mvdaog

Sundance... What's your objective here? I think that anyone who has payed attention to this thread realizes by now: 1) Emails got hacked from a particular research team that contributes data to the IPCC and a small minority of said emails contain some small obscurities which may be understood in a variety of ways. There's a debate as to what they really meant - two sides at least - and of course it's something that can't be ultimately decided. They have provided explanations that, if believed, free themselves from any wrong-doings. If they aren't believable, well, then they aren't. There's no way to prove it. 2) The IPCC report made an error in one of their graphs that a Canadian scientist helped show was in error. They acknowledged this and thereafter changed the graph and the data in err. Kudos to them for this honesty, and it's too bad that one of their graphs was misrepresented with a miscalculation in the first place. 3) The aforementioned research team admitted to destroying some raw data in their move to another office in the 80's. Or was it the early 90's. Either way, they admitted to that. The adjusted data was all stored in their computer systems. Of course that's not scientifically ethical, and they also acknowledged that. Poor judgement of course. 4) Not every scientist believes in man-made global warming, or even global warming, and this is because not every instance and example on earth shows global warming effects, the computer models are flawed, etc etc etc. Theres maybe 5 or 6 arguments made by these people, almost all of them missing any solid published evidence. 5) You personally believe it's a hoax and that money should be spent on other things. Do I sum up basically every story, argument, point, and objective from all of your posts? I keep checking this forum when I see new posts, but every time its just mainly more posts from you, but saying the same thing. So, I'm just curious as to what your objective is now, by rehashing the same points and posting more and more news articles about the same topic? Meanwhile, the fact remains that, as of right now, the scientific majority and the population majority is that global warming is real and man-made, and until the time comes when those majorities switch to the other side the governments will have to pretend like they're fighting it, spending money, and meeting at summits to figure it out. I'd love to see more evidence against global warming theories that are popular today, because like you I'd rather not be worried about it, but I see the same things over and over and over again. And really there's only a few points made, the same ones over and over, with no good studies published of their own, and no more errors being discovered. You'd think with a document of over one thousand pages, with over 20,000 citations, that the challengers would be able to find fault with more than just a couple things here and there. As noble as your effort might be and as sure as you want to be about where you stand on the issue, I for one would like to see a LOT more evidence, as compared to 20,000+ citations and the majority of experts on the other side. As far as I can see, even by going to the challenger's own websites attempting to disprove these theories, there's really not much substance at all. And the constant beating that my head receives over the same few points gets tiring, and when I get tired of that same beating over and over, they lose their strength. I'm numb to these few points by now.

Actually, as you can see by reading my post again, I never mentioned at all what I believe or what my opinions are on the topic. I never made any argument about climate change or what I believe we can or can't do about climate. I was just pointing out the flaws another member made when (most likely subconsciously) implying that nature and man are separate entities, along with informing that their opinion about how and when people should move from their home and how important one's home is, is only an opinion and doesn't add anything useful to the debate about global warming, and may even be insensitive.

Quite telling, I believe, of certain groups of people and how they view the world. Notice that by saying 'when NATURE changes the situation' that is mutually exclusive from being man-made, and is acceptable. You specifically pointed out that you don't believe global warming to be caused by CO2, so I'm assuming you believe it's from some other 'natural' cause, am I right? If so, when did we forget that we humans are part of nature, and are natural as well. The whole argument that we don't need to protect the way of life and the historical conditions of a certain group of people because it's all a 'natural' change doesn't hold up, because if caused by human beings, it is therefore natural as well. If you still believe what you wrote, even when considering humans part of nature, then it boils down to an opinion, the opinion that environment shouldn't be protected for a people's historical way of life to survive. And it's your right to have that opinion. Not that it really means much, it's just one opinion. Doesn't mean that anyone else wants/does/should be forced to assent or agree. Pretty arrogant to believe that what you believe is what should be imposed upon others, especially when historically other peoples have felt much more akin to a thing called 'home' than 'we' do in the present day, and that having to leave that home and community to somewhere else is more than just getting used to a new piece of property. So what is it: You think that humans are not part of nature, and thus global warming, being natural, is acceptable and the Inuit should move? Or is it that you do believe humans are part of nature, and that global warming, being natural (and therefore possibly man-made) is acceptable, and Inuit should move because we're not going to do anything to help? Just curious.

http://www.examiner.com/x-10722-Austin-Sci...nds-to-CRU-hack http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...1/the-cru-hack/ Might as well see what they have to say about what the emails were about...

