What a load of garbage.

I beg to differ. Have a read of The Prize by Daniel Yergin. The US has been actively working at securing mid-east oil supplies since 1945 and their British lap-dogs since long before that. Have a look at where the Brits are now stationed in Iraq and then tell me what happened at that very spot in 1917.

The truth of matter that Cheny, Wolfowitz, Bremmer and all the other Sieg-heil crowd were itching for a real war of imperialism. What a better thing to do than blow the shit out of the place, seize its natural rescources and then pay your own people to rebuild it all.

Unfortunaltey, Saadam left a snake-pit behind. Don't think for one second the "insurgency" was not planned. Hell, Saadam even said he would do it. That is why oil revenues in Iraw have not even come close to sanction era levels, the insugrents blow up the pipelines faster than Haliburton can repair them.

Bu$h and company would love to get its hands on Iraq's oil too but is unwilling to pay the price for it, the price in American blood or more accurately the blood of the elite. You see, the Americans do not have the manpower to take on Iran. Hell, they don't even have enough people to pacify Iraq. Conscription could supply these numbers but you ain't gonna see any of Bu$h or Cheney's relatives in uniform. Of 535 members of Congress ONLY SEVEN have children serving in the military.

Be that as it may Working Man, the article is a wank-fest. Kyoto has cost us $3 biliion already with the results that David pointed out. The sooner it's gone the better.

I believe that the Martin gov't's approach to global warming - all reassuring talk, no action,is more insidious and evil than Harper's position, where at least he is being honest about it.

Martin was content to mislead Cdns and the world into believing Cda was actively working to meet Kyoto standards - afterall they pushed for and signed the agreement, didn't they?

It lulled the public into a belief Cda was actually on track and doing its part, while it was the nasty Bush admin that was thumbing its nose at Kyoto and at the problem! As David points out, the stats show the Libs' Kyoto position to have been pure propaganda, and actual results here substantially worse than US emission cuts.

The Libs gave little reason to believe Cda under Martin Libs would have made more progress in slowing greenhouse gas emissions than Cda under Harper's Cons might do.

My personal (inpossible)fantasy would be an NDP minority with the Green Party holding a balance of power. Then Cda would act seriously to cut emissions.

Harper did not say there will be no effort to cut emissions.He simply said he would not use Kyoto as the yardstick in doing so. In reality, Martin was equally contemptuous toward Kyoto, but like a good propaganda meister he pretended
otherwise.

Now that the Kyoto "smokescreen" is gone, the public will at least be more aware that action is still urgently required, which may actually provoke more public pressure to be brought to bear upon the gov't than there was under Paul "Everything's Rosy" Martin, who had much of the public duped, it seems.

Hmmm. Tough crowd.

To Donald Gutstein: Excellent article. You integrated (connected the dots) several key points to make a strong conclusion.

A) The Globe and mail is biased towards the Cons, and lacking in good journalism with regards to Kyoto and Harper policies.

B) Kyoto, as flawed as it is in targeting emissions low enough and penalties sufficient enough to enforce it, is still the benchmark that the worlds majority of polluters don't want pay.

C) Harpers government strategically announced their position on Kyoto with two other announcements, and with News papers looking the other way, it worked.

D)The worlds most powerful nations and leaders have gone to bed with oil corporations to create their own smear campaign.

E) You mentioned "Firewall" letter to Alta., a reason that stands out strongly enough on its own to never trust Stephen Harper again on his intentions for this country and his plans to Americanize it. You've also added plenty of feedback with Boessenkools since involvement with Harper and his recent dealings with oil companies that verify Harpers hidden agenda's.

F) You have provided more "color" on recent U.S. motives and involvement in IRAQ, as well as recent strategies to promote Bush's U.S. interests within the World bank and UN.

G) You named names.

In summary, your article, if anyone cares to admit, is excellent and your portfolio is growing to the degree that you could be on CBC's reality check team with similar efforts over time. I wouldn't settle for much less, although its obvious that the Globe, the Star, the Gazette, Macleans mag and the Province's or Suns could benifit from you... if their editors are smart enough to print news. Some aren't.

For anyone who cares about the truth of Kyoto, it falls short of what we need. To not support it, since it is a global initiative in the right direction... is to admit that we don't want to do anything about global warming regardless of the facts. Its like saying, "We want to profit at everyone elses expense for all of the generations and life to come." Knowing that this statement is true, this puts the leaders who are against Kyoto on the same playing field as ruthless cold blooded killers for ca$h, cause in case anyone hasn't noticed, thats exactly how they think. The only difference is, it won't happen to just a few tomarrow. It'll happen to hundreds of millions 2 to 3 generations from now, and grow from there.

Nail on the head Bobb999. Reducing CO2 emissions as a goal is all well and good, had the guidelines been followed. In 1990 there was no reason to think COAL would re-emerge as the fuel of choice for power-hungry North America. This is the real culprit, and is directly proportional to the per barrel price of crude. Neither Martin nor Harper has addressed this madness, in fact both would gladly keep feeding the maw of a planet-destroying economic system. Alberta's Syncrude facility is using 2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to recover CRUDE from tar sands. Every oil drilling company is expanding their operations at a feverish pace, all with dollar signs in their eyes. NAFTA has not only given Canada the means, but has indentured our country into supplying the US with all the oil, natural gas, coal they want in perpetuity. Abrogating NAFTA and opting OUT of free trade with the US could save our economy, but don't hold your breath.

Way to go Bobb999, you concisely demonstrate a point. Nothing will get done on the environment with either of these dillweeds in power. The Bush corporate agenda that continues to paint the goals of the environmental lobby as unreachable and somehow unenforceable and offers useless platitudes and even more useless and dangerous junk science will win as we all die.

I never thought I would use a quote from little elliot but it seems appropriate to address the loss of the environmental agenda to self-serving corporate handmaidens of all ilks, ie. bushies and harperites, so here goes:

what a crock of shite!

, offers David, no doubt a friend of the guy who hopes to get a majority government.

David, what a flimsy piece of retort you offer.

The U.S., if it spent over $200 billion, ought to go back and audit the books of the companies that got most of that money, American companies, which oddly enough have links upsides,, inside, under, beside, over, around and through various people connected directly to the White House.

I think everyone knows who the usual suspects are when America goes to war these days.

Perhaps you can tell me why the U.S. administration lied to the UN about the reasons it invaded Iraq.

Now you have the audacity to show up on Tyee and try to spin that very large turd.

David, those 2,200 US citizens in uniform died because they were brought into Iraq as invaders
because the very people who work closely with G.W. Bush lied to the UN, lied to the American people, including those who lost their lives, and lied to the entire world.

Impeachment is a word just bursting with sweet, juicy meaning, much like war-criminal, don't you agree?

Your final paragraph reads like some not very subtle threat by a yahoo, redneck Albertan who has gone and mortgaged himself up to his oil soaked butt because he thinks Alberta's oil supply is a never ending fountain.

Let me put it this way, if it pisses you and 2.5 million Albertans off I hope Stephen Harper barely hangs on to a minority government and then has to go begging for a deal.

What do you think David, will Albertans pout if he cuts a deal with the Bloc? Or will he have to bide by Jack Layton's list of no-nos, such as 'don't touch Kyoto.'.

Which would you prefer, cowboy?

Oh, gotta go and get my kits to prepare to run a zone house tomorrow.

