Pateris

So, now the Liberal government has commissioned a study and legal opinion on polygamy... Seems to me that the beloved Charter may finally be leading us down the slippery slope... I wouldn't be surprised if this gets legalized by the courts too. I mean, wouldn't the SCOC say that since peoples from other cultures that allow polygamy have come here, we are infringing on their rights by not allowing it? I don't have any problem with Same Sex Marriage - I think it's just fine. Polygamy is too much.

Funny how the left can say this but I get pilloried for saying the CBC as unbiased as Pravda...

Eureka, Look at the data... stop listening to Suzuki. There has NOT been an increase in the number of severe weather events. There has however been more NEWS COVERAGE of such events.

Yes, four hurricanes hitting Florida in one year is unusual. But I'm sure it has happened before. There have been numerous occasions in the last 100 years that 3 hit. And one century is a pretty small data set. Drought happens. It happened in the 1930s across a good chunk of North America. It happened in Africa in the 1980s. And it will happen again. In fact, the soil evidence in the prairies of North America indicate that the "wet period" from about 1800 until recently is 'abnormal', and that for at least 300 years prior to that it was much drier... If there was a trend showing an increasing number of hurricanes and typhoons over 20 year period I might say there are more storms. But there is no evidence of this. And no one is seriously predicting this in the future.

August, I do not deny that humanity impacts the environment. And there are obvious negative impacts like acid raid, water pollution, and deforestation of tropical rainforests. Those are easy to show they exist and that the impact is negative. The whole "climate change / global warming" issue is trying to make me take a flyer and change my life based on some VERY questionable scientific research. 1. So there is evidence the climate is changing in many places. 2. So there is evidence that the atmospheric composition is changing slightly. 3. So we know that industrial activity puts more of the component in question (CO2) into the atmosphere than happened before industrialization. I can accept the link between points 2 and 3. That's not a great big leap that 2 is caused by 3. But where is the link between 1 and 2? A flaky computer model with more assumptions than real data?

Thelonius - there is NO evidence of increase severe weather events. Further, NONE of the climate models predict more severe weather. This is simply a scare tactic by the greens to scare us. There have not been more hurricanes, tornados, droughts, storms , or any of these things.

Eureka, If the climate warms by a couple of degrees over the next 100 years, there will not be a catastrophe... Humanity and most life will EASILY survive that. There is no catastrophe coming... And I am very wary of those who claim "irrefutable proof" about the future...

An the government begins the spin on Kyoto failure: And further: Interesting how economic growth (which keeps us financially afloat) is making this impossible... Guess we will have to restrict the economy to make the required reductions.

Eureka, Even the most extreme predictions of climate change DO NOT result in a climate that is unlivable for humanity... Yes, some species may disappear. Guess what, that happens all the time. The rate of extinction waxes and wanes, but it is ALWAYS there. And while humanity has an impact (I never denied we did), if you think we are actually going to change it BACK, you are dreaming. That is doomed to failure because we DO NOT UNDERSTAND all the influences. You cannot say you do. As for the NASA stuff - I read it on their website. And even the most basic knowledge of physics will tell you that more clouds will reflect more solar energy back into space than less clouds. That is inherently clear. Will they hold more heat in - yes. But where is the balance - you cannot claim to know that, because science has not figured it out yet. And you completely misunderstood my earlier statement - regarding the laws of thermodynamics. These are fundamental rules of how the universe works. If you want to understand science you MUST understand thermodynamics. Finally, I love how you claim efficiency improvements will get us what you claim we need. Then I show that isn't possible, so you fall back on the socialist idea of "limiting choice" in how we live our lives. Caesar said I don't have to go on a foreign vacation. Guess what - NOT HIS DECISION. My decision. And only mine. The human race will not extinguish intself through the minor changes in the climate. And to try to change it - even you won't be willing to pay for the change.

August, There may be some increase in wages due to labour shortage - but the more severe problem is going to be that the labour shortages are going to be in skilled worker categories, and if wages go too high it will be cheaper to do the work outside Canada. Further, since CPP is only taxed on the first $40,000, higher wages won't bring in more money unless they raise the cap - which is simply a tax increase. Methinks the better solution is to RAISE the age of entitlement from 65 to 75. Voila! No more problem and we can even reduce the rate of CPP taxation. As for a reference to the study showing 14.5%, I used to have a hardcopy. I think my father stole it. And when I say "sustainable", I mean the amount of money going in will equal the amount going out. What is likely going to happen is that the government will end up "topping up" CPP with general revenue funds.

Eureka, The temperatures measured at the south pole are getting LOWER, and the ice cap is THICKENING. Yes, the ice shelfs (which are in the water) are collapsing. As for your 'efficiency' thing, it is CLEAR you have no understand of thermodynamics. There are limits on efficiency improvements. You can't make aircraft significantly more efficient. A few percentages points on efficiency of the engines MIGHT be possible, but if it's going to fly it's going to use a lot of fuel. LOOK at the satellite photos of the Sahel - the green is moving north pushing back the Sahara. Even the UN has noted this. As for the clouds reducing warming - NASA says this is an effect. Yes, the increased cloud cover MIGHT be due to warming of the oceans (and thus higher evaporation rates). But clouds are WHITE. They increase the albedo of the earth, reflecting more of the sun's energy into space. Is the reflecting power more powerful than the heat trapping ability of the clouds? WE DON'T KNOW. It is likely that the earth's climate is self-regulating. Otherwise life could never have survived. And the earth's biosphere will survive this time whether we do anything or not. You will go to your grave spouting off about it, but nothing significant with change in our lifetimes.

