you want.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/police-communities-struggle-to-grasp-prostitution-ruling/article1733812/ Here is a good quote to illustrate why this ruling will do nothing to help women: Identification and registration are non-negotiable. Any legal regime that allows them to operate in public places will require this and the woman quoted is deluding herself if she thinks she can avoid it.

Which is my entire point. The court has no business telling cities what businesses are allowed to operate and where.

But you can't give out samples of cigs. You can't even put up a sign advertising cigarettes. You also cannot set up a bakery where ever you want. If the city says no you are out of luck. No one has a constitutional right to set up a bakery. Why should they have a right to set up a brothel? Prostitution is not illegal either. Only advertising it is illegal.

I can't sit on the street and set up a a 'gambling' booth nor I can set up my own casino. Why not? Why should someone be entitled to sell sex on the street but not offer gambling services? Why should brothels be allowed but not private casinos? If one accepts your rational for ending the restrictions on prostitution then one cannot rationally support restrictions on those activities. Sure they are. You have two adults engaging in a consensual agreement. In both cases you have one adult who is likely participating because they have no other choice and, as a result, is being exploited by the other. In both cases, the exploitation which is an intrinsic part of the activity is the justification for the ban. In both cases, the activity happens even with the ban.

Yes. I take it you do not support decrimination of gambling and loan sharking then despite the 'nanny-state' aspect. I assume you have some convoluted reason why offering gambling and loan sharking services should be prohibited while offering sex for sale where you want when you want is a constitutional right?

We have many redundant laws on the book which are designed to make it easier to convict people doing crimes. For example, there is no need to have a law against driving over 0.08 blood alcohol because there is another charge for impaired driving. We have the 0.08 law because it is tougher prove impairment. The laws against pimping help catch people smugglers. Perhaps we should repeal the laws restricting street vendors and tobocco sales? How about the laws restricting gambling and loan sharking? Should those go too?

I would not argue with that approach if you feel it is worthwhile. But you are the one who asked what we should do given the fact that AGW is happening. I gave you my list.

I bet the pimps and drug dealers are happy. It will also make working as a people smuggler a lot easier. Do people really believe this is good for women?

Not quite. CO2 is not the problem. Climate change is the problem. Richer economies are better able to adapt so emitting more CO2 will reduce the harm caused by any climate change induced by the CO2 (or anything else for that matter).The trouble with CO2 is many people assume it is a toxin that harms life. It is not. It simply causes changes which will be partially good and partially bad. What we need to do is reduce the harm to human society and there is no reason to assume that emitting less CO2 is the best way to reduce that harm. I would describe as the only plan that has a remote chance of working. I do not believe in doing something that I know will fail simply for the sake of "doing something". I am adamantly opposed "doing something" that will likely cause more harm than good (which is the case for most anti-CO2 measures).

No dispute from me. Grow the economy (richer people are better able to deal climate change). Spend money on R&D into alternate energy sources (no mandates unless viable without subsidies). No carbon trading (simply an excuse for scams). No emission targets (will never be met). No international treaties (can't trust governments like China to live up to their promises). Modest carbon tax. Adapt as required.

I have never said the sun explains the MWP. My opinion is the earth has considerable natural variability and we have yet to exceed that range of natural variability. Mountians of data? I think not. Not one shred of data because it is impossible to measure the contribution of CO2 to the current warming. It is value that can only be inferred after accounting for all other factors. The peer reviewed papers claiming that CO2 is to blame all depend on the belief that we know all of things that can affect climate and if that assumption is not true then those papers are only good for bird cage liner.The biggest problem with this debate are the people that cannot grasp uncertainty. It may be true that CO2 is responsible for 70% of warming to date. It could also be true that it is only responsible 20% of the warming. We simply do not know can cannot know. This uncertainty affects the price people are willing to pay for action.

I mentioned nothing about the email threating violance. This is about the emails asking collegues to delete emails which were sent shortly after an FOI request was received. This has been documented here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/uea/uea01.htm IOW, it should be clear to any objective observer that the scientists deliberately broke FOI laws yet escaped prosecution. The fact that the largely incompetent inquiries failed to deal with these substative issues is a subject of another parlimentary hearing in the UK.

