Pateris

Cartman, The market does control the highest wage. How much someone is paid in a free market is dependent on an agreement between the worker and the employer. No one is forcing the employer to pay that wage. They choose to.

Eureka, Then you are leaving it to people like me. I am one of the people working on energy and where we are going to get it in future. I am one of the people who makes sure that your lights turn on when you flick the switch. And that the gasoline you buy today is cleaner than the gasoline you bought five years ago and is produced more efficiently. I know a lot about energy, the various alternatives, and which ones are viable and which ones are a long way away from being viable. Some of this material you refer to on these topics - I was involved in producing it. Alternative energy is all about scale, cost, environmental footprint and thermodynamic efficiency. And all the "new and green" alternatives have a major problem with at least one of these. If someone can find an alternative that is cheaper, more efficient, cleaner and can be done all those ways on a large scale - GREAT. But we haven't found anything yet. What we SHOULD be spending lots of research money on is nuclear fusion. But Canada bailed out of the ITAR project...

August, I apologize if I gave the impression of impugning any nations soldiers. I was simply trying to point out that in the years prior to US involvement in the war, the Allies were not "wearing down the Nazi war machine", but simply trying to avoid getting taken over. It was not until after US involvement (not that US involvement alone changed the outcome) that the actual "wearing down of the Nazi war machine" began.

Newfie, I couldn't agree more. Because if we test every animal like Japan, France and Italy, we will find dozens of cases a year (like they do). But we can guarantee they don't make the food chain. And we should crack down on the feed problems too. If we did test every animal, and the American's didn't, we could steal their markets

Of course there is bias in the media. There always has been and always will be. This bias comes from the views and interest of the owners, the editors, and the writers. If I want to read the biased National Post, I will CHOOSE to buy it. If I want to read the biased Toronto Star, I will CHOOSE to buy it. But even if I choose not to watch the CBC, I am forced to pay for it - this is what rankles me about the CBC. The CBC can stay that way in my opinion if it STOPS taking federal largesse and supports itself on advertising revenue like the rest of the broadcast world. I will admit however, the CBC is masterful in how it exhibits the bias subtly through it's choice of stories and slants on stories so that the majority of Canadians don't recognize that the CBC is the propaganda arm of the federal government (and thus the Liberal government and the bureaucracy). They broadcast stories on the news to "create" the feeling of goodwill towards Liberal ideas. Goebbels would be proud.

As for salary caps in professional sports, there is a reason why some sports have implemented them. Because the owners can't seem to hold down salaries based on economics. If the owners were all good business people, they would refuse to pay the ridiculous salaries and some players would be forced to accept lower wages. If a truly free market existed, the poor business practices of the owners would quickly bankrupt the leagues. And that might be a good thing. And us "right wing Conservative types" don't like artificial minimum wages. However there is a natural minimum wage. It's the minimum the market can offer for a job that someone will accept to do. And of course the absolutely minimum is zero and we should have laws against slavery.

Cartman, Suzuki is clearly against fossil fuels and nuclear power. However you are correct, he is pressing for further energy efficiency. I suspect this is because he has come to realization that the "green" alternatives are a very long way away from being viable. And I am all for higher energy efficiency, if it pays for itself. For instance, if I can reduce my household gas bill by $300 per year, that would be great. But only if the capital expenditure required is less than about $3000. because otherwise I can invest that $3000 somewhere else and make MORE than $300 a year without reducing my energy demand. The economics have to justify energy efficiency. The state can of course interfere by adding costs to energy through taxation, or providing incentives to reduce my capital expenditure. Buying a smaller car or a hybrid should be justified through the same economic evaluation as above. If the hybrid has a present value (including operating costs) that is lower than a traditional vehicle and provides similar "non-tangible benefits" like performance or comfort - absolutely acceptable. Personally, I think Canada should reduce energy demand. That way we would have more energy to sell to the US - this would help enrich our nation. And finally Cartman - do you serious believe the CBC has no liberal bias?

Caesar: Before the American's came in? Ok, what were "our troops (meaning Britain and Canada I assume) doing before the American's entered the war in December 1941... Well, we fled Europe at Dunkirk ahead of the advancing German army. Then we sat on Britain until the American's came to help. Oh, the British, Indians and Australians did some fighting in North Africa in 1940 and 41. And the RAF pilots tried very hard to stop the German war machine from bombing England into submission (successfully, yes). But "wearing down the Nazi war machine"? Very funny. The Nazi war machine in 1941 was pretty much at it's peak from then until the fall of 1942 at Stalingrad.