As someone who just got their immigration approval on Friday, I am so dismayed that Canadians appear to be once again, just following the US lead. Canadians are just "slow" Americans. They don't have the guts to do things different than that big bully down south, but their strong national identity ("At least we're not Americans!") means they are always about 5-6 years behind the puppet master.

I swear, if I didn't have family stuck in the US that I still want to visit, I'd head for Venezuela or Bolivia or Argentina. At this rate, it looks like I spent all that money and filled out all those forms just to move to a slightly bluer state in (north) Amerika.

I'm being purposely provocative here, folks. Go out tomorrow and Do The Right Thing. Because I won't be able to for a minimum of three years.

David, can I explain a little about proportional statistics to you? Have no doubt that the U.S. is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases (you can check the facts at Nationmaster). Kyoto is an international agreement between conscientiously and intellectually progressive nations that acknowledge the fact that we simply cannot sustain our level of self-destruction. Think of it as a diet plan for a morbidly obese person on their way to a cardiac arrest. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure in both cases. When the stats were spun at the Montreal conference - the reason why percentages were used is because the US (who has already probably reached the saturation point of gas emissions) can make itself look decent compared to well meaning nations like Canada. Take, for example, that Canada's base emissions was 200 metric tons and the US's was 800 metric tons - if Canada increased its emissions by another 20 tons after signing the accord in Feb 2005 (not a heck of a lot of time to get everyone on board obviously - especially with a growing population and the increase in traffic due to NAFTA) and the US increased by another 40 tons - taking just the percentages - Canada increased its greenhouse gases by 10 %; wherease the US increased by only 5 % - even though the amount increase from baseline is double that of Canada. Being in the sciences, I know how the stats are manipulated - and parroting people like you who don't investigate the truth behind the facade are only hurting yourselves at the end of the day. I'd just like to see how Vancouver can host the Winter Olympics in 2010 when the increasing global temperatures will ensure we will have a rainforest at best to offer the skiers.

Kyoto was an ill conceived idea in the first place. The junk science behind it attempted to blame mankind for a conceived global warming.
It turns out that science changes their mind every 5 minutes and the latest theory ( from Stanford of all places ) puts the blame on Canada's boreal forest.
I guess we all should cut down a tree tomorrow as part of our " One Ton Challenge "
are YOU AWARE OF THE LUNICY OF ALL THIS ?
I am, how stupid are you if you buy this B.S. ?
I await anyone who wants to take me on on this issue, you will be toast on this argument.

I agree with Ron on this one, Kyoto is based on bad science. The money would be better spent on other enviromental concerns. I know this is off topic but it is the same as money wasted on gun control, hey the bad guys still have thier guns while the 2 billion spent could be better used fighting crime.

pulling out all the stops for the last day eh tyee? too little too late. there's a blue wave sweeping the nation.
btw; kyoto is a crock of shite.

I suppose both ron and willy are a little suspicious about the whole evolution thing - so is bush and company who know real science when they see it.... Since I don't expect you to have an actual basis to your respective beliefs, I don't see why you want to argue the matter with those who see the rising rates of COPD, asthma, emphysema, and cancer reason enough for change - let alone global warming and polar bears drowning. But if ever in the mood for enlightenment (which has so far eluded you apparently) - do find a glimmer of "science" from a group (based in the US) of which I happen to be a member: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

Avicenna ;
Polar bears drowning ? How many polar bears drowned during the ICE AGE, or at any time. anywhere, anyplace ?
Oh. I hope that we marginalize your unintelligent, shrill, illogical, ignorant, flaky types that need a 'link' to speak for you, types.
Ooh, that was exhausting.
If you are a scientist ?????????
I would be surprised.

Ron:

Unintelligent: check.
Shrill: check.
Illogical: check.
Ignorant: check.
Link speaking for me: check.

Ron wrote:

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/11/14/PetroArmageddon/

You throw out the "junk science" remark so often that I have to wonder if you just automagically label anything that goes against your ideology "junk science".

Kyoto was a crock, more money would be spent on creative ways to trade and sell green credits than fixing any environmental problems.

By the way how do you measure the output of China? Such information would likely be considered a state secret, so I suspect that it is just a wild guess.

Coal is also the main energy source there (they admitted to at least 6,000 deaths last year in that one industry)

Michael, my freind, You are correct that I use this phrase too often. I don't know who is regularly tuning in to this website.
I am motivated to get this message out.
I am sorry if it bores you.
I am jusy worried that people will buy this garbage.

Mr. Erwin: If you had cared to read the Stanford report in its entirety, you would have found the author's actual point was that trees in boreal forests may not help to reduce greenhouse gases due to inefficiencies in the way their needles absorb CO2 (as opposed to more broad-leafed varieties found in trpical rainforests and deciduous trees. In fact, the author made no such claim that these trees were to blame (exclusively or otherwise) for global warming. As well, here are a few facts for you to consider:
- the arctic permafrost zone has shrunk 100's of km in the last 20 years (check National Geographic archives)
- the continental glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica, along with the vast majority of alpine glaciers are shrinking or in retreat
- the pine beetle has steadily been decimating much of BC's interior forests with no end in sight, due to lack of cold winters that would normally control its population
- extreme weather conditions have increased over the last twenty years (consider the frequency of hurricanes in the Caribbean as but one example)
I have no doubt missed many more examples, which if considered individually are meaningless, but when taken together provide compelling evidence for global warming. An keep in mind that the vast majority of independent scientific research (that is, not funded by oil companies or their cronies) suggests that the ONLY plausible explanation for global warming - yes, Mr. Erwin, g.w. is a FACT - is human activities related to fossil fuel consumption. You may disagree with them, but don't go off the deep end just because some of us might dare to agree with people who are far brighter than you.

mjb4861;
1. arctic permafrost melting. It didn't exist several times in the history of the Earth, so I discount this argument.
2. I repeat above statement.
3. No records to support you argument.
4. Pine Beetle is an issue that nobody has a solution to. But I agree with you, that we should really freeze the bastards out. You win.
5. Not enough evidence.
Humans are insignificant.

Harper style resource management?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/politics/23leases.html?hp&ex=1138078800&en=01638062a5dc8e2b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Harper's last words to the press " tomorrow you will decide is I am a fool or a genius "
He did everything he could do to get out his agenda.
I wish all my competitors well.

Ron,Willy,elliot,colin:

In the end, the only thing those who are recorded anywhere, at any time, from here on in, for not accepting the truth, or refuting the truth about global warming as being real and man made, will be known as, is "FOOLS".

The only comfort any of you will ever have, is in being too idiotic to realize just how foolish you all really are in this regard.

You see, its not my opinion that counts here. Its not what I'm saying or environmentalists, or scientists, or anyone that is trying to heal and protect the planet and its life is saying...

Its what the Friggin planet is saying, and if neither one of you have the decency to look beyond your own idiotic "theories", then you should all be given the respect you deserve, for sure, on this major issue. NONE.

Since you all have little to no common sense or respect for following links, its too bad you'll miss mine. earth.google.com If any of you are smart enough to look, you will notice the distinct lack of ice at the caps.

And, if any of you are smart enough to look at satellite photos from 25 years ago and compare them to today's pic's...

Ah, what am I trying for? None of you will offer a shred of evidence of any credibility to your ideas, other than to quote a politician or oil corps, quip. I have yet to see such intellectual pride based on stupidity in my lifetime, other than what comes
from you and those you support. And... I'm not surprised in the least.

