Slashdot Mirror

That sounds strangely familiar. Oh yes! Never mind, it doesn't really matter that Hezbollah attacked from civilian areas on purpose to draw Israeli fire there... Israel is evil no matter what!

You say: "Ad Hominem is about using unrelated aspects to discredit the messanger rather than looking at the message dispassionately. Once it is known that the messanger's unterior motives cause him to dissemble, one is simply clearing the air by disregarding him."

The dictionary says:

ad hominem
--adjective

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Should we say, then, that you "lied" about the definition of "ad hominem"? And that therefore whatever you say should be "disregarded"? Do you think that would be fair? Or would it be more fair to simply dispute with you on the facts actually relevant to the subject under discussion, using well-accepted principles of reason and logic? Don't be hypocritcal in your response. Apply the same principles to both yourself and Milloy.

You say: "Note that you have engaged in a strawman: you generalize that this treatment is general while it is not. There is one particular instance of a liar under discussion. And, he is not a researcher since he is not after truth. You are rationalizing rather than participating in reason."

Your assertion that Milloy is the only issue would be more credible if you deigned to address the other references. Perhaps Milloy isn't after the truth. I don't know the man. However, the evidence he cites is publicly-verifiable information, and/or is information/evidence/reasoning actually originally produced by others (who presumably are not also being charged with dishonesty.) Just because someone has lied in the past (and who hasn't?) is not sufficient reason to "disregard" what he says, provided his assertions are independently verifiable.

But forget Milloy and whatever he says. He's not the issue. What about the other references?

And if it's dishonesty you want to focus on, focus on this: The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science. That article makes it quite clear there is plenty of irrational, emotional, politically-motivated and....dishonest decisions being made about Anthropogenic Global Warming by many of those who accept the hypothesis. Should we throw out the hypothesis for this reason alone? If not, then the same applies to the "deniers" (a term which should clue you in that there is way too much emotion, and not enough reason, in this debate.)

• The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
• Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
• The Deniers
• New findings indicate today's greenhouse gas levels not unusual
• Global Warming as a Religion
• I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (By David Evans)
• GREENIE WATCH
• (Streaming video) The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film
• 'The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?'

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

The consensus approach is the right approach. It also works in the case of global warming. The consensus among reputable scientists is that human activity is causing global warming. We must immediately deal with the situation by reducing the production of greenhouse gases.

Really?

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming...
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action...

So, tell me again, why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on? Why should I change my lifestyle and/or lose my job for when the loudest cheerleaders of global warming are the world's largest carbon producers (Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, John Edwards and so on) and at the same time, the one attacked the most (George Bush) has a home that produces less carbon the average, small, energy efficient abode!

In 1999, the Bushes purchased approximately 1600 acres of land, complete with house and outbuildings, eight miles northwest of Crawford, Texas. They later hired an associate professor of Architecture from the University of Texas at Austin, David Heymann, to design a new 5,000 sq. ft. house and to convert existing buildings into Secret Service quarters and guest houses.

The new house is a model of energy efficiency. Central to the energy efficiency of the house is a geothermal heating and cooling system which pumps water through pipes extending three hundred feet beneath the ground surface, using only twenty-five percent of the total electric usage of the house.

Pipes connected to a heat pump inside the house circulate water into the ground and back up through the house. As the water returns to ground level it is a constant 67 degrees F, sufficient for summer cooling and winter heating. The water for the outdoor pool is heated by the same system, which proved to be so efficient that plans to install solar energy panels were cancelled.

Compared to Gore's House

According to a report published by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Al and Tipper's

Creation rules over evolution at museum
Biblical flood among displays near Innisfail

Paula Beauchamp, Calgary Herald
Published: Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Canada's first permanent creation museum --set to open in Alberta next month -- will use fossil displays to support the Bible's explanation of creation.

The controversial Big Valley Creation Science Museum, located east of Innisfail, is billed as an alternative to the world view presented by the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller and will open on June 5.

Owner Harry Nibourg said in a press release that the museum provides compelling evidence for creation and refutes any unguided, "natural" processes such as evolution.

He said the museum's "fossils and the flood" display, which teams a giant model of Noah's ark with museum-quality fossils, is evidence the biblical flood actually happened.

According to the museum's website, another display called "dinosaurs and humans" disproves evolutionary theory that dinosaurs became extinct at least 60 million years before humans evolved.