Eureka, Belittling your opponents intelligence as you do simply shows you have nothing behind your argument. The other fact i note is that you never answer my questions about alternatives... And trust me, I know far more about those than you do.

The CBC is about as unbiased and reliable as Pravda or Volkskischer Beobachter.

caesar: So, should cigarettes be sold ONLY in government run stores? What about prescription drugs? On that topic, how come the government doesn't nationalize the drug companies? That's part of health care that makes a profit... do you have a problem with that?

Eureka, As for you believing the "scientists", do you read all the peer-reviewed journals in the various fields related to this subject? I don't think you do, because you never actually say anything SUBSTANTIVE. You just spout about the "consensus". Or do you simply watch David Suzuki and Friends on the CBC? Because in case you hadn't noticed, the CBC is about as unbiased and reliable as Pravda was in the Soviet Union. And in science, consensus is often the dangerous situation right before the discovery that everyone is wrong and the universe is weirder than we can imagine. If consensus was the basis of science, Einstein would have been written off as a charlatan and we wouldn't have smoke detectors, GPS satellites or nuclear power. because you see, the consensus was that Einstein was wrong for 14 years after he published his papers.

Eureka, I never studied history in a university, but I am well read on the subject. My data was based on the average of the land forces in Europe between June 1944 and May 1945. Not the numbers at the very beginning or very end. Also, as VE Day approached, the americans (who by your numbers were 67% of the land divisions), were already withdrawing troops to send to the Pacific since it was clear the Germans were already beaten. 15000 of the 28000 aircraft were American flagged. What about American-built? It may have had a British or Canadian pilot, but a lot of those planes were built in the USA, or out of American steel and aluminum... And the entire Allied armies in the west ran on American oil for the most part. And of the course the American's couldn't have their full navy in Europe - it was BUSY IN THE PACIFIC.

Eureka, The overwhelming majority of scientists and engineers say that we only have TWO technically viable large scale energy sources. Fossil fuels or nuclear power. You pick. Further, a growing number of the "kyoto-supporting" scientists are now admitting that it MAY BE TOO LATE. What in any of the current plans will reduce CO2 in the atmosphere? NOTHING

a little history lesson... During the Second World War, Canada played a relatively significant role considering the then small population of 11 million. However, this role was dwarfed by the involvement of the primary combatants. The United States supplied 75% of the troops on the ground in Western Europe from June 1944 to May 1945. Britain, Canada, the Free French and Poles provided the remainder in roughly that order. The United States also provided about 85% of the equipment. Consider that at this same time they were fighting the Japanese essentially alone. Admittedly, Canada did provide almost half of the escorts for the convoys across the atlantic. Of course, the real work of defeating Nazi Germany was done by our friends in the east. By the time of D-Day Germany was already doomed due to the Russian advance. Everytime we commemorate D-Day and talk about the end of the war we should pause and think of Stalingrad, Kursk and the Siege of Leningrad. The Second World War was won primary by American industrial capacity and Russian blood.

Eureka, I already have money riding on the fact that Canada will NOT meet it's Kyoto obligations. And I am willing to bet that the world won't reduce energy consumption or switch to alternative sources until they are CHEAPER than the current sources. And this is because I do not believe that the climate is going to change so much that it will negatively affect the majority of people's lives. Why? Because we will spend more time and money ADAPTING to the changed climate than we will spend trying to change it back. I also believe that if the anthropogenic effect you are claiming is happening is real, then we would need to build GIANT factories to REMOVE CO2 from the environment, or else it is ALREADY TOO LATE. Adapt to the change. Don't try to turn back the clock, because you will fail. And remember, the only VIABLE alternative to fossil fuels is NUCLEAR. Wanna go there?

Eureka, One of the problems in Canada's medical system is that we pay nurses and doctors too little, and support staff too much. Should a janitor get paid more than $20/hr? I don't think so. But they do. And we have too many administrators for what they do. And we CANNOT TELL HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO TREAT AN INDIVIDUAL PATIENT. If we aren't MEASURING the costs, how can we possibly hope to control them?

You do know that Sweden is PRIVATIZING it's hospitals right? Because the state decided the system would be more affordable if there was competition and profit motive in the provision of health care. The state still provides the insurance, but not the actual operation of the hospitals. And guess what: The labour unions LIKE IT, because their workers are getting paid more.