Dallas Green, actually.

theres so many variables unique to each person its really tough to say what to do or not do to stay flu free. All I can say confidently is there's not a ton of good evidence on what actually helps outside of vaccinations. It would only be what my common sense beliefs are, much like what the 'naturalists' believe helps, like keeping in good physical shape with exercise, eating healthy foods for the meantime, keeping the vitamins topped up, keeping stress levels low in life (i.e. fishing as much you can). But - who knows if that really helps. I dont see how it would hurt. But honestly I think it's just the luck of the draw - some people seem to get the flu more often than others for reasons I dont know.

I am in medical school and have seen a good percentage of my fellow classmates fall ill with H1N1 in the past couple weeks - more patient contact and being in the hospital puts us at higher risk of being infected, clearly. They're feeling like crum, but seemingly, so far, ok in the long run. I never wanted to get the H1N1 vaccine because I'm so cocky - I feel if I got sick it wouldn't be that bad, I've never got the flu before, and I've never got a flu shot. But then I heard from a few (more insightful) individuals tell me that by not getting it, I'm putting a lot more patients in the hospital at risk that won't be able to handle it as well, and I'm not helping the herd immunity,etc. Stuff other than myself. After some thinking and debating, I decided to get the shot. For your children and your loved ones who might have health problems.... it's the least I could do, and I'm not in any way scared that the world government is planning a supreme world order of any kind with these vaccines....the scare about the ingredients is all lies, much more than the h1n1 in the news. The levels of the 'bad stuff' is actually much smaller than we're used to in everyday exposure already. For your interest... Refusing to get vaccinated is selfish Canadians who decide against having the flu shot should consider the harm that might come to other people and the health- care system Juliet Guichon and Ian Mitchell From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Oct. 26, 2009 6:08PM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009 6:51AM EDT A recent poll indicated that 48 per cent of Canadians might refuse the H1N1 vaccination – and that number went up to 51 per cent in an online poll reported in yesterday's Globe and Mail. These figures suggest that many Canadians are not considering the public good and have a misguided understanding of their personal interest. According to Canada's Chief Public Health Officer, David Butler-Jones, the risk of experiencing severe side effects after receiving the shot is one in a million, compared with the 20 to 35 per cent of the population who will get sick from this pandemic flu without protection. “If every single Canadian is inoculated,” he said, “then 30 Canadians could have the potential for a severe side effect, compared to 10 million people sick, 100,000 people in hospital and 10,000 people dead.” In the face of such numbers, Canadians should consider not just the risks to themselves, their loved ones and those with whom they come in contact, but also to our health-care system. The public nature of Canadian health care creates both individual rights and individual responsibilities. But people can assert rights to a public resource without recognizing a responsibility toward its limited nature. This problem was brilliantly described in 1968 by ecologist Garrett Hardin in the journal Science as “the tragedy of the commons.” In this hypothetical case, individual actors operate on self-interest and ultimately destroy a shared limited resource – even when such destruction is clearly not to anyone's long-term benefit. Canadians are familiar with this tragedy because it describes the collapse of the Atlantic cod fishery. Mass H1N1 vaccination refusal similarly might destroy (at least temporarily) our health-care system, with the threatened 100,000 people in hospital. We have a limited number of hospital beds and respirators and a finite number of people who know how best to use them. Every vaccinated person increases the likelihood that health-care professionals will be free to treat other people. What's more, inoculation reduces transmission. If unvaccinated people make health-care workers sick, they cannot look after other patients. While the tragedy of the commons can shed light on vaccination choice, it cannot explain why an individual would choose to act against his or her self-interest. (The cod fishers who depleted the fish stocks to the detriment of future generations at least enjoyed immediate personal benefit.) Although vaccine refusers seem motivated to avoid personal risk, they are really acting from misinformation and a one-sided view of risk. Public-health officials have tried to transfer their considerable knowledge to those fearful of vaccination. But they are up against the Internet, which makes plentiful both good and bad information. Moreover, lay people can be confused by publicly available scientific information because they don't understand the scientific method or conversations scientists have among themselves. If a scientist were 99-per-cent certain that something is true, the scientist would reveal and discuss the 1-per-cent uncertainty. Therefore, for lay people to state that the scientist is uncertain is to misstate the conversation. Some vaccination refusers also imply that public-health officials are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry. But we pay these officials to act in the public interest. And, almost certainly, their moral disposition is to act in the public interest. Moreover, the Canadian public service has systems to ensure that its officials are not directed by private or foreign interests. If half of Canadians refuse vaccination, our limited health-care resources (people, medical supplies and physical infrastructure) will probably be depleted. How can we avoid such a tragedy? This year's Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to Elinor Ostrom for demonstrating that if those people who are threatened by the depletion of scarce resources repeatedly interact, then they change their behaviour to safeguard the threatened commons. Such interaction includes talking. Perhaps the gravity of the current situation requires unusually frank conversation among Canadians, such as, “My diabetic child needs ongoing access to health care that you, refusing H1N1 vaccination for yourself and your children, might block.” It seems better to have these conversations now than next year when it might be too awful to speak about how vaccination refusal put such a strain on health-care resources that loved ones with other conditions died. Canadians share a common plight: an influenza pandemic; an already overstretched public health-care system tending to a vulnerable and aging population; the availability of a safe and effective H1N1 vaccine; and our Chief Public Health Officer's recommendation to become vaccinated as soon as possible. These facts require citizens to decide how best to assess personal interest and to reconcile it with the duty to protect the public good. We are entitled to share in limited health-care resources. How much will we demand? We are invited to be vaccinated against H1N1. How will we each respond? Juliet Guichon holds a doctorate in law and is senior associate in the Office of Medical Bioethics at the University of Calgary. Ian Mitchell is a professor of pediatrics and bioethics at the University of Calgary. © Copyright 2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