Or the next best thing. If you can't vote with your dollars, vote with your feet.

"Stephen Harper, or whoever else is Prime Minister of Canada on November 5, 2008 [X]"

Anyone who can scrape together 67 points can get in, and anyone with a Bachelor's degree (which guarantees you'll get the full 16 points for English proficiency, even though your Americanness guarantees you'll get 0 points for French :) and one year's work experience and a job offer -- or one year's work experience and a spouse with a Bachelor's degree -- is going to make the cut.

Canadian income taxes aren't much more than US income taxes. US Federal tax forms don't show the extra 6.2% that's getting taken off for Socialist Insecurity, nor do they take into effect state taxes. The Canadian federal government just turned a $10 billion surplus, and you even get the equivalent of catastrophic health care insurance in exchange for your tax dollars.

Atlas shrugs, eh?

Does this remind anyone of the current climate science "debate" where every single reputable phD feels strongly that humans are impacting the environment yet the shrillest and loudest of an incredibly small dissenting crowd (that happens to have powerful motives) are picked to broadcast their ignorance to the masses via the media?

You Don't Say!...

I have learned that past sky-high CO2 concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals. If we have hit peak oil, I doubt we will ever be able to reach these levels.

We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.

This data is available from a variety of sources, with interesting commentary:

We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second, the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous... The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides for a much greater biogenic diversity.

There is a great rejection of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such prestigious universities, despite a smear campaign). Because of the tremendous expense of implementing Kyoto, should we pause in global warming remediation efforts that may border on the alarmist? It is not in any way difficult to find distinguished scientists who reject all calls for panic.

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming... If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

Incidentally, I mentioned those articles -- here's my collection. Let's get them out there to help build our industry.

They range in subject matters that assist me, with the majority being security related.

http://www.nbc4.com/money/11588165/detail.html
http://www.nbc4.com/money/11588165/detail.html
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,71032-0.html
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Artic le&cid=1135552209280&call_pageid=971358637177
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20050704.gtkirwanjul4/BNStory/specialScienceandHe alth/
http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=176198
http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/060619 _hyperactive_bob.html
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/factsheets/ fs_faq.html
http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-sourc e-legal
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/securi ty/privacy/story/0,10801,108101,00.html
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=storage&article Id=9004274&taxonomyId=19&intsrc=kc_feat
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=f6f 548f7-9dfd-49f4-9ff8-8ae8f4a2e2fd
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr 2006/tc20060417_996365.htm?campaign_id=bier_tca
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_37 /b4000401.htm?chan=tc&campaign_id=bier_tcst0
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1 781895,00.html
http://panko.cba.hawaii.edu/ssr/Mypapers/whatknow. htm

Sometimes we pay to help those who need it. That's the way a community functions. As a Canadian, while I maybe don't have the health care that I need the instant I need it, it's still pretty damn good -- especially when there's an emergency. ...

Does that include the line ups and waiting? I know I am going to get flamed for this by other Canadians that have never lived anywhere else, but having lived in both systems, US and Canada I can say they both have different issues. In Canada the government taxes the hell out of us, ends up spending about the same, perhaps less than the US and people wait. Sometimes, although not frequently to a point of no return.

Read this before flaming. Calgary Herald

Within a few weeks, Australia may introduce new laws to censor films and literature deemed by the government to be supportive of terrorism.

pretty much any gun murder described as a "crime of passion" wouldn't have happened if the murderer hadn't had ready, legal access to a gun.

That is a ridiculous statement with no supporting evidence. If anything, those are the murders that are *least* likely to be affected by gun control, as only one or two people are murdered and it is relatively easy to kill one or two people if they aren't expecting it by a variety of means. If you could completely remove guns from society (obviously impossible), the crimes most likely to be stopped are large-scale killings like the VT incident and things like drive-by shootings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.h tml?id=6a6f7e22-1f49-443d-812e-cbde33535e6e&k=7739 4

well here is one very reputable scientist that disagrees with man made global warming.

debunk away......

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/s tory.html?id=219f231b-4736-4970-9179-9f3edf4c0634& k=31811
August 2006.

Despite the "Settlement" of April of 2006, the U.S. continues to ignore WTO rulings that are not in its favor, regardless of the industry in question.

What I would like to know is: how do these artists feel about the extoritionist tacticts of the RIAA? Especially when their work funds the labels who pay the RIAA?