LOL - Brain, don't waste either your neurons or breath - there is a reason why conservatives think education is overrated and underfund it - they would obviously lose their their supporters if they became informed. They may better understand Bushisms such as:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Hmmm....he's also poised to stop stealing your money and putting it int he pockets of his political party, so I guess there's that. That would suck too.

Is Kyoto working? I vigorously support the concept, but Kyoto is not aggressive enough, allowing the buying and selling of credits and using ancient standards for the entire world that have no place outside a developing country.

Canada could do so much more. We have not the limitations of the formerly Eastern European countries and their underdeveloped economies.

Mourn not the death of Kyoto should it happen; instead, lobby for more aggressive standards for the G8 countries, who should be leading the world and not following.

Hmmm....he's also poised to stop stealing your money and putting it int he pockets of his political party, so I guess there's that. That would suck too.

Is Kyoto working? I vigorously support the concept, but Kyoto is not aggressive enough, allowing the buying and selling of credits and using ancient standards for the entire world that have no place outside a developing country.

Canada could do so much more. We have not the limitations of the formerly Eastern European countries and their underdeveloped economies.

Mourn not the death of Kyoto should it happen; instead, lobby for more aggressive standards for the G8 countries, who should be leading the world and not following.

harper and his oil sand cronies better have another planet to move to.
Thanks to canwest goebell and their disgraceful endorsements. Lets see how well they do once the conservative scandals start rollin' on in. Oh wait a minute they've hardly said a word about gordo's many gaff's so I guess we know what to expect re "fair and balanced" reporting.
Regarding Kyoto don't worry about it. I'm sure if we all bury our heads in the oil-sands everything will be ok!

The intelligent design, faith based view of reality is alive and well here, in the persons of Erwin, Elliot & Braunshirt Pals. And it is that anti-scientific, faith based view of nature and class based politics (give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's) , which allows them to dismiss the evidence out of hand, and most allows persons more insistant on the evidence to dismiss these Cons as mere Corporatis and Empire apologists themselves. (Intelligent Design has even been rejected as pseudo-science and a mere Johnny Come Lately, faith notion of fundamentalist Christians to seek to "appear" scientific, within the heartland of The Empire itself, they so much want to emulate.)

The Kyoto Accord is the evidence and an attempt to deal realistically and practically with the measurable reality of global, but predominantly Western fossil fuel dependency and damage to the natural systems of the earth, (with China and other major developing areas of the globe moving in the same direction, no doubt). ( And make sure you read Avicenna above, you apologist wingy-dings. Not that when one is locked into faith based notions, it is likely to do one any good, for sure. Unless it is delivered in ancient text of dubious origin and authorship, how reliable evidence can it be?)

Kyoto is not without its faults to be sure, much of its weak points there at the insistance of the major Corporatist/Capitalist Consumer Nations of the West themselves, especially The Empire, with their innate tendency to want to reduce everything to tradeable and profitable commodities, even their levels of poisoning the planets air, land and ocean systems.

When we are much hearing arguments here from this Neocon crowd about the threat and danger of Muslim faith based fanaticism, we need to much keep in mind no less, the threat of the fundamentalist Christian, faith based Intelligent Design fanatics who walk and write these spaces as neoconservatives. They are positioned, as apologists for The Empire and the Economics of Greed, to do us and the planet even greater harm.

Harpo and his Conservatives federally are the Advance Guard of this fundamentalist crew here, and we need to be aware of it even in the ballot booth when we are understandly wanting to punish the Liberals for their corruption and only marginally less neoconservative policies and corporatist apologetics. I suggest, look for other alternatives, whatever that be.

From the article:

"Made in Canada solution" is a phrase coined by the president of Imperial Oil in the fall of 2002, just as the Chretien government was preparing to introduce the Kyoto ratification vote in parliament.

If Canada wished to give meaningful support to the Kyoto Accord, it could do little better than allow, and encourage, transferable vehicle insurance so that the many thousands of lone commuters may leave the family SUV parked while using their SmartCar, Firefly or Mini for their commute.

I doubt the oil industry would approve such a "Made in Canada solution". And despite the inescapable and simple logic, I wonder if government, at any level, would embrace the idea, addicted as it is to fuel taxes.

Kyoto was a brave attempt to try to solve a world-wide problem, it may not be perfect, but hell, we have to start somewhere.

Here are some facts that the world's population will have to face in the not too soon future.

1) Global warming > leading to rising sea leveles and increased desertification of marginal areas. This is partly offset by Northern regions being more habitable.

2) Over fishing, as modern fishing methods have reduced fish stocks to dangerous levels around the world > leading to mass starvation.

3) Reduced oil stocks > leading to higher energy prices and the demise of marginal businesses > leading to mass unemployment.

4) The realization that the so called 'free-enterprise system' is a failure > leading to revolutions and dictatorship under many 'isms'.

Please don't patronise me with 'bad science', the world's population is in one hell of a ride right now, the trouble is, we can't get off!

As I said before, Kyoto is/was not perfect but if Harper renegs on it for a hokey Canadian (conservative) product, god help us.

I have seen the future and it is very black!

very interesting articles posted on saltspringnews.com today linking oil and the US dollar

Susan Riley's Ottawa Citizen column today may have it about right on the environmental issues and the parties and campaign:

QUOTE:"But that is old news. Later today, Stephen Harper will probably take over the environment and everything else. This will be deplored in enlightened circles. Harper will pull us out of Kyoto, and, possibly, rescind the prohibition on toxins in baby food.

But, in fact, he may only do explicitly what Martin did covertly: take small, inadequate steps in the right direction. Harper's environment critic, Red Deer MP Bob Mills, is knowledgeable and at least as green as recent Liberal environment ministers. If Harper chooses Mills for the portfolio, it will be good news. If Harper actually listens to his minister over the entreaties of oil patch dinosaurs and Premier Ralph Klein, it would be unprecedented.

The NDP, the Bloc and the Green party have a more future-oriented, responsible approach to this era's most important issue: our relationship with the planet that sustains us. Too bad we, the voters, aren't there yet."

Susan Riley's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail:

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

OMG!! HARPER IS GOING TO KILL US ALL SLOWLY!!!
VOTE FOR PAUL MARTIN, HE'S OUR ONLY HOPE!!!

Really, some of you put that crowd over at free dominion to shame on the short sighted scale.

I'm no fan of Harper, but to think that Pablo is going to save us from choking to death on our own stupidity is completely absurd.

You want the red pill? The enviornomenal problems that this globe faces can only be rectified by someone with a whole lot of money and leverage who manages to make it profitable to be clean. This will likely have very little to do with government.
Bob's right: don't hold your breath.

Oops.I'd intended to post this other worthy passage from Riley's column:

QUOTE: "Clearly, campaigning political leaders didn't. The environment was not an issue. For Paul Martin's Liberals, out of polls is out of mind. Despite his long-standing interest in the issue, his impressive command of the details, Martin has been a disappointment to many environmentalists. He hasn't regulated, or challenged, powerful and politically-dangerous foot-draggers in the fossil fuel and automotive industries. He hasn't engaged potential allies in the oil patch. He hasn't given business what it most wants, apart from a carte blanche to pollute: certainty on the new ground rules.