awesome pics! I too never get tired of seeing steelhead.. and these are really nice photos..

Onthefly - all steelhead are rainbow trout. They just happen to go to the ocean and back and are then classified as steelhead. In fact in some steelhead rivers, even resident fish are legally 'steelhead' if they happen to be over a certain size... and wingshooter - sorry if I sounded like I was badmouthing the Deschutes or arguing with you at all. I just thought it was an interesting point of view that I had given that someone so close to me has fished that river a lot. Its an awesome river and I hope they keep going with all the protection and resources they put together to try and keep it healthy. I would recommend anyone go fish that river, especially this year. I dont think its easy to say some river is better than another. Its all a matter of what each person likes more. The deschutes has a lot of beautiful desert landscape, big canyons, awesome weather, and the famous redsides. BC has more a wild feel to it, and you can get away from crowds if you really want to. Its just like any resident trout stream - ask anyone what their favorite river is and youll get a hundred different answers with a bunch of different reasons behind it, all as valid as the next. Hey, some guys even like to throw streamers over dry fly fishing or so Ive heard...

My dad has religiously fished the Deschutes the last 10 or so years (he has no employment and lives in Portland). He loves it, and when the fish are in he usually expects to catch 3-4 fish a day, with the odd slow day here and there. Last week he caught 6 before noon, and when he went back out later in the day caught 3 more. He's had many days with multiple fish caught... that being said, he hikes for his fish and knows the holes that produce in the areas that much fewer people fish... He went to high school in Prince Rupert, but never fished those BC waters. But after I told him about my epic trip to BC this season, he was ready to drop his life in Portland and go fishing up there. He is already counting down the days until next Sept-Oct (can't make it up this year) when he can come fish in BC. By my description of the rivers (how small some of the rivers actually are with these abundant, huge fish, on dries, in near alpine setting) and the remoteness we can enjoy with our crazy wilderness adventure attitudes, he said Oregon doesn't come close to comparing. Once he spends a day in BC on those rivers, he'll probably never miss a season, and once he finally moves back to BC, he'll never really be inclined to head back to the Deschutes.... in his mind they don't compare. The BC waters are the mecca (sorry Russia)... That being said, the Descutes is a great fishery and anyone would have a frickin blast fishing it. In its own way it has a lot of unique things to enjoy and it's definitely not the last place on earth I'd want to fish, not even close. Lots of fish, the fish fight furiously, really nice weather, pretty desert setting..... Its just that compared to BC...... PS If you want to go fish the Deschutes, this is the year. They are having record returns, my dad says he's seen nothing like this. The Milk River has cleared up and thus the river is in much better shape, this is the prime time and the fishing is going to be incredible this year. So if you ever want to go there, this year would be a good idea.

I'm with you.... I know a lot of people who are used to the good ol' days when everything was unregulated and people could go in the mountains doing whatever they wanted hate introducing more regulations, but we really need it. The parks have it, and they'll be around for a long time in all their beauty. BC has, as of today at least, seemed to have saved a lot of their fisheries with their classified systems, as much as people in AB hate it. I'd rather enforce restrictions that people aren't going to be happy about if it saves the ecosystems. It's not a 'who cares about the ATVers', its just that the ATVers ruin the areas they like to ATV in... no one likes to see a huge torn up muddy destroyed section of forest, not to mention the creek destruction, noise pollution etc. I'm fine with ATVers doing their thing somewhere else, but not where they destroy something beautiful. The fishing should become more regulated like BC has done.... camping should be like the parks. Basically, in my opinion, the national and provincial parks systems are the best invention we've came up with, and we should extend those policies to anywhere that deserves the protection.

