Harper calls off summit

[Tonington]

The responsibility for inaction belongs to the Government. They signed the accord, it was their responsibility to follow up on the commitments. The liberal government did nothing, or very little. The same can be said for our current government. We can't make plans that only start to decrease our emissions by 2012, and expect that we could make the Kyoto landmarks. We will have had 10 years to make our obligations, and we only start reducing in 2012? Of course it will be hugely expensive by then.

 

[MikeyDB]

Thank you for the reminder. Is it all that unlikely that a topical interest of a similar content or form will attract the same folk?

 

[MikeyDB]

Tonnington

Again we agree, but you've very diplomatically avoided expanding on who has the money means and logistical advantage to impact the situation most directly. Is it wealthy corporations or is it the individual consumer?

 

[Tonington]

Government again. Incentives to make change. Tax breaks for green technology. A pollution control that doesn't allow for expanding pollution as a percentage of economic growth, or perhaps a heavy tax against the worst polluters. Citizens if they are inclined to change have the opportunity to do so. I don't drive a car, I prefer to walk/bike to where I need to go. When I need a car, I rent one, and I usually get the economic choice provided they haven't run out. In Nova Scotia I have no real choice in who I get my electricity from. If I could choose, I'd choose greener technology. We will never be able to rely totally on renewables, I personally would like to see more nuclear reactors.

 

[CDNBear]

A reminder of one forum rule that we take pretty seriously:

10. Not to engage in internet stalking. This includes, but is not limited to, following a Canadian Content member from site to site, or from thread to thread within this site; taking posts from Canadian Content in order to attack a poster at another site; and attempting to defame or discredit Canadian Content members on other sites for views they may have expressed at Canadian Content.

I would never think of doing such a thing. I would only use his words against him here to rebuttle his self righteous, oh woe is me position. Not defame. Discredit yes, but is that not the point of a rebuttle when character is being challenged, and accusations of people like myself being neo nazi's.

There is a world of difference between ones "views" and calling some one a nazi.

 

[CDNBear]

Government again. Incentives to make change. Tax breaks for green technology. A pollution control that doesn't allow for expanding pollution as a percentage of economic growth, or perhaps a heavy tax against the worst polluters. Citizens if they are inclined to change have the opportunity to do so. I don't drive a car, I prefer to walk/bike to where I need to go. When I need a car, I rent one, and I usually get the economic choice provided they haven't run out. In Nova Scotia I have no real choice in who I get my electricity from. If I could choose, I'd choose greener technology. We will never be able to rely totally on renewables, I personally would like to see more nuclear reactors.

Those government insentives already exist. A lot of companies do use those.

But what of cities like Toronto, that refuse to even entertain the notion of incineration, a viable green tech that the EU has been using for some time and having excellent results.

 

[Tonington]

Didn't some guy generalize a Law that whenever someone is called a Nazi, it effectively kills the thread? I can't remember the name though....

 

[Tonington]

I am all for the EU system. Toronto needs to wake up to reality if you ask me.

 

[Tonington]

Ahah! I've found it. Godwin's law:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

 

[CDNBear]

Didn't some guy generalize a Law that whenever someone is called a Nazi, it effectively kills the thread? I can't remember the name though....

Could you clarify that for me, please?

 

[Tonington]

Heres a corollary for the above law:

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves also to impose an upper bound on thread length in general. However, it is rare for the person accused of an unfair comparison to Nazism to concede the argument themselves. Therefore, the argument will likely arise in another thread if the participants have a sufficient level of emotional attachment to the topic of debate. This places the long-term utility of Godwin's Law into question.

 

[CDNBear]

Heres a corollary for the above law:

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves also to impose an upper bound on thread length in general. However, it is rare for the person accused of an unfair comparison to Nazism to concede the argument themselves. Therefore, the argument will likely arise in another thread if the participants have a sufficient level of emotional attachment to the topic of debate. This places the long-term utility of Godwin's Law into question.

Very well done, tyvm.

I wasn't sure what you were referring to.

 

[Kreskin]

I would suggest that when people start hurling personal insults at each other in any form a thread is as good as dead.

 

[Tonington]

I started a thread in the science/environment forum about the second round starting Monday. Basically trying to get a feel for what people hope to see, what they would like to see changed, basically anything we can improve the current agreement with.

 

[Tonington]

I agree Kreskin.

 

[CDNBear]

I would suggest that when people start hurling personal insults at each other in any form a thread is as good as dead.

I understand. but at times the frustration gets emotional and old battles pop up.

I try hard to remain objective, and once I've calmed down, I will apologise to those I have attcked.

But how exactly should one handle someone like mickey? He obviously has missed any of my retractions, apologies or anytime I have conceded a point to my opponent. I have tried to point it out to him, I have tried to engage in a dialogue, only to watch him dance around and not answer a single question. Then come back out here and continue to call me a nazi. What exactly do you have to do to get through to people of that ilk?

 

[MikeyDB]

Tonnington

If I'm thinking of the right nuance I believe it's more like a direct association between a participant in a forum and Adolf Hitler... but I could be mistaken...

Like Hemmingway said....

 

[The conductor]

Stephen did want to go because in Hell-sinki and Tampere its very cold right now and there is snow on the ground. They have normal winters like we use to.
He did not want to get spanked by the EU leaders about Canada going back on the Kyoto deal. Now he changed his mind on going there when he was invited. Forgive but never forget.
The tone is pretty bitter over this slight. He's not making many friends in Europe.

 

[#juan]

At the time Canada ratified the treaty, 76 percent of Canadians supported ratification. Ralph Kline has been campaigning in the west since ratification and support has slipped a little. Still, 67 percent of Canadians support the treaty. 54 percent of Albertans are still in favour of ratification. It is obvious that Kline is pushing his own agenda.

 

[MikeyDB]

Conductor

Canadian government has failed to generate accords with much of Europe because it's far more convenient to exist as a remora on the leavings of our neighbors to the south. Canadian military, environmental protection and international policy have all been construed so as to placate the moneyed of North America. Our military spending under successive governments as far back as I can remember (just after WWII) has been abysmal and remained that way because we scurried under the folds of America's protective apron.

It only cost us NAFTA and billions of dollars to cement ourselves into the fiscal dependency we're in with the United States. Europe has been paying much more for gasoline for a far longer time than have North Americans so of course the trade-balance doesn't reflect the fact that a major reason why we enjoy such profitability trading with the U.S. is because we've participated in artificially screwing around with the costs and distribution of fossil fuels. It's complicated but in most respects we're simply watching as the chickens come home to roost.