Sure. AGW is going on but the answer to that question is largely irrelevant. Agreeing that AGW is happening does not imply that that we should 'do something' about it. That is your opinion. You are entitled to it but many disagree. Personally, I think threats to boycott journals because they published works a scientist did not like is a pretty unethical thing to do and the scientist who suggested it does not deserve to keep his job. Same goes with the one who said he would abuse his power as a IPCC lead author to suppress papers he did not like. Also, deliberately breaking FOI laws (i.e. deleting emails subject to FOI) is actually crime in the UK but they could not prosecuted due to a technicality. I consider breaking laws to be extremely unethical but it appears you have no problem with because annoying people have no right to make FOI requests in your world.

Cannot be explained. First, there is no conclusive evidence that it was only a northern phenomena. Second, if you want to explain it away with hand waving then you can do the same with the current warm period. The claim that 'only' CO2 can explain the current warming is nothing but an opinion since other have shown that 'ocean currents, clouds and urbanization' could also explain the current warming.

I was being sarcastic. My point is community standards are arbitrary and it rather silly to defend the court judgement by telling critics they have no right to impose "community standards". We impose "community standards" all of the time and there is nothing wrong with it. The only real question is have they changed enough to allow people to accept brothels. I don't think they have.

In your opinion. The evidence supporting that opinion is much weaker if there was a warming 1000 years ago that cannot be explained.

Why? How is anyone hurt if two consenting adults want to have sex on the sidewalk? Surely this is a horrible violation of their constitutional rights that should be rectified by the court.

In a trial the testimony of an eye witness is evidence. The weight that evidence is given by the jury depends on a lot of factors including how credible they think the witness is.The same is true of all evidence being used to support the AGW claims. The weight given by the jury (i.e. the voting public) to the evidence affects what policies they will accept. But what policies and at what cost? Would you support mandatory population control given the evidence today? Would you consider such policies if more evidence was available? This is a simple example of how the willingness to accept policies depends on the weight given to the evidence. That is also why climategate matters. It really does not make a difference that nothing in the emails conclusively demonstrates that any of the science is "wrong". What the emails do is show that leading climate scientists are willing to engage in any number of dirty tricks in order to push the ideas that they believe to be true. This means the evidence provided by these scientists is given a lot less weight when it comes to accepting policies.

So? Does the fact that tobacco companies cannot advertise what they sell mean there is no legal way to sell tobacco in the country? How about pharmaceutical drugs? You can't advertise those either. Does that mean there is no legal way to sell them?Are you really arguing for constitution right the advertise whatever you want where ever you want? The agencies cannot be charged with running a bawdy house unless sex takes place on the premises. Maybe they could be charged with 'living off the avails' but I don't know enough about how that law distinguishes between the 'pimp' and the 'prostitute' who both 'live off the avails'. I suspect the agnecies structure themselves in ways to ensure they cannot fall afoul of those laws.

Open the yellow pages. Look up 'escort'. Legal prostitution has been going on for years.

Would be please stop repeating the nonsense that prostitution is criminalized in Canada. It is not. It is perfectly legal to sell sex.What is not legal are: 1) Soliciting clients in a public place; 2) Having sex in a public place; 3) Living off the avails of prostitution (pimping); 4) Running an establishment where sex is sold; http://www.torontocriminaldefence.com/articles/EEAFZllkEEfGCBJCfp.php I assume that you have no issue with keeping 1-3 criminalized. What is at issue in this court case is 4). This is purely a question of business regulation and not allowing a particular type of business to operate is simply an extreme form of zoning rules. I assume you have no problem with cities deciding whether they want to allow walmart to set up shop. Is this any different?

Not unless that is what is desired by the creator. In this case, the creator wished to sabotage specific systems which the creator understood very well. They would not need to program the need for mutation. Sure. All they would need to do fake critical alarms when there are none. This would force the operators to shut down the reactor for safety reasons. If the objective was to disrupt Iran's nuke program then regular unscheduled outages would acheive that goal.