If I bought some illegal contraband these days it would be from some of my good friends who never even get in fights, aren't involved with any gang, don't come close to killing anyone, dont enslave anyone, do not own guns, don't have anything to do with cocaine, do not steal or do any home invasions........... There are some decent people still able to grow a bit and sell a bit that the HA hasn't taken over, and if it wasn't illegal, and it therefore wasnt so profitable for the HA, there would be much more local, nice, friendly growers like some people I know...

Awesome find! Juss a side, theres some backcountry lakes with 10 lb cutties in em....

Usually patients who initially present symptomatic (as you did) are started on insulin to get the glucose levels in control. Afterwards, with good diet control and lifestyle changes, there's usually an attempt to wean the patient off insulin while using the oral agents which increase insulin sensitivity and release. Eventually insulin SC therapy is dropped from the regimen if appropriate. Its a game of give and takes - every patient is unique, and hopefully the physician will monitor and assist in gettin the glucose levels under control, adjusting the therapies as needed. But as far as I know its standard practice to start symptomatic patients on insulin at first. DM is a serious disease, it can lead to very serious complications, and I would advise you to stick with evidence based medicine and don't take the great medications out there for granted. It can't always be controlled by diet alone, and it's not worth the risk, IMHO. But you'll learn all about it soon from your training thing. Good luck!

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Po...erOnSeparation/ http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/12/03/ProCoalition/ http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/12/02/NoCoalition/

That's nuts! I wonder how long it takes for the river to work it's way around/through that.... and I wonder if anything unnatural caused it.

Hahaha the guilty white man in me says we stole it from another people anyways.... I can't stand private property... Especially vast stretches of forest and river. IF im NOT destroying any of the environment or killing the animals, and Im NOT camping there (usually lol), whats wrong with me walking through there... o well a topic for another thread. I think it's prolly a good thing if they limit the fishing up there. I for one won't bother to care what laws they make - Ill go when I feel like it. But its probably good for the fish who knows.

That would be ignoring imaginary lines drawn on a map that are backed up only by ink scribbles on paper, while practicing catch and release fishing and supporting the local tourism/fishing industry......... while enjoying my life and the earth that I was born into......

Its just as easy to get a resident BC license as AB... trust me...

Man, just totally ignore all the negative shi*.... don't let it ruin your high man. I will tell you personally I've never smiled and had my heart get a fuzzy feeling like your post did. Does that make me a oncorhyncusexual, the fact that I feel the joy and excitement and sentimentality when I read through that story? Especially hearing your first experiences (basically)... I really enjoyed it and like someone else mentioned, I am ecstatic that you and others are practicing catch and release its a million times better for the fish. They'll all live to preserve nature as well we can with all the bull in the ocean and outlets thats happening. And you know what? I know the photos aren't 2008 excellent digital quality, but I really love them, I think more actually. They remind me if you were looking through a 1970's fishing book, with some old camera's taking photos of what things used to be like. I actually think those photos are amazing just how they are and for some wierd reason that I can't put my finger on, the old-style, old-looking photos suits your first awesome experience way better. More genuine or authentic somehow. More, again I'm getting a bit dramatic, but sentimental. Anywho, thanks a million for that post. Can't wait to do some locums up there when I get a chance in the falls to come after school is done. The post really made me remember all those days you have on the rivers that for some reason or another are just special.

Yes I definitely do believe that. At least the people I know from the last generation are much more well-versed and actively involved in world politics and national politics than my generation. I know that in the 60s young people across the country would protest injustice and protest for civil rights... my generation now, it's really rare to find anyone that knows about the torture policies of the US or the amnesty international reports or the UN reports on financial disparity in Canada and the US or the health disparity between different races in the US and Canada... much less would bother to do something about it or care when they do see things like that. I dont see the same lackadasical attitude back then as I do today. But again it could just be that the people I know from the previous generation were more passionate and took an interest for whatever reason in politics than the average joe. I just can't believe that though considering there were all those protests and movements during the same era........... and funny to me that the conservative right-wing of both the US and Canada think that its those pot-loving, love-making hippies from the 60s who are behind all these liberal ideas, when really its the professors, the physicians, the philosophers, the well educated of society. But if you wanna give all the props to the hippies, fine with me I know a lot of them who'd be proud to own all those ideals of justice and equality.

