calkid75

Well I can say if I was hiring, I would give this guy a job. I admire people who will stand up for themselves. This country not only needs capital punishment, it also needs personal property rights. Criminals in this county do not fear our legal system, the only people you fear it is those who dear stand up to those criminals. People should be encouraged to stand up for themselves, if more did there would be less victims. Criminals would then have some hesitation. No country is truely free, without the right of its citizens to protect not only themselves put the family and PROPERTY by any and all means. So I say this guy should be allowed to play hockey as he has paid his debt to our JOKE of a legal system.

Here, here! That's all I think most want, I believe a lot of people against Global warming/climate change don't necessarily completely dismiss it. But when clumped with all other things, do not put it near the top of any list of priorities. Sure lets clean up the planet but I think CO2 is the wrong item to bet our future on.

SO I have been in my car the last few days listening to QR770 and they have been running an informal poll. I was wondering if the results may be similar or very different in the demographic on here (what ever that might be)? It was interesting to hear all the callers and emails on the radio. So here it is: If your province was currently not part of Canada and it was holding a binding referendum today, would you vote to join the confederation?

Here are some numbers I found in a Globe and mail article. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/...article1404674/ "A leaked document making the rounds Thursday night at the summit said the planet is on course for a dangerously high, 3-degree average rise, based on the emissions cuts offered so far by the countries attending the summit. The document, dated Dec. 15 and marked “Confidential Very Initial Draft,” was prepared by the UN secretariat overseeing the Copenhagen summit. It reveals a gap of 1.9-gigatonnes to 4.2-million gigatonnes (one gigatonne equals one billion tonnes) between the latest reduction pledges by 2020 and the output level – 44 gigatonnes – required to stay below a rise of 2 degrees over the next century. The pledge shortfall “will reduce significantly the probability to stay within a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius,” the draft document concluded. " I guess this is some of what I have been looking for: From some other numbers I have been hearing it should cost Canada over 30 billion a year to not achieve anything significant. At best it will delay flooding for a couple years. Great Job ... hopefully it will all fall apart soon!!!

We keep hearing about how we should do that or how this or that will happen. I just see no information on what it will take to change it. I am not talking about this magical view <start humming> where all of us worry about others, and all of sudden decide to get buy with the bare minimum and make every change we can to stop living our consumer driven lives. I just want to know the cost to fix the problem. What will it cost us, dollars, and lifestyle change? Then maybe I can make a decision as to whether I believe others will do their part and if I am willing to make the change. I will not participate just cause a bunch of politicians think this is best. I already believe the government is to involved in our daily lives. I also do not support subsidizing countries that can not even control their own affairs to date and that can be applied to almost every developing nation. With all of the current data that I have found or been presented I do not see how the proposed actions will make a hint of a difference. In my view this is about world over population and I will wait for all the predicted disasters to occur and rectify that problem. It may seem harsh but I think nature finds a way to find the correct balance. Sometimes we can help and sometimes it will just occur when things get bad enough. Just as people will use less when the cost of what remains increases due to declining supply and the prices increase.

There goes my thread ... I thought we were making progress in discussing. I love reading your responses Sun but I think this will draw a whole new direction to this thread.

I read through the article. This is the information that I find when I look around for more information but it is a lot of alarmist type info with very little in the case of actual numbers. Only numbers that jump out at me is even if we acted today temperature would still rise 0.5 degrees. I need more information of this type to become alarmed, much more. So please convince me, Lets lay this for the ground work. Let's go with the information provided that temperatures are in fact rising globally. Lets also for arguements sake say that man is the complete cause of this warming through CO2 emissions. Is it enough for the developed world to drop CO2 emission levels to 20% below 1990 levels? If not what % of decrease is needed? Can developed nations meet these levels, and can they do it quickly enough. (Canadians cannot simply turn off the heat, and remember Canada's population has grown by 6.2 million since 1990) What is the devloping world going to do as they need more of everything, they simply cannot just stop. Their people want more of what the developed world wants. How do they lower emissions while growing their populations at alarming rates? (China and India have grown by over 500 million and counting since 1990) These countries are bringing on new coal fired power plants at very regular intervals. So how are we going to get CO2 emissions down, I cannot do the math. It seems to me that the best thing to do is prepare for the worst. Can you paint me a better picture, cause nothing that comes to mind is rosey. From my point of view I am glad that most Canadians are a resiliant bunch and that we are sitting of some of the worlds most valuable resources. (Land, water, lumber, oil, gas) Rather than the articles we need to do something or the end is coming tone. Lets hear solutions, real world attainable solutions, not ideal situation, lab type solutions.