Any musician whose record label funds the RIAA has no standing, in my opinion, to make statements about what is just.

... he was trained by Hamas in order to assassinate a senior Israeli official visiting the US and to attack members of the US and Canadian Jewish communities. Hamas-trained terrorist, Canadian national, arrested by ISA

One of those charged -- an Edmonton, Alberta, man who used the screen name "Big_Daddy619" -- allegedly distributed live videos of himself molesting the four children younger than 12. 27 charged in child porn sting

I've got a bachelor's in physics, and although that doesn't make me a climate scientist, i think it at least qualifies me to evaluate scientific arguments on the basis of merit. . I've never read any of these papers, because I don't have the time to make myself an expert on another field. I consider myself a climate change agnostic - I have no idea whether or not it's happening.

When I hear "oh noes we are all going to die unless we stop global climate change," however, I am very skeptical. My mind puts such arguments in the same bin as the overpopulation fears of the 70's. I'll take Julian Simon over Paul Ehrlich any day. The fact that scientists who disagree are called "deniers" and "shills of industry" pushes me further away from seriously considering global warming as a possible threat, because ad hominem attacks are not science. I've read enough stories like this one, written by a candian newspaper, to at least consider myself extremely skeptical of claims that the earth is getting warmer, humans are to blame, and that drastic changes are necessasry.

That said, I know all too well that people can make terrible arguments in support of true statements. Therefore, Until I read a series of papers about global climate change, papers that publish all of their source data, algorithms used in simulations, justifications for the use of those algorithms, and statistical analysis by qualified statisticians, I will refrain from forming a solid opinion one way or the other. Of course, the chances of that happening are exactly zero, because I don't have time to spend doing something like that. So I'll remain skeptical.

The California Attorney General's office issued a statement saying that its news release "mistakenly predicted that the HP defendants would enter 'guilty' pleas to a misdemeanour count of fraudulent wire communications."

Strange that they would make a prediction. Perhaps that is a coverup as to what really happened.

Nettwerk Music president Ric Arboit agreed and said his label has always wanted to sell unprotected music, but the majors dictated the way online stores such as iTunes and Puretracks were initially set up.

"We would have done it from day one if it was available to us, but when it came to the indies, that's what they had in place."

Look, I'm just a lay person on this topic. And as such, it really seems impossible to separate signal from noise on the topic - it's so polarized.

But my gut and my brain say 'Proceed With Extreme Caution', at minimum, on the subject of CO2 in the atmosphere. There's no doubt that human sources have increased tremendously in the past two hundred years, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me when someone asserts that this increase will have a negative impact. So, let's not take it to the boundary case to prove a point, okay?

My reaction to Ball, Lindzen, Allen, et al? Copernicus called, boys, and it turns out the you are not at the centre of my solar system. So quit trying to get press by being a contrarian, and spend some time bringing forward solutions for reduction of CO2 emissions. Where were you twenty years ago when climate change advocates were being called kooks?

Professor Ball has famed Canadian nutter journalist Terence Corcoran arguing for him: http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=3d2 d2672-3b1a-47c7-8324-3e35efee1763 .

That's enough to get my Spidey Sense Tingling. Corcoran has been putting down climate change with his own inimitable mealy mouth spiteful style as long as I remember (1992?); fifteen years ago he was calling anyone remotely asserting climate change a kook because they had no science behind them. Now he wants me to believe that the same people are kooks because the other side of the debate don't get a chance to develop their science - boo hoo.

Whatever. The denial dudes were on the winning side of the funding equation for long enough - shut-up and let the other side have a kick at the can for a while.

If the polar bear population is declining why are the Inuit saying otherwise...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html ?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868&k=5287

> The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the
> vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and
> southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears
> has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.
>
> As recently as three years ago, a less official count
> placed the number at 1,400.
>
> The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was
> greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based
> on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed
> as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.
>
> As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a
> front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit
> were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a
> hell of a lot more bears."

Timothy Ball and Richard Lindzen are idiots. Lindzen argues against Global Warming the same way Intelligent Design supporters argue against evolution. Timothy Ball uses the tired "1970's global cooling consensus" argument (see here and see here), specifically quoting Lowell Ponte, and he also overstates his qualifications. I also found another article by Ball where he lists reasons why global warming is good for Canada and actually says "Thank goodness for global warming."