It has been cloying, in the dying days of a badly-run Liberal campaign, to see Martin portray himself as the last defender of the Kyoto accord against the Conservative onslaught. It was Jean Chretien who committed Canada to the international climate change treaty while Martin cowered and doubted. Martin's government has committed $10 billion over seven years to modestly useful measures, but has avoided regulation -- preferring a voluntary emissions reduction agreement with carmakers that is, already, coming up short and unending negotiations with "large emitters." He has given the immensely profitable oil and gas industry tax breaks, and hesitated, fatally, to force it to take responsibility for the disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases it pumps into our atmosphere."
(...)

I see that no one actually answered my question, how do you establish a base line for how much pollution is put out when such information is often considered a “state secret”

How did they measure China? How can you be sure that the US pollutes more than China?

How will “green credits” actually benefit the environment, when they don’t really exist.

Kyoto was fundamental flawed.

Coyote - your conspiracy theories escape me. The climate is changing, always has always will. No one seems to be able to quantify how and how much human activity is affecting climate change. Of course, it seems to make sense to mitigate the human effect on the environment I just don't see that Kyoto is an effective way to do it. Ultimatley it was a Liberal party PR exercise.

Coyote - your conspiracy theories escape me. The climate is changing, always has always will. No one seems to be able to quantify how and how much human activity is affecting climate change. Of course, it seems to make sense to mitigate the human effect on the environment I just don't see that Kyoto is an effective way to do it. Ultimatley it was a Liberal party PR exercise. I think most rational Canadians are offended at Paul Martin's shot at the US record on Kyoto when their record on emission limits is superior to ours.

Strict industry regulations, real governmental oversight and fines that actually deter - higher than the benefit of polluting - built into the trade agreements with a strong communications program and targeted tax incentives for environmental aid such as solar heating transformation etc is the way to help heal this planet. Pollution will only get worse as deregulation continues. As we've seen the last number of years. After all most of us have stopped smoking, it's time the planet did.

Coyote, you're wrong about intelligent design. Unfortunately the relgionists are using it because they think it supports creationism.

Creationism is the belief that some god created the world be immediate degree, as presented in the Genesis account. This is pure nonsense.

Evolution by "natural selection" working on mutations to slowly create new species is even more hilarious than creationism.

Evolution by natural selection and mutation is impossible because, for it to be viable the concept of "acquired characteristics" or Lamarckianism, would need to be true, as Charles Darwin believed. (Larmarckianism was discredited by the turn of the last century.

A hypothesis of the theory of evolution is that some specific "variation" of a species will have it's alleles fixed in a future population by virtue of that gene group possessive certain advantageous characteristss--that is to say, characteristics which would render the phenotype a "survivor" in the struggle for existence--hence the mantra of "the survival of the fittest".

Another necessity of the theory of evolution is that there would need to be "transitional species" everywhere present in the fossil record and, indeed, even alive here on earth.

There are no "missing linkss" or transistional species because, as I have discovered, in sexual reproduction, it is impossible for genotypical progression to ever occur BECAUSE SEXUAL REPRODUCTION BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE SAME SPECIES IS FAR TOO SLOW, and natural selection might LEAD TO SPECIATION ONLY IN ASEXUAL OR EXPONENTIAL REPRODUCTION.

I'm out of time at the library or I would try to explain this further to you.

Incidently, I'm most often an atheist, not a religionist.

Truman there was an interesting article a while ago that proposed that viruses were the “wild card” that pushed along evolution. Quite an interesting read, but I can’t find it to give you the link.

Your new years resolution should include: C.I.R.E.
Reading Ron Erwins' posts is bad enough, responding to them is moronic. You will get you the same result over and over. C.I.R.E.
Coalition to Ignore Ron Erwin.

Truman:

You misunderstand the fundamental point of the phrase "survival of the fittest". It's not a grand struggle as you imply but rather a statement that the organism that is most fit for its environment will tend to have the most reproductive success.

From Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory";
Discover, May 1981

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means
"imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence
running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to
guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument:
evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now
rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution
is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make
up their minds about the theory, then what confidence
can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed
this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas
when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign
rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific
theory only, and it has in recent years been
challenged in the world of science--that is, not
believed in the scientific community to be as
infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And
facts and theories are different things, not rungs in
a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the
world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that
explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when
scientists debate rival theories to explain them.
Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in
this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in
midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from
ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's
proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be
discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty";
there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex
world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow
deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty
only because they are not about the empirical world.
Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth,
though creationists often do (and then attack us
falsely for a style of argument that they themselves
favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to
such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold
provisional consent." I suppose that apples might
start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not
merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this
distinction of fact and theory from the very
beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged
how far we are from completely understanding the
mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact)
occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference
between his two great and separate accomplishments:
establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a
theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of
evolution.

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science,
"theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and
the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and
physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as
the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New
evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

Yale and Columbia Universities have published the "2006 Environmental Performance Index", a major comparitive study of performance on environmental matters, ranking individual countries worldwide.
There's a good NY Times article today about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/politics/23environment.html
The original is at:
http://www.yale.edu/epi/

No surprise, Canada is not among the top performers. The Libs had many years in power to develop and implement a slew of important environmental initiatives. Despite repeated fiscal surpluses making the Fed gov't cash rich, they chose not to, over and over, year after year.

And Martin now has the gaul to warn about the environmental peril Canada has in store for under Harper - ?
I say, it can't get a whole lot worse.

By the way the Ontario automotive industry is exempt form Kyoto targets. So Ole Donny is concerned about an accord that has led to no action, high costs and where one of the biggest polluters is exempt because they were in a Liberal stronghold. Good riddance Kyoto.

Truman,

Darwins "theory" of evolution is "generally" accepted, in its broad implications, by most "credible" scientists in the field and in the main "generally" accepted scholarly bodies of science, as science "fact", by and large, and not "theory". (Which does not mean that there are not such as yourself, as there always is and will be, I presume, who refuse to buy "the science".) Still, there is by a large agreement, never 100%, that there is a need to move beyond the "hypothesis" notion which you suggest, and accept the concept of the evolution of species as fact. And contrary to your claim, this is demonstrated again and again in the main elements of the fossil record , likewise generally agreed upon by an overwhelming majority of scientists, and affirmed by courts of law etc. The "fossil record" is agreed sufficient, though new evidence is constantly being sought and discovered, to demonstrate, in fact, that species did "evolve" as claimed by Charles Darwin, whatever your own personal opinion. (Usually, only continuing to be questioned and get any serious credibility, in the developed world at least, within Fundamentalist Christian USA.)

Yet again, because science and the way we come to understand the real world is complex and never entirely perfect, is not to say that our understanding of the particulars and detailed aspects of the evidence of the fact of "evolution" outside of the notion of "divine creation" does not or will not as well, further evolve and change over time. That is a given and the general way of science.

(Our understanding of a thing or phenomenon generally, gets "fine tuned" by new evidence and the scientific critiquing process over time, no doubt. Real and fully accurate knowledge seldom arrives to us full blown, never to be later changed or more fully developed, and without elements of some doubt and with all the facts fully in place in our understanding, such that they never have to be fine tuned or even corrected in its detail by later discovered evidence. We are humans afterall and not, at least yet :-), Gods ourselves. What we come to know must be wrested from the record and discovery, and then stuggled with for a correct understanding of how all the complex elements and aspects of life and its evolutionary development interlink and work with each other.)