I'm sorry for not being clear. When I mentioned respect around the world for Canada I meant in terms of how people feel about Canada. I wasn't talking about if people thought Canada was richer or more confident. And honestly I think Macleans is one of the most biased "news" magazines I've ever seen, and I dont hold their stories with much weight. From all my friends travelling the world back in the 60's compared with the last 5-10 years, people are starting to see Canada as a second US, instead of a respectful, progressive, friendly nation. But of course that's only anecdotal. And again I wasn't clear about what I meant by education. I wasn't judging by the percent of people with a university degree. I was judging by the amount of people who are free-thinkers and critical thinkers, people who may read and research news and current events other than what their local television news is saying. I think that compared with the past, people are much less educated on world events and much less critical of the news they are fed. More people are getting degrees because they mean less and less, hence why getting a bachelors these days doesnt really do much for you in terms of getting a job. By no means does getting a degree mean you're educated either, I've only met a few educated people throughout my whole university experience.

Man there's a lot of ignorant people out there... sad to see to be honest. Canada used to be such an educated, progressive thinking nation. No wonder we're losing so much respect around the world. It's clear we're only lagging behind the US' model - the government and the media is leading us down the same road of fear, ignorance, and thought-control. They really set a good model on how to control the people... I wish there was still pride in education and original ideas, but all I see is stuff like this more and more. In probably 10-15 years we'll be a war-loving, "tough-on-crime" "war on drugs" society too ahahahahahah I laugh but only to hide my sadness. Unfortunately by that time the USA will probably have moved passed those ideologies... and we'll be sort of alone in the world. Crime rates have been decreasing for a very long time... yet the "news" reports nothing but murders and drug crimes to get everyone scared of the boogey man. I saw this begin in the 80s in the US and now here in the last 10 years...Meanwhile the US "war on drugs" is causing 10-15 times more deaths than the drugs themselves... And that's not including the deaths it's causing in Mexico and south america... THINK FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE! LOOK THINGS UP! READ! The police don't need excuses to kill people, they're doing a fine job decreasing crime without killing, and I support all the police doing a good job in this nation. Years ago, even without those wonderful crime reducing magic wands called tasers, you were still doing a great job! We live in an extremely safe society, let's keep making it safe by more community projects and resources for the poor and substance abusers, instead of following the US models that have been shown to be useless against crime and harmful to society..... please! Let's stop this ignorance before it gets out of hand, we have a model to judge our actions on, let's use it.

This board could handle another Maxwell... or maybe Maxwell JR.. you guys need a pic of a double up together, with your nice hats and long hair... Im sure youll have a chance for that sooner than later, and you both gotta make that crazy famous Maxwell look on your face. You guys kno the one Im talkin bout... where he looks like hes about to take a bite of raw trout, or maybe hes just yelling something that I don't understand. Nice fish homes

Yea Smitty, I'm not going to lie, I would never leave Canada if it stays at all like it is now. I get your argument that even the big companies start small, I'm just under the impression that once they become large, they still get many of the same tax breaks as the small companies, and only end up paying 20-30% taxes, which ends up bein less than most working class people. But all I really know about that is a family friend of mine who actually makes a quite a bit of money (not millions, but close), and tells me how bad he feels about all the wierd tax breaks he can take advantage of by calling himself a company (hes a doctor). He says he ends up payin less than working people, and feels bad, but still decides to take those advantages. Anyways, I just believe CEOs should at least pay the same rate as teachers and construction workers... maybe they do already and I just dont know what I'm talking about. Im young, dont know much about taxes to be honest. About the voting, man I can't stand it right now. If we did proportional representation, greens woulda had about 20 seats, conservatives woulda had about 30 less, and the bloc woulda traded a lot of theirs in for NDP votes. As it stands, I think I heard around 12 million of the 18 million votes cast didn't elect anyone into parliament! THATS CRAZY!!!!!! We need a system where my vote here in Calgary still means somethin, when it isnt conservative.. I know theres some forseen bad issues with that system as well, but weighing pros and cons seems good enough to at least try it. I hope it passes in BC next year... PS Smitty, I'm actually with you on another part. I dont believe we have that hunger anymore to better ourselves like we should... we've became really disinterested in politics, education, etc. since we've had it so good for so long now. Mite bite us in the but real soon..