Polar Bears in decline ???? Read this. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html ?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868&k=5287

While I am concerned about the future of our planet and our species' place upon it, I am growing increasingly sceptical of the wild claims surrounding a looming global warming catastrophe.

My main area of surprise and shock was learning that past concentrations of carbon dioxide were much higher than they are today, as revealed in the interview below:

RES: Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota
JC: Dr Joe Cain, interviewer

We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second, the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous... The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides for a much greater biogenic diversity.

I have come to learn that these past carbon dioxide concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals:

We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.

My interest in past CO2 concentrations began by reading a (somewhat) more partisan summary of this information:

When dinosaurs walked the earth (about 70 to 130 million years ago), there was from five to ten times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. The resulting abundant plant life allowed the huge creatures to thrive. . . . Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average by 32 percent across species.

I have also seen a great rejection of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such prestigous universities):

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming... If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

And I have also seen a growing political backlash against scientifically-unfounded runaway global warming panic:

Politicians who build campaigns around "alarmist" global warming claims are themselves becoming quite alarmed because of growing skepticism, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said.

When I see interviews such as

I'm not commenting on Global Warming but as far as Polar Bears go.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html ?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868&k=5287

... sometimes known as soviet canuckistan, terrorists have a right to a passport.

Really, if they are canadian citizens, they do have a right to a passport.

This story was discredited, it's a mess of bad stat's and unfounded allegations that are not supported by the actual facts. The original Canada.com story stated
Thursday, January 25, 2007 As much as 50 per cent of the world's pirated movies come from Canada, prompting the film industry to threaten to delay the release of new titles in this country. (someone note the bolded words, I could write as little as 0 % and not change the meaning of the sentence, why? Because it's a weak garbage sentence that implies far more then it supports.)
The link that you posted was a little more bald in it's assertions, but not really that different. Try reading this link to the Toronto Star to see where reasonable minds dispute the "facts" presented by the American Media Companies.

... I have to wonder if this story wouldn't be reversed and Canada wouldn't be pressuring the US for more strict copyright laws if the vast majority of the content which was being pirated in the US was created in Canada. I recall reading recently that a large percentage of the pirated movies originate in Canada. Here is one article that discusses this:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html ?id=b3001d7a-a969-4b92-89a9-6a7ce4f31c90

I also read that the movie studios are considering delaying the release of movies in Canada to reduce the incidences of movies hitting BitTorrent before they hit the theaters.

It seems to me (and I know I'll get flamed for this) that the US is only trying to protect its exports. This is not an example of bullying or trying to run the whole world.

This site says that only 19-30% of Canadians are atheists or agnostics, and this article quotes a survey that says that 62% of Canadians believe in the statement "through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, God provided the way for the forgiveness of sins." There are more atheists and agnostics in Canada than in the U.S. per capita, but there are still quite a few religious people here. They just tend to be less outspoken about it and more private in their worship.

The original article mentions Mars as having global warming, but scientists are also reporting that Jupiter http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html, Triton http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton-0715.htm l and Pluto http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html may also be warming up. Coincidence again?

I see the recent IPCC report mentioned often, but I wonder how many folks that refer to it have only actually heard about it through the news or even actually read the summary. I wonder because at least 7-8 of the scientists that wrote the detailed reports have complained that the IPCC official summaries and press releases show the opposite conclusion from the detailed reports. In other words, at least some (if not much) of the actual science behind the IPCC report apparently was unable to find any definite correlation between humankind's effects and climate. That doesn't mean that anyone thinks current pollution levels should continue, or even that the Earth isn't getting warmer right now. One interesting series of articles about those scientists is at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=2 2003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

Personally, I'm suspicious of the global warming industry because of some of the funding issues I've read about (but don't have references handy, sorry). For one, the funding rate went up by a factor of about 100 after global warming was announced around the time of Pres. Regan. Also, it seems that anyone who attempts to publish any research contrary to popular views has their funding cut (and some have lost their jobs completely). To me, that sounds like an organization that wants to stay alive at any cost, rather than one interested in real science. Especially since the funding seems to be tied to producing proof that, rather than determining if, Man is responsible for global warming.

Abdussamatov is a nutcase,

Why do you say that? Does he hurl vitriolic condemnations at people who disagree with him? Does he try to shout them down, or demand that their funding be cut off?

Virtually every Canadian news agency that covered this event highlighted how the law was voted down purely for political reasons, not for morale ones. The law was originally introduced by the Liberal party which is the exact same party that voted against it this time.