In short, we likely do not have, and may never, a perfect understanding of the entire, detailed and most minute aspects of human, amd the larger natural world's evolution; of how we and the world around us, in all its complexity fully came to be. We are more likely placed in an infinitely complex process of discovery and struggling extension of our understanding of things concerning what is real and unreal. And indeed, the universe is more likely even, almost certainly, to come to some cataclysmic end before our knowledge is anywhere near fully complete. Unless one acceptss that the expanding universe does so without end, of course, and does not at some point fly apart and break free of the laws of gravity or collapse in on itself in an endlessly repeating cycle. (And there certainly is much room for debate, no doubt.)

Continued next post...

From previous post...

What we are at best likely to get, certainly looking at it from this point in time, I suspect, is a more or less rather broad, more or less correct general understanding of the main outlines of life and understanding of how it came to be and evolved. Though evolve it clearly did, and Darwin gave us a better understanding of the main material mechanisms and processes by which that occurred, applied to ourselves and the flora and fauna of the planet. Again, which does mean that it arrived to him, like God speaking to Moses from the Mount, explained full blown and perfect in every detail. (Unless of course, as my religious family contends, the fossil record of dinosaurs, fishes, flying and air breathing fishes that use/used their fins to scuttle upon the land, apes, ape like creatures, early and more modern humans is a myth, created and designed to solely shake the faith of the faithful.)

So, whilst one can certainly argue the details of the evolutionary processes, and whether or not this or that constitues sufficient evidence of this or that feature of material evolution, evolution itself in its main characteristics and outline is "fact", not "theory". It is only "theory" to those who continue to cling to "faith" notions of creation.

And to conclude, the concept of the Survival of The Fittest, is one that serves a broad outline explanation of the evolution of species over a very long period of time. It is applied in its "social-Darwinist" context, mechanically and in a self-serving way, even though it doubtless, to my mind, does work even there at a very particular level, not to this or that individual especially or so much, but more to much larger groups/species and categories and over longer time frames than an individual persons or plants life, by neoconservatives and fascist mentalities which seek more to use it to justify the privileged ruling class position in society, and the subservient role of the working classes and its strata layers. And interestingly, these are the same folks most given to creationism and intelligent design. Which does tell us something about them, no doubt, and their capacity to cherry pick evidence from any source that serves their own ideological agendas.

You may be an athiest most of the time. I however am actually less concerned with being an athiest or living up to any label, though I am all the time, than I am with "the evidence".

And what does this have to do with the election?

It has to do with demonstrating or confirming whether ones view of life and politics is merely "faith based", for those that generally are rely on it likewise in most areas of their life and their understanding of things, or grounded in reality and "the evidence."

grw,

I did not have the benefit of your excellent post above, or I would have not responded with mine. We are agreed in the main, but yours is actually much better. A good read.

Regards.

Colin: Sorry about that last rant of mine, I stuck your name in there somehow with that ragtag bunch of misfits. Apologies over that one, but my point is simple. We have to start somewhere. Its better than no global initiative at all.

Congratulations BC!!!

I am ever-so exciting for this evening! The Conservatives were born out of Alberta and British Columbia.

They were dedicated to reversing the fiscal imbalance and to having our issues taken seriously.

This group will be committed to BC and to Western Canada like none before. Key cabinet ministers will be very familiar with our issues, and they will be dealt with.

It has been a long time coming!!! It was unbelievable to see all three leaders ending their campaign in BC.

Great Work! Go Harper!

I suppose if Firewall Harper does not get to form the next government he will more than likely tell us what he really thinks of Canadians.

hey mabel don't count your chickens before they hatch! Since when have the conservatives reversed the fiscal imbalance and other then the interest of big oil etc when have they taken our issues seriously. The waste of skin con in my riding is in a fight for his seat and it could go ndp, now that would have me rotflmao!!! I don't care who wins as long as lunn is out!

Some highly intelligent commentary here, some absolutely moronic.

I have worked for an energy company advancing a virtuous renewable energy (tidal) for 8 years, I am well-informed on issues both scieintific and technological, and I regret both the positions of the Conservatives and the Wimperals.

As for the Conservatives, whether their 'Made in Alberta' 'er, 'Canada' solution is anything but an obsequious, odious spin-and-spew doctrine for the fossil-fool industry - in the face of overwhelmeing global evidence of accelerating climate change due to anthropogenic emissions! - or contains a scintilla of something progressive, remains to be seen. I am not holding my breath, after all, they have not revealed a word of what this might be!

As for the Wimperals, I have an example. For 12 years I have attended the Globe Trade Show series held every 2 years in Vancouver. The feds view this as a huge pohot-op - I've seen and heard Anderson (several times), Martin et al, gladhanding and all smiley. They have spent a bundle of tax $$ showing up at these events, putting on a good show, and largely propping up a huge, very well-funded bureaucracy that has trickled through Environment Canada, 'Green Team', Climate Change Team', Industry Canada, SDTC, etc. At the end of the day, they have accomplished far less than they could have - promoting and helping kickstart many virtuous technologies that cannot gain traction in a marketplace rigged with vested-interest and subsidized industries (petro, nuclear, etc.). To my perception, in only two areas - Green or energy-conserving building design and energy-saving technologies - have the Wimperals gotten their act together and been significant partners and helpful change-agents. The 'One-Ton Challenge' was/is insulting. In other areas, including renewable energy, they have done, and provided very little. Oh, they funded Ballard and fuel cell technology-research for probably close to $200 million, but have little to show for that - though it made for great photo-ops at the time.

Fudging authentic emission reduction will require more than political blather - to see how it's really being done (especially seeding renewable energies) we need to look to the examples of the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and many of the individual states down south.

Given that the provincial NDippers did essentially squat on this during their 9 years in power, I've thrown my support into helping the Greens provincially & federally.

pretty quiet on here today....all the usual prizes from the left must be down at their union halls working on their local NDP campaign.

You're right mabellbc, finally BC will make a difference, and the conservatives will form gov't to boot!! Nice!

Go Harper Go!!!

Since I've got an opinion on just about everything now, I'll quote in terms of evolution, well, me!:

Evolution is for real. Genes mutate. Fact.

What did life start from? Scratch? Randomness? Highly unlikely. Firstly, for evolution to occur, there must be major changes in the environments where life lives. This planet has had plenty of changes. Has it had enough? There are plenty of extinct species reminding us of what happens when life cannot adapt.

Where did animals begin? Where did reptiles begin? Where did insects begin? Where did trees begin? Where did plants and grasses begin? Where did nano life begin? To many unanswered questions on origins to life alone, never mind theoretical timelines of species.

Secondly, as Truman has pointed out, sexual reproduction is much more evolved and even though there is a premise for asexual to mutate into sexual over time, the timelines to this planets existence, its crust and ability to sustain life are all theoretical.

Here's what we know. A virus cannot leap to a multi trillion celled organism overnight. Fact. How long could it take? Since the existence of the earths combined environments to sustain life are still theoretical, the answer is, we don't know. The best we can do is make an educated (or not so educated) guess.

To evolutionists, I say... Prove it.
To creationists, I say... Prove it.

With evolutionists, it hypothesis is proven only through a combination of collective theories.

With creationists, hypothesis can only be proven by faith. (So far)

To myself, I say I've had enough experience with both hypothesis's to know that a lifeform much more sophisticated in survival, potential, origin, purpose, timelines, and plans, could in every way design life as easily as we design cars. The bottom line is... I can't prove it. But I sleep well at night (sometimes) knowing what I do know.

