So this is why I'll be voting Conservative

[The_Squid]

Who

If legalizing pot is more important to them than anything else, then they're not likely to be Tories.

Because it's only lefty potheads who want marijuana legalized? Argus' post is a very good example of the hyper partisanship shown on this forum by CPC supporters.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fraser-institute-study-calls-for-legal-pot-1.474737

The Fraser Institute is as conservative (and Conservative) as you can get. So that kind of spoils your narrative, no?

Edited August 13, 2015 by The_Squid

[Topaz]

How do you know that? Maybe that one weakness they have or are you saying Tory supporters live their lives like some ppl do about religion? How many voters agree 100% with any party?

[Argus]

Because it's only lefty potheads who want marijuana legalized? Argus' post is a very good example of the hyper partisanship shown on this forum by CPC supporters.

Did I say that? Nope. I said that if that's your main priority you're unlikely to be a Tory. Do you have a problem with reading? I mean, do you read at a very low comprehension level? If so I'll make allowances and try to write in much smaller words and sentences.

Your own hyper partisanship has been demonstrated repeatedly, so go look in a mirror, bub.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Argus

[Bryan]

The Fraser Institute is as conservative (and Conservative) as you can get. So that kind of spoils your narrative, no?

That they published that paper is evidence they aren't as conservative as you think they are.

[PIK]

I do not want to see legalization ,but I would go for decimalization. I have changed my mind on the pain relief.

[jacee]

I do not want to see legalization ,but I would go for decimalization. I have changed my mind on the pain relief.

I want to put the criminals out of business.

Legalize, tax and regulate it so the profits go to Canadians, not to organized crime.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

I want to put the criminals out of business.

Legalize, tax and regulate it so the profits go to Canadians, not to organized crime.

.

It does seem quite obvious doesn't it? I can't believe how out of touch Harper is on the subject. Or is he really, or just, once again, playing to the base? Anything to hold onto power. He should fire up a doobie and chill out once in a while.

[poochy]

It does seem quite obvious doesn't it? I can't believe how out of touch Harper is on the subject. Or is he really, or just, once again, playing to the base? Anything to hold onto power. He should fire up a doobie and chill out once in a while.

Yea, he is so out of touch, just like most leaders of most countries, everywhere, so out of touch, and apparently normal. Personally, im OK with decriminalization, or even legalization, but despite what some people think, that isn't without some problems.

Edited August 13, 2015 by poochy

[socialist]

Yea, he is so out of touch, just like most leaders of most countries, everywhere, so out of touch, and apparently normal. Personally, im OK with decriminalization, or even legalization, but despite what some people think, that isn't without some problems.

What has Harper done to earn my support? Taking terrorism seriously, cutting taxes instead of constantly raising them and most importantly-going head to head with the Wynne government regarding the Ponzi Pension Scam.

[WIP]

You are confusing the decay time of tropospheric methane with the temperature-methane feedback. We have a good idea of what the temperature-methane feedback was during the Pleistocene from ice core data (it's about 75 ppb/C) and we also know that the methane-temperature feedback is much smaller today since there is less permafrost to melt at the margin as we are in an interglacial period.

The precautionary principle is a dumb principle in all cases, it is basically the position of infinite risk aversion. It leads to decisions that ignore all empirical evidence, and the precautionary principle is the same logical form as Pascal's Wager. The precautionary principle leads to absurd policy recommendations such as we should put snowshoes on all cattle:

This is what the Wikipedia entry on methane says this about recent historical levels of methane in our atmosphere:

Patterns of methane change over time

Since the 1800s, atmospheric methane concentrations have increased annually at a rate of about 0.9%.^[11] Long term atmospheric measurements of methane by NOAA show that the build up of methane has slowed dramatically over the last decade, after nearly tripling since pre-industrial times.^[41] Although scientists have yet to pinpoint the exact reason(s) for this sudden drop in growth rates, it is thought that this reduction is due to reduced industrial emissions and drought in wetland areas.

The only exceptions to this drop in growth rate occurred in 1991 and 1998 when growth rates increased suddenly to 14-15 nmol/mol per year for those years, nearly double the growth rates of the years before.^[13]

The 1991 spike is believed to have occurred due to the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June of that year. Volcanoes affect atmospheric methane emissions when they erupt, releasing ash and sulfur dioxide into the air. As a result, photochemistry of plants is affected and the removal of methane via the tropospheric hydroxyl radical is reduced. However, growth rates quickly fell due to lower temperatures and global reduction in rainfall.