This has absolutely nothing to do with moral objection, as many Liberal members broke rank from their party and actually voted *for* the bill.

For many years, the U.S. and Canada have had a strong relationship with both countries serving as each others largest trade partner. The two countries also share, except for the Province of Québec, a similar culture with the same genres of music, movies, television, and, from the U.S. to Canada,...

This guy is the type of person that gives wikipedia a bad name.

Canada just doesn't have its head up its ass and is also not afraid of the united states. Unlike ass kissers like blair and whoever else in the world that bob likes an idiot when the u.s comes to town. Thats why even though we do deliver justice to terroists and other crimminals when its due, we still try to follow the law At least submitter noted that canada was doing a good job.

Toronto tends not to export oil... You're looking seriously farther west for that.

True. Toronto's incident was only one threat. "Farther west" also seems to be in their crosshair.

And the rest are angry that most players don't want to play Iraqi Police Captain.

I love Eve. It keeps people who like that playstyle away from games I enjoy.

  -c.

Here is a direct example of the kind of interference that Canada puts up with. Even with a prior rejection of their attempts to have an iPod levy or surcharge applied, these wonks are back at it again. Having been soundly thrashed in Canadian web forums and opinion polls for trying again, they're now pushing to have the entire country of Canada labelled as "pirate friendly."

Bull.

What if CO2 isn't the main culprit?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=0 69cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=e dae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723

What if CO2 isn't the main culprit?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=0 69cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=e dae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723

No one is advocating scrapping the public health system. Anyone who claims that is just fear mongering. The most anyone is advocating is a parallel private system, much like the UK, where people who can afford to can get quality care. Not only would this be more in line with a free country, it would relieve a great deal of the financial pressure on the public system.

We already have private health care for lots of things (drugs, dentists, physiotherapy, etc.). All most people want is the same freedom for primary health care.

I don't know who you think these selfish rich bastards are, but anyone who is actually rich already gets care in the US when they need it. Paul Martin, Belinda Stronach, etc.

And let us not forget that champion of the Canadian health system, Jack Layton:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html ?id=ee02f15a-e64c-4d4f-a7c2-24e0381ba5cd&k=98664

"
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he[Dr. Shaviv] states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
"

From: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1 56df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=c 6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0 has some scientists who already dissent. Of course, they all recently purchased new cars....

I believe that in the US you can be punished legally for bringing photographic devices into theatres or other performance venues against the proprietor's wishes, but that there is no such law in Canada.

In the article I read, there was no hint of it being illegal to bring in a camcorder into a theatre. The article did state that the venue reserved the right to eject you if you are caught with one.

The article went on to state that the films are watermarked so that they can identify the theatre in which the movie was cammed. This is not visible to the naked eye. What surprised me more is that in the troublesome theatre there are ushers with night vision cameras that will continually monitor people for cameras.

I, for one, would not go to a theatre to be stared down by some guy while watching a movie. No thanks.

Damn, I found the article online. This isn't the exact article I read in our provincial newspaper, but it covers the gist of it.

Quoted from the article:
Cineplex's Jacob said theatre chains all across Canada already employ security guards who are equipped with night vision goggles and other surveillance equipment to try to catch pirates.

How scary.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.htm l?id=9971c427-4587-4619-a577-8a8f991e72f1&k=66571

Then Why we still getting sued,

And I'm a bit upset about the money going to the music industry, it should either go to the most downloaded artists (There are some fairly decent statistics) or to Canadian public content supports (CBC, Canadian endowment for the arts).

http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/story.html ?id=28f6a01c-084c-4fc4-9594-a5d3dd1ff02e&k=13592.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/s tory.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

Why is the RIAA trying to sue someone in another country.

The US has no jurisdiction.

Eban Moglen, a law professor at Columbia Law School, is largely responsible for the GPL. He's not anti-copyright. In fact, he is very clear on the fact that the GPL only works because of the copyright law.

The problem is not pro or anti copyright. It is that what works for Microsoft and Britney Spears doesn't work for me. Microsoft, Disney and the RIAA want a copyright regime that works for big business and not at all for small producers. In fact most Canadian (as opposed to American branch plant) record producers are against the RIAA approach. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesidea s/story.html?id=3367a219-f395-4161-a9b9-95256c6138 24 They aren't against copyright, just the abuse of it.