Point is, if we can theorize that evolved life evolved from scratch on this planet, then we should have the brains to nod our heads that the possiblities of life evolving somewhere else in the universe with superior intellect to our own, is also highly probable, leading to the origins to intelligent design, to begin with. Its a kinundren.

Getting back to what this article is about, lets just say that there are very few laws in science. Laws are proven beyond theory, beyond challenge and one of these laws reflects this statement:

In order for life to survive, it must be able to adapt to environmental changes.

Considering that our environment is changing, whether we want to admit our influence on it or not, we had better start facing the consequences of change, and do what we can to soften these changes. We aren't helpless collectively here!

Kyoto is a step. Only one of many to be taken on the ladder of positive change. To not begin there, suggests that we, as a collective human race, are not capable of controlling or influencing our environments in any positive ways. Need I remind us of how many extinct species there are who were not so capable?

Only a fool would not care about the generations of life to follow, be they Atheist or otherwise, and there are a great many fools to join them, with criminal minds that say "we won't get caught" in terms of damage to our environments. Hence, this is our problem. It won't begin with problems to the solution. It'll begin with solutions to the problem. What is required? A change in power. A change in thinking. a change in the the environments we cannot yet see with the naked eye.

funny how neocons don't concern themselves with future generations and life on this planet, anyone who doubts we are harming our environment should come and work in these refineries for a week or two! Or drink a bit of effluent from their local Pulp Mill if they believe it is so safe!

Bobb999
Thank you for the links, only managed to skim it, will take a better look tomorrow night.

Just looked at urban suspended particle matter in one of the .pdf’s and Canada compared roughly equally with Malaysia, having just visited Malaysia, my lungs will disagree with the chart, a good day in KL would be considered a abnormally bad day here.

China’s nitrogen loading is very high, followed by Mongolia (must be them dam Yaks)

Wilderness protection Canada scores 10-15%, China 35% ( If you believe this I have a bridge to sell you)

Timber harvest % are to small to be readable

Over fishing, are they measuring within territorial waters? Are they combining target catch and by catch or treating them separately?

Just a few questions that popped into my head.

Brain, no problem

Ever visited the Fraser Valley just before a conservative nomination meeting?

lololol
BRAIN:
Your whole rambling and ridiculous treatise illustrates the fatal flaws that give rise to faith-based belief systems. The theory of evolution is not balanced precariously on a set of theories, as you so ignorantly put forward. An hypothesis precedes a theory. Darwin's hypothesis was that mutations which increase a species' chances of survival are the engine of evolution. In a nutshell, he postulated (an hypothesis) that the survival of the fittest would allow for beneficially mutated changes to continue into the future. There are no "missing links"; rather, minute incremental shifts in genetic composition which, over many years, give rise to a more adapted species.
Your conundrum vis a vis viruses shows how little fundamental understanding you have in terms of genetics, and biochemistry. Read up on the facts - e.g. viruses do not contain DNA, and seem to use a host's in order to proliferate.
To throw out your "aliens from outer space are responsible" drivel, you are committing the same intellectual suicide as the religious camp. Our understanding of the many mysteries of life and the origin thereof is miniscule, and in my opinion, will always be. Our supposed knowledge of the human genome is laughably incomplete; I liken it to handing a map of New York's subway to a stone age tribesman in Papua New Guinea and expecting it to answer his questions and enrich his knowledge. For us, the long string of base pairs, codons, and alleles representing our DNA molecule says nothing of the dynamics and mechanisms inherent in its formation. The uncertainties far outnumber the certainties, but to simply chalk it all up to God, or to alien intervention is asinine. Why study science at all? Why postulate hypotheses and attempt to give rise to theories by application of scientific methodology at all? Why use our brain, when the very function, mechanism, and biochemistry of this organ eludes us? My hypothesis is that our intelligence has evolved at a startling rate as a species, and is a result of tool use. Carl Sagan's "Dragons of Eden" was a good read on this. Try it brain - you may find you like it. (Reading, that is..)

I apologize to all viruses, living or dead, Conservative or Liberal, who may be offended by that -)

I should've mentioned that the Globe International Trade show series in Vancouver is focused on profiling, advancing and discussing sustainable technologies and policies. There's two parts to it: a (free) trade show and a seminar series. It has at times felt like a very important show-seminar; two years ago I heard a very inspiring speech from Ray Anderson, President of Interface Carpet, which is arguably the largest, most sustainable company in North America; I've also dined with Bill McDonough, worked with Hazel Henderson, talked with Geoffrey Ballard. Many suits attending and presenting here are deeply committed to advancing sustainability and reducing corporate environmental footprint; others less so. It's rare that I've encountered a bureaucrat of any stripe who breaks into a sweat when working to advance a sustainability agenda, but they're on you with the gimcracks and the blather before you can say 'overshoot'. For a bureaucrat or a bureaucracy to really step out and promote something requires strong direction, which must come from a leader truly committed to a vision. The Wimperals have not provided that in the area of meeting a GHG-reducation agenda.

If you're interested in attending this year's Globe trade show (end of March) you're likely to see a lot of virtuous, start-up technologies ... most of which will not make it to market because of unnecesary impediments (vested interest blockage, bureaucratic indifference) and internal difficulties. More's the pity. check out at: globe.ca

So long as you hold Creationists to the same proof criteria as we Evolutionist. Being, where's the beef?

And that's it, and where Evolutionists have already won the argument and established the essential fact of it, like I say, in its main outline; in the material evidence produced that can be seen, touched, smelled, or otherwise quantified and catalouged over time. There is not requirement of "faith", but a simple objective examination of the accumulated real body of demonstrated evidence. After that it is simple deductive and rational reasoning, based on the evidence, not the articles of faith or passages of ancient scripture of dubious origin or authorship.

One can "faith speak" all they want of virgin births, divine creations and life after death. The trick is, as it has always been, to produce verifiable evidence and not mere rote learned mantras of "faith", for which there are possible and in fact more real world and material explanations.

Some dream of sheep to get a good nights sleep. Outside of your imagination however, it does not make the sheep real. We imagine and create all manner of fantasies, ideas and notions to make ourselves feel better, to merely amuse, comfort ourselves, or frighten children into behaving, like Bogeymen and Santa Claus. But no matter the strength of one's faith, it is as it always remains, a figment of our imagination.

Which the closest I get to it, for me, is in my sexual fantasies-, too often as well, sighhh, but figments of my imagination. Which in themselves can be even pleasurable, for sure. :-) The material, evidential reality that gets one off regardless, except young men still innocent enough to have wet dreams, simply eludes my faith based "belief system". Though there be not enough skin left with which to close my eyes.

Good piece, Tommymoore.

Tommymore:
Your quote says it all. My point exactly.
"Our understanding of the many mysteries of life and the origin thereof is miniscule, and in my opinion, will always be. Our supposed knowledge of the human genome is laughably incomplete;"

However, my own, as you put it, "aliens are responsible" isn't so far fetched. Call me Tom Cruise crazy, but bear this in mind:

Timelines, universe potential, above all, scale.

Was there life even before the big bang? We don't know. What we do know, is that if life can happen here on this scale, its highly probable to happen elsewhere, especially on larger scales. To say yay or ney, goes right back to your point, and yes, its a kinundren.