Eureka, India, China, et al have NOT agreed to anything. They would need to sign a future post-Kyoto agreement and agree to reduce emissions at some point in the future. This is unlikely. Second, The kyoto accord as it stands, even if implemented successfully (a big if) will have a negligible effect on the composition of the atmosphere or climate in 100 years. And the biggest if is whether some countries will be able to meet their requirements. Canada most surely will fail to meet our "commitment". Finally, Kyoto as ratified may be considered some arcane "international law", but it has NO enforcement provision... If we fail to meet our commitments, can the rest of the world do anything about it? Nope If carbon trading internationally is set up we may be asked to buy credits from a country that is already below it's commitments (say Russia). however this will not reduce emissions. This simply moves money around. Russia's current emissions are below 1990 levels only because the russia economy collapsed and thrust millions into abject poverty. And I don't want to see our economy collapse under the weight of a "commitment" to a non-unanimous international protocol. Canadians are NOT ready to accept a 30% energy consumption reduction by 2012. They won't pay for it.

Eureka, Without the atmosphere, the surface of the earth would be a deeply frozen wasteland, like the surface of the moon. The atmospheric greenhouse effect is what makes this planet habitable. While the primary components of the atmosphere (N2, O2, Ar) have minimal heat holding capability (because they are atomic or diatomic), the small components in the atmosphere do the bulk of the "heat retention". CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. At 350 ppm it accounts for less than 3% of the total heat retention. CH4 is a strong greenhouse gas, but is not stable in the atmosphere because it oxidises easily to CO2 and H2O H2O is a moderately strong greenhouse gas. However, it's impact on the system is by far the largest, because the concentrations are so much higher. For instance, even on a dry cold day, the content of water vapour in the atmosphere is HUNDREDS of times the content of CO2. On a hot humid day the content is TENS OF THOUSANDS of times the content of CO2. This is why water vapour in the atmosphere accounts for well in excess of 90% of the greenhouse effect. Therefore, changes in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere should have MINIMAL impact on the total heat holding capacity of the atmosphere. Finally, recent studies on the HEAT REFLECTING impact of anthropogenic particulates in the air (mostly from coal and diesel engines) means less solar energy is reaching the surface. This will have a cooling effect on the planet... and those same IPCC sanctioned computer models show that this will counteract the added CO2...

The quotes of Josef Stalin... On death: The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic. On education: Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed. On war and peace: If any foreign minister begins to defend to the death a "peace conference," you can be sure his government has already placed its orders for new battleships and airplanes. On ideas: Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas? And to the Politburo about the future in 1951: Once I am gone, the capitalists will drown you like blind kittens. Clearly, he saw the writing on the wall...

The lefties on this board (caesar, eureka, et al) love to shoot down the proposals of the right on fixing health care, yet do nothing but stick their heads in the sand about the problems... And completely fail to provide alternative proposals other than RAISE taxes. That is just old bleeding-heart Liberal and socialist NDP welfare state crap. Nothing new from the left since Tommy Douglas...

Eureka, All depends which curve you look at. The curves based on tree rings do show a larger increase since the 19th century than during the Medieval Warm Period. However, the coral reef data shows the medieval warm period was warmer than we have today, and happened just about as fast (although there was no corresponding CO2 increase in the atmosphere). Also, how do you explain that CO2 is about 3% of the greenhouse effect, and the increase in CO2 concentration over the last 200 years doubled it to get there?

Well written Argus - I agree wholeheartedly

Eureka, I did a detailed analysis of the IPCC reports, and found some really funny outcomes. For instance, the IPCC report specifies CO2 emissions for each country over the next 100 years. It assumes some level of economic growth to reach these values. If you back out what the per capita GDP of the country is in 2100, every country in Africa is wealthier than the United States... seems pretty far fetched to me. The other thing about the IPCC is the failure to report the ERROR BARS. In scientific assessments, there is always some error carried in the numbers. Proper scientific work carries these errors through (there is even a special branch of math for it). In the IPCC summaries, there is NO reference to the expected error in the final predictions of temperature changes. If you dig into the underlying reports, you can find the error calculations, and something interesting comes out. The error in the calculations that the scientists report is LARGER than the predicted change. In most scientific works this is a firm indication that your prediction isn't useful for much of anything. It is a very strong indication that too many assumptions have been made, and that too little is understood about the system being modelled. I find it hilarious that we are thinking of halting economic growth in western countries (and sending money to Russia) on the basis of science with lots of error.