I guess this is what concerns me when I started this thread. I do not know what it will take to reach some of the talked about goals. Secondly is this what countries are going to commit to. I doubt it, as it seems that the developing nations want the rest of us to turn off and they will continue their growth. It would be nice for them if this was possible but I don't think those in the developed countries are willing. Then my real concern is, is all of this talk and possible future sacrifice worth it. Will it actually stop climate change? <My view: Not likely> Will it save people in these developing nations from disaster? <Again my view: Not likely> The real problem for these third world nations is figuring out how to support their own populations, this is not knew as poverty has been an issue pretty much for ever in these places. So I guess I see it as, this is what has been going on for life times. Nothing is really changing, the only constant is change. Each one of us needs to try to be responsible with the environment we live in. I just see no benefit in agreeing to anything at an international level. There really is no benefit for Canadians. It may help someone some where, but shouldn't our money be directed to sources that we individually choose to support? One last related issue, if Canada looks at a Cap and trade system, it should be only within our borders. If we commit to change then we should change and not try buying our way out. All money spent should stay within our borders where we can ensure that the cuts being purchased and real. I do not trust any of the other countries involved as I think this whole issue is a sham.

I enjoy hearing everyones opinions. And I think that many have similar views of what they would like to happen with small differences. The problem I find or don't find is that they seems to be very little data on expected outcomes of an agreement. If cutting CO2 is not going to change the future, why bother and lets move on withusing the money that would be spent on the cap/trade stuff and actually fix our environment. It just seems these people (those at the meetings) and making agreements for their careers or to stop their guilt. There is nothing wrong with living a more simple life, but that should be by choice. I hope to be able to do that but I am not going to tell you or anyone else you should. Same as helping those less fortunate, all good/important things but again should not be forced on others. If an agreement comes to be and is nothing but a wealth transfer. I will do all I can to undermind it. I will not stand for a UN ran social system. The UN is a sham. I just do not think even with each country commiting to everything that they came to the table willing to do that we will make any significant change based on the projections of what is needed according to the models. I am a sceptic but I think I am open to change that will have real world results. I just need to see that the ends justifies the means. I also would feel better if I knew some of the people with there hands out might be making great changes to make there own countries better.

Can someone answer this? If an agreement comes together in copenhagen does anybody actually think it will make a difference in global temperatures? What is the best case commitments and how does that effect CO2 levels into the future? Even with the best of intentions I don't think we can keep temperatures from rising over 2 degrees. Other than a wealth transfer, what will come of this? I want to hear what others think!

Question: Does anyone actually believe that any action agreed to internationally will actually make a difference? I know I don't as I don't think that at this point the world could make enough changes to effect the future if man actually did cause global warming, and secondly I think that the changes are far beyond man's control. I would like to hear other views though as I don't currently understand where someone is coming from if they believe man will actually change this, or can. Guy

The statistics are funny though. (Or not so funny depending on how you look at it) Chew on this for a moment. In the period from 2002-2008 China's population grew by over 100 Million people. ( Now this compares to Canada's total population of roughly 33 million people) China wants CO2 per person but is growing at this alarming rate. But apparently everyone has lost sight of the ball, we are going to try to treat a symptom and not the problem. What we need is a real commitment by all nations to reduce population. Again a nasty topic. Pull up some stats on population density around the world. It is a little scaring. Considering the earth has fixed resources, not just oil, and gas but plant and animals for food. I do not think the current world population can easily be sustained by this. Each country should have the goal of being able to provide enough for its own, and that includes the bad years. I think Canada would be one of the few who could accomplish this. If we look at nature we always find that populations get balanced by the earth, and if we don't react soon we will start to see this on a larger scale with man. I am just glad to live where I do because you can see some locations on the planet being hit by the nastiest droughts and famine we have ever seen. Too bad so many have been conviced to try to treat a symptom (CO2) and not the disease (over population).

I think the touch and iphone are great. So many useful apps. I think that any kid would love one. For anyone with one of these check oout handbrake.fr .... great downloadable app that allows you to rip dvd's to better fit on the touch/iphone. Best thing is it free.

Copenhagen equals only one thing = Wealth transfer from developed nations to developing. I say screw the UN and Canada should stay out of any and all agreements. Ask Russia how it done. The EU is a dangerous organization that is removing the autonomy of all its member nations. No country should give up its control to any world organiization. Lets pull out of any talks and our membership in the UN, that organization is a joke!

I actually would not consider man being all that natural with all we do to the earth. If you want to know my real belief it is that the real problem with the earth is over population. The only real solution to all our environmental problems is to reduce population, not a very easy solution. I believe that problem with the most invasive species (Man) is that we have found ways to stop nature from balancing by removing us. I also believe that sometime in my expected lifetime (50-60 years) nature will have some revenge, some kind of disease or similar that removes a significant % of the population of the world. This is nothing to look forward to just something that I think we can predict will happen. (In the past we have had this and large wars do just such a thing.) I also do not think we need to protect a way of life, man has always adapted and disappeared. It is NATURAL, man just tries to stop nature all the time. I think if one looks at the history of most people you will find that they roamed or moved for food and other needs. Only in most modern times do we stay in one place and have stuff brought to us. Just my (radical) opinion, Guy