What we do know, is highly suggestive, and you've summed it up with your statement, quoted above. Good point on virus's, but my point was that the simpliest life forms are "theorized to complex to organized ones". This is theory that is implied with Darwins theory of natural selectivity, but not so with jumping from one cell organism's to much more organized multi trillion celled organisms, so while evolution is very real, it could also be very limited to lifes own human defined classifications. And too, I would also suggest that if the hypothesis is wrong, the theory will be wrong, as the dead root cannot grow a live branch. As well, I also know as a fact, that you are somewhat rude.

Even though I disliked him, I found that David Anderson was the only Minister I met that had actually picked a direction to go in and in that particular field that was of interest to him you could rely on a straight answer was good.

However he also totally screwed us by a statement that failed one of his Ministerial duties while we were negotiating with the Province, kind of difficult to go to the bargaining table with a knife in your back.

What are you referring to Colin?

Brain, Brain, Brain..again, one last time: theories spring from experimenting with hypotheses. Theories do not beget more theories, nor are inferences or implied theories somehow spawned out of the blue in science. You misquote Darwin, mangle a beautifully euphonic word like conundrum, and ramble on and on about the universe, the big bang, and scale. If you really had a grasp of scale (or anything else) you would realize the very distances involved - both in space and time - put paid to your Tom Cruisesque belief system. I apologize if I come across as rude - this is not my intent - but I canna brook foolishness.

bc4me wrote:

To the point of tedium, taxpayers should feel very cheated. Far from advancing alternatively-powered vehicles, it has set conversion to alternatives back. Hence, the love affair between the auto industry and this company as it regurgitates technology over a hundred years old.

Simply, its priority has been stock promotion
- largely financed, in my opinion, by we fools.

Amen.

Which is the real faith base of capitalism. There is a fool born every minute. And unfortunately, to here, they have been right.

Tommymore:
You did quote a type O. simple one cell species are theorized to "become" complex or highly organized multitrillion cell species.

This much is fact. Darwin was a buddhist. He studied with monks for years, and was a spiritual man up to his death bed. (A few Christians tried to claim conversion of his faith when he was to weak and old to ask them to let him die in peace, but thats another story)

To go around quoting a man's science in explaining the mechanisms of God's creation to support Athiest theories of evolution, is to misquote Darwin's very intentions to his own work, is it not?

And, if I might be so bold, to rely solely on human intelligence for such insights of the origins of life or the universe, as most evolutionists do, is, well, you see how wonderful we are doing managing this wonderful planet we call home... do you have much "faith" in man's ability to succeed entirely on his own?

Its the same old same O, wherever you go. We for the most part, only know what we are we are being told... and what we seek. Of this, Tommymore, I am well aware.

Yah. Ballard sure taught us a lesson on "dilution of shares". And fleeced us good.

Again, and this is the last time Brain:

Unicellular organisms exist. Multicellular organisms exist. A human being is comprised of 10 'other' organisms living in conjunction WITH each human cell. So, by this yardstick, we are more a conglomeration of other organisms than human. Evolutionary theory does not pretend to give answers to questions about the origins of life or the universe. Nor insights. Evolutionary theory is not the realm of "Athiests"(sic). As far as man's ability to "..succeed entirely on his own..", as you put it, that's another question, and completely irrelevant. We stand on the shoulders of giants scientifically speaking, and one of those was Darwin. Your meanderings about God, aliens, or whatever other blather you choose to exude have no more significance than the bleatings of a baptist minister at the pulpit. I prefer reality.

Kyoto is bad science, for those who haven't already read the following web site http://www.friendsofscience.org

Frank
He made a statement in a press conference dismissing one his ministries statuary obligations, while we were negotiating with the Province regarding mitigations on a project for that obligation (it was not to do with aquaculture) After that the Province just said your Minister does not support you and we are not going to talk to you anymore.

I need help from all the neo-cons who lurk not far from their keyboards.

Now that your leader Stephan Harper has managed to get himself and 123 other Conservatives elected in a Parliament of over 300, who do they get to support in tearing up Kyoto?

Please, don't give me any dumb statements about Harper going it alone. The poor guy is now going to have a 24 hour job acting as chief firefighter while 123 MPs who have had their mouths duct taped for the past two months start spewing the most delicious sounding rhetorical trash.

Dicussions about creationism and intelligent design like some higher up on this post will actually sound like oure wisdom compared to the drool that'll be daily fodder after the media scrums.

No doubt, one of them will show up with some "5,000-year-old dinosaur bones" as proof
their ancestors were in Western Canada before the Indians.

Will Harper start playing footsie with the Bloc, swallow a whole pack of pride and agree to Jack Layton's terms or risk proving the twiddle-dum, twiddle-dee theory that the Conservatives and Liberals actually are the very same?

The really interesting thing about the election results is that while many Albertans thought the centre of the world would shift to Red Deer or Calgary, that centre is more ensconced in Ottawa today than ever.

It's certainly great to see that Penny Priddy swept her riding to become one of 5 new NDP MPs.

As for Willy's suggestion above on ferretting out Kyoto-junk science, I checked the website. The leading poster-child in the anti-kyoto jihad is none other than Timothy Ball. Below is what Don Guttstein ferretted out about Ball a couple of months back. Caveat: Follow the Money!

Straight Talk

Think tank hosts global-warming denier

By donald gutstein

13-Oct-2005

On October 21, the Fraser Institute will present a policy briefing on what speaker Tim Ball calls the flawed consensus on global warming. Ball is a retired professor of climatology from the University of Winnipeg now living in Victoria. As a global-warming skeptic, he is in high demand by the front groups sponsored by the fossil-fuel industry.

The Fraser Institute receives $60,000 a year from ExxonMobil Corporation for climate-change work. That’s only one percent of the institute’s budget but enough for some policy briefings.

For more than 15 years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN–mandated body of 2,000 of the world’s top climate scientists, has debated climate change. With such a huge selection of expertise, unanimity was not possible, but within a few years a hard-won consensus was achieved. Climate change is occurring, is caused by human activity, and will have serious consequences for humanity, most climate scientists now believe.

Ball is among the handful who claim global warming is not occurring. His particular niche is the argument that since 1940, the world’s climate has actually been cooling. The IPCC conclusion that the world is heating up is wrong, he says, because it used “distorted records”.

Undistorted records in hand, Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research ($225,000 from ExxonMobil) and Tech Central Station (support from ExxonMobil and General Motors). He’s a hot topic on the Coalblog Web site, coal.ca/blog/?p=134, sponsored by the coal companies.

You could have found him at a conference in Ottawa just days before Parliament adopted the Kyoto Protocol, where he argued that emissions from carbon-based fossil fuels have little impact on climate. That conference was sponsored in part by Imperial Oil and Talisman Energy.

- END

Allan
If the First Nations let them they could dig bones that may likely prove that the existing FN overran previous groups here.

Now wasn’t BC mostly covered in an ice sheet approx 13-25,000 years ago?

allan
I think that Harper will continue to work on a alternate plan for Kyoto and just not implement any measures directed to Kyoto unless they fit into the CPC plan. Typical of how many Canadian governments handle sticky issues.

You are correct that he has lots of work to do with his party, but he was able to maintain discipline during a long campaign and that speaks well of his ability to handle diverse groups. The CPC will also be acutely aware of how precarious their lead is and will do there best not to rock the apple cart. The seats in Quebec are a blessing courtesy of the Liberals.