The cause of the 1998 spike is unresolved, but scientists are currently attributing it to a combination of increased wetland and rice field emissions as well as an increased amount of biomass burning. 1998 was also the warmest year since surface temperatures were first recorded, suggesting that anomalously high temperatures can induce elevated methane emission.^[42]

Data from 2007 suggested methane concentrations were beginning to rise again.^[43] This was confirmed in 2010 when a study showed methane levels were on the rise for the 3 years 2007 to 2009. After a decade of near-zero growth in methane levels, "globally averaged atmospheric methane increased by [approximately] 7 nmol/mol per year during 2007 and 2008. During the first half of 2009, globally averaged atmospheric CH₄ was [approximately] 7 nmol/mol greater than it was in 2008, suggesting that the increase will continue in 2009."^[44]

Methane emissions levels vary greatly depending on the local geography. For both natural and anthropogenic sources, higher temperatures and higher water levels result in the anaerobic environment that is necessary for methane production.

I wish I had the numbers close at hand, but the last time I looked, average atmospheric CH4 levels are getting close to 2000 ppb today, which is almost a three-fold increase from the 720 ppb levels estimated near the start of the industrial revolution. If methane levels have tripled over the course of the industrial revolution, that reinforces the point made by rising CO2 levels that the Earth's natural carbon sequestration systems aren't able to deal with the amount of carbon we are unleashing to carry out our economic activities. Methane is unstable in an atmosphere with oxygen, and that's how you get it removed in a short timeframe....unlike CO2! But the question is where is that methane going? Some of it will get captured and locked into soils, but alot of methane combines with oxygen to add more CO2 to the atmosphere and the oceans.

It's pretty much a done deal that methane levels are rising exponentially today, the only argument among the experts is how fast! Because as noted, methane levels vary greatly around the world, but the fact that they are much higher in Siberia and most of the Arctic, compared to temperate latitudes, indicates that we are already in a stage of positive feedbacks pushing the dials on the greenhouse effect out of our control. If there is still time to slow carbon emissions down enough to prevent disaster is also up for grabs. Most of the serious climatologists have to talk their most cautiously optimistic to make a case for controlling climate change today.

[socialist]

This is what the Wikipedia entry on methane says this about recent historical levels of methane in our atmosphere:

I wish I had the numbers close at hand, but the last time I looked, average atmospheric CH4 levels are getting close to 2000 ppb today, which is almost a three-fold increase from the 720 ppb levels estimated near the start of the industrial revolution. If methane levels have tripled over the course of the industrial revolution, that reinforces the point made by rising CO2 levels that the Earth's natural carbon sequestration systems aren't able to deal with the amount of carbon we are unleashing to carry out our economic activities. Methane is unstable in an atmosphere with oxygen, and that's how you get it removed in a short timeframe....unlike CO2! But the question is where is that methane going? Some of it will get captured and locked into soils, but alot of methane combines with oxygen to add more CO2 to the atmosphere and the oceans.

It's pretty much a done deal that methane levels are rising exponentially today, the only argument among the experts is how fast! Because as noted, methane levels vary greatly around the world, but the fact that they are much higher in Siberia and most of the Arctic, compared to temperate latitudes, indicates that we are already in a stage of positive feedbacks pushing the dials on the greenhouse effect out of our control. If there is still time to slow carbon emissions down enough to prevent disaster is also up for grabs. Most of the serious climatologists have to talk their most cautiously optimistic to make a case for controlling climate change today.

Harper stands for a balanced, centrist approach to governing. He understands we are a great country and don't need fundamental change, we just need to respond to change in a positive way..

Trudeau and Mulcair want more government control, to manipulate the way we vote to benefit their parties in the future, and they both stand for unbalanced, unsustainable budgets.

Pretty obvious choice if you want to keep Canada one of the great nations of the world!

[PIK]

Jacee. the Mounties raided a place in Vancouver for the reason that it is being run by organize crime. That is the future of it. Let people grow a little amount.

[socialist]

That they published that paper is evidence they aren't as conservative as you think they are.

Canada’s corporate tax rate has fallen from 28 per cent in 2000 to 15 per cent today. Yet tax revenue has grown since then by 31 per cent, with a 46 per cent growth in personal taxes. So why does everyone want to increase corporate taxes?

[-1=e^ipi]

I wish I had the numbers close at hand, but the last time I looked, average atmospheric CH4 levels are getting close to 2000 ppb today, which is almost a three-fold increase from the 720 ppb levels estimated near the start of the industrial revolution.

That increase was primarily due to anthropogenic emissions. The methane-temperature feedback played a very small role.

If methane levels have tripled over the course of the industrial revolution, that reinforces the point made by rising CO2 levels that the Earth's natural carbon sequestration systems aren't able to deal with the amount of carbon we are unleashing to carry out our economic activities.

To be fair, the rate of increase of methane emissions has been slowing down and my understanding is the increase is more to do with land-use changes as opposed to fossil fuel emissions. I doubt methane levels will increase over the coming century as much as they did in the past century.

But the question is where is that methane going? Some of it will get captured and locked into soils, but alot of methane combines with oxygen to add more CO2 to the atmosphere and the oceans.

Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and there is far less methane than CO2. That's why CH4 is generally measured in ppb and CO2 is generally measured in ppm. 2000 ppb of methane is 2 ppm. So the increase in CO2 levels due to conversion from methane is tiny.