Eureka, If there was no cost or sacrifice, it would have been done already... So clearly that argument is fallacious. Also, you claim aircraft are a significant part of CO2 emissions - are you going to restrict my right to go on vacation? Another MAJOR CO2 emitter is SHIPS, which haul 80% of the worlds international trade. How do you reduce that without reducing trade? We could build nuclear powered ships, but that would be a security nightmare. Deforestation for the purposes of oil exploration is MINIMAL. There is no MASS LOGGING to clear space for oil exploration. MASS LOGGING is done to get trees. And yes this is a problem. But new growth forest remove more CO2 than old growth forest. have you ever actually been to an oil field? I think not. Yes CO2 used in food packaging is an emission. But the alternative is nitrogen. And purifying that volume of nitrogen will consume even more energy. Finally - what do you make of these recent NASA studies about cloud cover? Apparently the cloud cover of the planet has increased since 1990. The clouds probably hold more heat in. But they also reflect solar radiation out. And NASA admits they "do not know which is stronger"... And what about the glaciers that are GROWING in Iceland and Norway. There's some global warming for you. And the fact the Antarctic is getting COLDER. And since "desertification" is one of the climate change watch words - why is in that in the last 10 years, the Sahel region of Africa has been growing to the north, turning parts of the Sahara green? If you think we FULLY UNDERSTAND this planet's climate you are fooling yourself. There are significant unknowns and the climate models are filled with assumptions for which there is significant debate about their validity.

This year, the first of the baby boomers (born 1945-1966) have the option of beginning to draw retirement benefits from CPP. Over the next 20 years, the ratio of people collecting benefits versus those paying in will get lower and lower. In 1994 when the Government of Canada started increasing the CPP tax rate to 9.9% of insurable earnings, their OWN studies showed that making the plan sustainable required raising the CPP tax to 14.5%. So, this is the beginning of the end of the CPP. May it rest in peace.

Eureka, You think that the automobile industry is going to have an across the board increase in fuel economy of 30% in the next 7 years and that EVERY Canadian will buy this technology? You are dreaming. I expect that by 2012 hybrid cars might be cost competitive with gasoline cars. But there is no way the automotive industry is going to be COMPLETELY switched over by then. In 7 years we couldn't even build all the power plants to replace the coal fired ones. It's too big a job. And if we tried, you would pay for it in significantly higher power prices.

Eureka, Yes, efficiency gains through technological innovations are possible. But they CANNOT give us the 30% reduction. For example: A coal fired power plant is at best 35% efficient (thermodynamically). A combined-cycle gas fired plant or coal gasification-type plant (with gas turbines and steam turbines) is at best 55% efficient. So, if we turned all of the coal fired plants into gas fired plants, we could get a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions from those plants (or slightly more if natural gas is used, although there isn't enough of it to supply that demand). But coal fired power plants are not the only source of CO2, so this would constitute a small part of the required 30% reduction. Houses heated with natural gas have furnaces that range from ~60% efficient (the older ones) to 90% (in brand new houses). People could replace old furnaces to get a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions. But the cost of doing so is not easily justifiable unless the cost of natural gas goes up (or you are willing to spend your money out of fear of the unknown future). But again, this is a small part of the puzzle. The largest CO2 emission source is transportation fuel. So we need a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions from cars and trucks. Or,essentially and increase in fuel economy of roughly that size. Hmm. Switching all cars to hybrid or diesel would get us a long way there. Switching highway trucks from diesel to diesel-electric (like trains) would get us a lot. But these things will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to do. We can't afford it. Not without giving up a lot of other things, like pensions and health care. The federal government is even admitting we are going to fail to meet our Kyoto obligation. I suspect humanity will be far more success ADAPTING to any climate change than we will be trying to reverse it. Simply because we DO NOT fully understand the system, let alone what levers we coul pull or whether they have any impact whatsoever. You reduce your emission impact by 30%. Think about what I said... how much is it going to cost you?

The allowance of Sharia law for arbitration, or the allowance of th Jewish courts for similar reasons is simply an outcome of the multiculturalism policies put in place by Trudeau's Liberal government. If we want people to "assimilate" and live by Canadian rules, then we should ditch "multiculturalism" and outlaw things like this. But the decision this country made 35 years ago was to be a "mosaic" of different cultures. And that means we accept things like Sharia arbitration courts.

caesar, Popularity of a government and whether it has failed to fulfill it's promises are TWO WHOLY SEPARATE THINGS. I know what Campbell promised to do and he has backed away from most of it due to opposition. Funny how he has wimped out on the things he promised to do (and that got him elected), yet people still hate him for not being a socialist pinko.

caesar, Oh, the moral high ground... and what do we get from that other than a smug feeling of superiority? NOTHING You'd have us stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. I think joining up (which will cost us little - the American's aren't asking for financial help) at least lets us know what they are doing and perhaps gives us some influence into how it is used... If we stay out we have NO influence at all. And if used, the junk will STILL fall on us... Think your moral high ground will protect you?