I notice that Yale/Columbia 2006 study comparing countries world wide on environmental performance
actually gives Canada #8 spot in the world overall, not all that bad - Top 10 !

This, despite our falling down on Kyoto targets.

Here's a concise summary from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1693430,00.html

Colin, now you are being sillier than I.

No I stated specifically 5,000 years to match the estimation Stockboy and fellow believers throws out as the creationist era.

It's quite doubtful Indians drove anyone out of what is now Canada 13,000 to 25,000 years ago since the country was still in the grips of the ice age.

It's only 10,000 years from my understanding when the ice age departed enough to allow human occupation of this area.

Forget your allusion to Kennewick man. Surely you are not suggesting that anomaly is conclusive evidence of anything 13,000 years ago.

But archaeological digs have shown quite conclusively there were people here shortly after the ice age era and the evidence points to ancestors of the current populations, not some fanciful race of white Europeans.

While I agree with much of the criticism that Kyoto ain't going to cut it if we are serious about global warming, I somehow doubt Harper will have a viable alternative, especially if he buys into the fraud science the non-renewable energy industry is pushing through the US and other denier nations.

Last time I checked it was a requirement of government to get majority support to abandon legally sanctioned initiatives like Kyoto.

Oh, a few of the more right-wing Liberals might bite at that proposal, especially if they are bible-belt Libs, but I would doubt 30 would vote against a strong Liberal point.

Certainly the NDP and Bloc would not touch that plan so where does a determined Harper go for that support.

Frankly, to try to trot out the mainly American tripe that humans have had no discernible impact on mother earth would be about as popular here as announcing Canadian youth will be heading to Iraq as fodder for the Empire.

Canadians clearly stated Monday evening they have no intention of giving the Conservatives free reign for four or five years.

They might be pissed right off with the past 12 years of questionable Liberal government, but the majority were clear they certainly aren't giving Harper's gang any chance to do that.

Harper had best learn to be humble, a lesson some of his louder supporters here ought to adhere to as well as they watch their once coveted dream melting in a minority stew.

Allan
I was actually referring to the theories that the present population of FN are descended from the last big migration push of Asiatic peoples that came down from the land bridge along areas that are now submerged or by samll boats. Displacing the previous groups and pushing them further south.

While I believe in the possibility of intelligent design, which isn’t that far out if you believe in the possibility of parallel universes, wormholes and other neat quantum physic’s stuff. But I don’t see any “higher being” bothering to plant misleading evidence to test people. Likely any ‘intelligent” design is at the DNA level where we would be triggered to go down certain paths, perhaps also with the occasional nudge. Hell the last scene from MIB II may be closer to the truth than any of it.

I find it fascinating how many in the CPC belittle Canada's contribution to Kyoto based upon these two ideas:

-The US isn't following through so how can lowly Canada put a dent in the problem
-The billions in India and China are the only emmissions that are really meaningful anyways

So basically.... it's everybody elses fault / problem and Canada should not be responsible for its own mess. Funny logic from the 'olde "personal responsibility" crowd.

And just in case anybody IS interested in reducing emissions from Indian and China (as opposed to just scapegoating them). What do you think their first excuse is going to be for not being involved in something like Kyoto? It's going to be "Well US/Canada" isn't following through, why should we?

No we don't have the power to clean up the whole of the planet by ourselves. But we're one of the richest countries in the world - we should be leading by example, not juvenile entittlements of contributing no more then the minimum.

But we certainly have the power to sully our nest. And sully we will, until we are so suffused in toxins and our climate is running amok and green things and animals are but faint memories.

Tommymore:
But as you say, tommymore... it is for some reason, according to you anyways, completely irrelevant. Its interesting how you have shot down theories in the past, free radical theory, the very theory the entire globe has used to describe the dangers of flurocarbons and global warming. PH body chemistry, the very Gr. 10 chemistry that 16 year olds get introduced to these days in Bio and Chem class.

I forget if it was you who was dumb enough to say that it doesn't matter what we eat, we all die anyways, but it wouldn't surprise me. As you say, human potential is completely irrelevant. Good luck with your Gr. 9 science on the next one.

Your ignorance and lauded projected intellectual conceit on this site is about the only thing I've grown to rely on. The fact that you would shoot down universal potential alone, refuting all other theories of life other than what this planet can do, shows how narrow and near in scope your mind truly works.

Just as your last post points out problems, you will offer no solutions, other than to project your own apathetic life. I fully expect your manner to be just as negative in the thread.

allan

http://www.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/notes/mammoth.html

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10ad.html

Colin, I don't refute your Bering bridge theory, but why is it that you are locked into this idea that one culture necessarily wipes the previous culture out.

I realize that was the European approach to exploration and today it continues to colours just about all discussion on how people migrated.

However, I think you'll find most aboriginals in South America tend to see themselves as coming from the same roots as aboriginals here in North America.

I think DNA will eventually prove it as well.

I suspect there was a lot more merging of cultures than conquesting of them as is evident in the language and cultural similaries in aboriginal groups throughout the western world.

Regardless, Canada's aboriginals can claim occupation on these land further back than Jews can trace occupation through belief to what they now call Israel.

Back to you intelligent design defence.

Just who do you imagine did the intelligent designing and where have these wise guys been
over the past century as hundreds of millions of people were slaughtered for one cause or another and often on behalf of some so-called intelligent creator?

Parallel universes, devils in the deep blue sea, flying pigs, I'm not ready to rule any of them out Colin. But excuse me if I prefer to put my trust in the only documented form of intelligence I've come across yet.

Hey, don't take it the wrong way. I include you in that latter group too..

I suspect that if anyone was responsible for us, only occasional looks into the Petri dish. I suspect that they would create the “formula” to achieve the goals they wanted and then stuck in the soap, with the timer set to check every 50,000 years or so.

I also suspect that a new wave of migrants would do both assimilation and take-over depending on circumstance. It would depend on the availability of food sources, safe and secure location etc. Remember that warfare, raiding and slavery features quite a bit in FN lore as does intermarriage, trade.

RE: “Canada Poised to Kill Kyoto,” published yesterday (Jan. 24) online in “The Tyee.”

The Canadian Trucking Alliance is a federation which represents a broad cross-section of the trucking industry—some 4,500 carriers, owner-operators and industry suppliers. CTA is non-partisan, representing the industry’s viewpoint on national and international policy, regulatory and legislative issues that affect trucking to all members of federal government, both MPs and bureaucrats, regardless of party membership.

I thought it already had. Didn't that DNA guy on PBS already do this?

Frank, I believe you are right, but I suspect Colin may have a few issues with public television so he likely doesn't recognize it as a legitimate source of facts.

A Petri dish, no less. Wow. Any chance some of those haloed denizens of the upper tier might have been up to some mischief once in a while.

I mean, that would explain the fact that the most powerful man on earth is a bloody idiot, but I still can't see anyone designing the elliots, Working Man , Ron. E. etc.

Oh right, the chaos theory. Of course.

bcfme said he checked the website but didn't read it.

Allan
Well since the history docs use the wrong file footage to go along with the story, I certainly do doubt both private and public TV’s attention to detail. Not to mention the general bias one way or another.

Figured out some time ago that of all the stories I was involved in the Province newspaper and BCTV generally got 40% of the facts wrong.