It's pretty much a done deal that methane levels are rising exponentially today, the only argument among the experts is how fast!

But they aren't increasing exponentially. See above graph.

Because as noted, methane levels vary greatly around the world, but the fact that they are much higher in Siberia and most of the Arctic, compared to temperate latitudes, indicates that we are already in a stage of positive feedbacks pushing the dials on the greenhouse effect out of our control.

That just indicates that there is a temperature-methane feedback. That doesn't mean the feedback is so strong as to make the greenhouse effect 'out of control'. The temperature-methane feedback isn't strong enough for that according to empirical data.

Edited August 15, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

If legalizing pot is more important to them than anything else, then they're not likely to be Tories.

Tories? They died out years ago. In any case shouldn't you right-wingers be more concerned with getting the state of people's backs? All it would take is the application of some fairly simple fundamental principles. Ah...but there's the rub.

[eyeball]

It does seem quite obvious doesn't it? I can't believe how out of touch Harper is on the subject. Or is he really, or just, once again, playing to the base? Anything to hold onto power. He should fire up a doobie and chill out once in a while.

He could do a hell of lot worse than that and still count on the base's vote.

[Argus]

Tories? They died out years ago. In any case shouldn't you right-wingers be more concerned with getting the state of people's backs? All it would take is the application of some fairly simple fundamental principles. Ah...but there's the rub.

Hey, I'm in favour of legalizing pot. It's just not a big issue for me compared to changing how we vote or bringing in massive new taxes and bureaucracy.

[socialist]

You are confusing the decay time of tropospheric methane with the temperature-methane feedback. We have a good idea of what the temperature-methane feedback was during the Pleistocene from ice core data (it's about 75 ppb/C) and we also know that the methane-temperature feedback is much smaller today since there is less permafrost to melt at the margin as we are in an interglacial period.

The precautionary principle is a dumb principle in all cases, it is basically the position of infinite risk aversion. It leads to decisions that ignore all empirical evidence, and the precautionary principle is the same logical form as Pascal's Wager. The precautionary principle leads to absurd policy recommendations such as we should put snowshoes on all cattle:

Sadly the entire country will pay for the situation Alberta finds itself in. This along with the Ontario Liberal economic disaster will affect the economy of the entire country. There will be no money to feed the dastardly Equalization so many provinces count on instead of more responsible fiscal management.

Let this all be a warning to anyone thinking of voting for Mulcair's NDP or their leftist cousins, the Trudeau Liberals come October.

[Icebound]

The charts here ....http://www.pressprogress.ca/6_charts_show_stephen_harper_has_the_worst_economic_record_of_any_prime_minister_since_world_war_ii ...

....give me some hope that it won't be all that bad without Harper... Worst average annual increase of GDP since Prime Minister King

Now this is a Unifor report, so we have to see if these numbers can be disputed....

[Smallc]

Wasn't there something that happened during Harper's time in government? I know it had to be something....I just can't put my finger on it.

[waldo]

Wasn't there something that happened during Harper's time in government? I know it had to be something....I just can't put my finger on it.

wasn't it that 3 quarters recession thingee... you know, - per StatsCan: Canada's (first Harper) recession was the shortest and mildest among the countries that make up the G7... lasting all of 3 quarters!

"Canada's 'mild & short" recession resulted more from how Canada was positioned going into the recession; positioned as a result of policy/actions over the prior decade where the Liberal federal governments had budget and trade surpluses for most of that prior decade. Of course, Canada's banks were solid and there was no ongoing/pending housing bubble. All of this helped to diminish any credit crunch when banks ultimately tightened up on loans. Additionally high commodity prices helped to reduce the initial recession impact; effectively Canada entered the recession well after most other countries. Milder, shorter and entered later... resulting in, again, only a 3 quarter recession."

[Icebound]

I know... A bunch of conservative-friendly corporations destroyed the global economy, then asked for a socialist bail-out

[Smallc]

Canada weathered the recession well, no question. We have both the Liberals and Conservatives to thank for that. Some of you have a problem with that, for some reason.

This is the thing though - you can't have it both ways. Either Canada's growth, in a like country context, has been good, or, it hasn't.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Smallc

[Argus]

wasn't it that 3 quarters recession thingee... you know, - per StatsCan: Canada's (first Harper) recession was the shortest and mildest among the countries that make up the G7... lasting all of 3 quarters!

"Canada's 'mild & short" recession resulted more from how Canada was positioned going into the recession;

We still did better than Europe, whose GDP during the 2006-2014 period grew at a rate of 1.2%. US GDP rose a total of 8% during this period = about 1%

You don't measure a government's economic performance according to previous times, but against their peers.

Well, unless you're a party hack who has zero interest in truth or fairness, of course.

[socialist]

I know... A bunch of conservative-friendly corporations destroyed the global economy, then asked for a socialist bail-out

The CPC steered us through the great recession better than any other country, being blamed for stimulus spending, when it was at the BEHEST of the Libs and NDP...

Satellite offices vs adscam vs Duffy...