I too am not entirely convinced that Arar is "clean". I suspect he does have some ties to a terrorist group, otherwise it is unlikely Canada would have been investigating him and been able to pass a file to the US. Yes, I think deporting him to Syria was wrong. But should there still be an investigation into whether he might have been associated with a terrorist organization continue? Yes.

Thelonius, The reason you cannot choose to only get specific channels is also the government's fault. The CRTC specifies which channels and packages of channels you can choose from. Why? Because the cable and satellite companies want it that way to generate revenue. Also, the smaller Canadian cable channels need that level of market penetration to survive - and the Government of Canada wants them to for "cultural reasons". Second - YOU do NOT subsidize the crappy american stations. You get those for free (other than paying the cable company, who does NOT pay the Americans much of anything for it). American networks are funded entirely by advertising, except in cases like PBS and HBO. They also make money by selling their programs to foreign stations like CTV and CBC. So if the CBC is showing a crappy American sitcom, YES, you are subsidizing it. But if you watch NBC from New York or Seattle you are not. You are just paying the cable company's shareholders. The CBC does provide a VERY small amount of unbiased news. But they slip their liberal bias into many stories, even the ones on the tsunami disaster (which I find particularly distasteful). I will admit that FoxNews is over the top when it comes to political commentary. But at least if I choose not to watch it my taxes aren't funding it.

Eureka, Countries that have already met their Kyoto obligations... Hmm - those would be countries in Europe that have relatively stagnant economies and minimal population growth, and in some cases population decline. Hmm That's not hard. The number of cars on the road in North America is significantly higher today than in 1990. In Europe, this is not the case. Heavy industrial capacity in Europe has been falling as they move the industrial capacity into lower cost locations like eastern Europe and India. Russia has met it's obligations because it's values are set based on 1990 Soviet numbers and the Russia economy SIGNIFICANTLY declined in the years after the dissolution of the union. One of the reasons Russia was tempted not to ratify was the prospect that their economy will grow quickly in the future. And finally, I am not peddling PR for the energy industry. Like I said, if we could find a good alternative to fossil fuels I'd move to that business right away. But unless nuclear fusion pans out, NONE of the "green" alternatives is even close to being a viable replacement. As for the issue of "Actually, we would not have to do that" is silly. if we are to make canada's CO2 emissions 6% lower than 1990: 30% lower than today. Than means reducing fossil fuel consumption by 30%. Since most of the fossil fuel consumption is in the form of natural gas to heat houses, coal to generate electricity, and oil for transportation fuels, we would have to reduce those by 30%. How do we do that without severely impacting the economy. You tell me that, maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.

But Caesar, If we don't join, the stuff will STILL fall on us - we can't stop the American's from doing it so your argument is fallacious.

The Campbell government has mostly been a failure because it failed to do most of the things they promised to do because they got stared down by the environmentalists, the unions and even the people who elected them

I think the US Missile Defense System is very questionable. The tests have all been failures and a lot of physicists are questioning whether it is even possible. However, whether Canada gets involved or not is irrelevent to whether the US fires these missiles over us in the event of an attack from Korea or other countries. And since it won't cost Canada a cent to get involved, why not? At least we'll have some inside track on knowing what the American's are doing...

Eureka, What you need to admit is that the economy is essentially capitalist (think Adam Smith) and that changes in behaviour in the economy must be driven by dollars. If the government wants to change behaviour, they must either take control (reduce the capitalist aspect) or impose costs on the undesirable activity. Businesses and individuals are generally NOT going to modify behaviour just because there is a risk of climate change. As for the comments about tobacco and poisons - at some point people didn't know these things were bad. For instance, from 1921 until 1955 the most common pesticide sprayed on fruit was lead arsenate... lead AND arsenic... then we discovered that was bad. I agree that the tobacco companies and some drug/chemical companies have tried to hide the damage their products have done. The oil industry has made great strides to clean up. Sulfur emissions are WAY DOWN. Other pollutants are WAY DOWN. The problem with CO2 is one of scale. And that most of the CO2 emissions associated with fossil fuels aren't released by the oil producers - but by consumers. All the cars in Canada release 10 times as much CO2 as the whole oil industry does. And the oil industry is reducing it's CO2 emissions per barrel of oil produced. That makes economic sense (because CO2 emissions are energy wasted). Even the oil industry in Alberta has looked at nuclear power to supply electricity and heat to the oil sands projects because it might be cheaper than burning natural gas... If there is damage, let us do what we can. But don't expect everyone to shutdown the economy to do so. I mean, for Canada to meet it's Kyoto obligations we would have to take 30% of the cars and trucks off the road (or convert them to electric), convert 30% of our non-nuclear and non-hydro power generation to something else. 30% of our power generation capacity would cost hundreds of billions of dollars we couldn't spend on other things.