The Minister of Transportation takes a "a leap of faith that I’ll be able to get to the office on time." I take a leap of faith about whether my family will get to work alive.
We have a similar situation in San Diego. Our recently elected mayor, Todd Gloria, installed LOTS of good bike lanes. His adversary in the upcoming election, who will probably win, wants to take them out.
I LOVE the bike lanes. I can travel all the way downtown and several other destinations entirely on my bike. WAY safer than before.
Blogging is nice and gets [some] word out about a topic.
To be brutally honest, unless you are willing to get your hands dirty in the politics of your city, your words, rarely do more than just amounting to "not much" because you're preaching to the wrong audience. What are you doing to get "your kind of folks" elected? Are you speaking to / giving testimony in front the RIGHT people? Catching the politicians in their offices, going to their meetings, getting in front of TV cameras, mics in front of your face, Letters to the Editor, and assembling your "mob" in getting organized to push your agenda and win elections to put the folks' butts favorable to your issue(s) into those elected seats?
Same for people who complain about their salary; most have never asked their employer to compensate them more and are content to get paid whatever the boss says they’re worth. But of those who HAVE asked to renegotiate their wages, something like 80% get an increase.
I am surprised where I am, we don't have more bike lanes. Between them not following the rules of the road like: biking on the wrong side of the road, running red lights, not even looking at stop signs. People driving cars and trucks would think they would want to put them in a lane of their own. It seems most of them think they are pedestrians.
Here in Guelph (rhymes with ELF) Ontario we have a 12 year old cycling master plan. The implementation will likely take at least that many more years to build out. To my shock, this fall a 2km section of protected bike lanes was installed on a busy road (ironically called a "parkway"). The bike lanes already existed, but were unprotected, perhaps they'll stay. The cycling plan didn't come from the sky, but was the subject of lengthy public meetings & citizen input and has been in place for a dozen years, yet on a whim this plan can get tossed out. People who share the current Ontario Premier's PoV seem more interested in division than looking for solutions, more interested in Ruling rather than representing, more interested in distraction than responding to the issues at hand. Perhaps the minister of Transportation who "takes a leap of faith" in his daily commute could address the 2 LRT lines that are years late in opening or a $6 Billon 2 stop subway that's more than double the cost originally projected. No, better to blame and divide than actually govern.
No, not a whim. By an election. More of the folks that DON'T like them voted than those of you that DO. See, simple. That why I wrote what I did to Lloyd, below.
"...more interested in division than looking for solutions, more interested in Ruling rather than representing, more interested in distraction than responding to the issues at hand."
Well, now I know what your political PoV is, although more nicely put than deplorables, irredeemables, garbage, and anti-American from the Party from whom I share none of their values.
Respectfully, you may not have a full picture of the situation as only 40% of voters chose the present Premier, & while building a $5 Billion highway to nowhere was part of his pitch to voters 2 years ago, removing cycling infrastructure was never part of his platform. In our city we've had 3 elections since the cycling plan was implemented, so the citizens of this city have continued to support this plan. For added fun, the Premier has called our present Mayor a "looney lefty" a remarkable statement given the Mayor has been a member of the same Conservative party. Wedge issues distract from real issues & real solutions; the very definition of Ruling, not Representing. Elected leaders are supposed to represent ALL their citizens not just their financial backers & business partners, & allow for discussion on issues not just pull policy from a hat. Perhaps once the RCMP have finished their investigation into but one of Mr Ford's cases of shady deals, he'll have yet another "Dead Cat" policy to distract.
>> as only 40% of voters chose the present Premier...removing cycling infrastructure was never part of his platform.
Totally irrelevant and that's not how elections work. The majority of those that actually bothered to vote put him into office and they expect him to do what he promised. You don't seem to know what he may have promised others - naive, you may well be.
What it tells me is that 60% of your voters just didn't care enough to bother. And your side either was way too small or they didn't care ENOUGH either.
Heck, I call a lot of folks RINOs (Republican in Name Only), meaning they don't really share my Conservatarian beliefs and they don't support the values enumerated in its Platform. Often, they support the other side more than "our" side. So, I just helped, a couple of days ago, to knock them off politically.
In actuality, BTW, "looney lefty" is really very mild.
And remember, what one faction of the electorate may consider to be "wedge issues" are REAL issues to others.
>> Elected leaders are supposed to represent ALL their citizens
Naive, you are. No, they aren't. Here in the US, I have never felt that elected officials that disagree with with me are going to do what I ask, especially if they are in the opposite party. In fact, knowing what I want, they do the opposite. That's why we have elections - to do what *I* want done and others like me; get MY people into office. That's why we HAVE opposing political parties - they are supposed to uphold THEIR values and not other peoples'.
Your side failed. Try again next election. Or, as the T-shirt that my son gave me states: "Stop Whining. DO Something" (kinda what I tell others - he just made it more obvious).
Years ago, I supported a candidate to the hilt - he had said the right things and had an elected track record that backed up those words. He made promises to both me personally and to my followers. Once he got into Congress, he got co-opted and went "swamp". So having "used me" and then double crossed me, I made sure that his opponent, who I couldn't STAND, beat him in the next election.
And I made sure he never won again any race. There's some advise in there for you if you can divine it.
>>” Elected leaders are supposed to represent ALL their citizens.”
The liberal’s definition of representation is “agrees with me” whilst their definition of ruling is “not what I want them to do.”
Just because you disagree with an elected official doesn’t make them an overlord immune to the people they represent; it often means they have a bigger picture goal to achieve.
>> it often means they have a bigger picture goal to achieve.
Or, they've decided to latch onto someone ELSE'S bigger picture to "get ahead" in politics. "Power" is such an alluring drug and the higher you climb, the more you get.
And that's when I step in (at least locally), regardless of Party. It IS just so much fun to return their hat sizes to what it was when they first started climbing that ladder (often for a decent reason but then get WAY over their skies).
Why do we elect such idiots? What is it about car/truck/SUV culture that sucks people in to absurdity? A big car (or bigger truck) is only safer until the next guy gets a bigger truck. Yet safety is the logic of those in bigger vehicles, without concern for those of us who have chosen to go small and appropriate. "You" elected Doug Ford. We will vote to chose (hopefully not) a bigger and more powerful fool tomorrow. On this issue alone I would vote (voted already) for Harris. In my small city we have not reached a "critical mass" of bike lanes to attract timid cyclists out of their cars, but we are getting closer. We must work to assure that we do not elect a Doug Ford equivalent here.
>> Yet safety is the logic of those in bigger vehicles, without concern for those of us who have chosen to go small and appropriate.
So, are you supposed to make their vehicle decisions for them? Or use Govt to FORCE your beliefs upon them in what would have been a personal consumer choice decision? And after that, now that Govt has made that decision, what comes next?
The US State of Vermont went far Left in the last election and started down the road to have Govt make choices for peoples' decisions for energy (like home heating). Full of steam and heads up their prodigious posteriors, they KNEW that they, a small handful of lawmakers, had the knowledge to completely control several different industries that ordinarily have millions of decisions made by 100s of thousands of people every day.
Two years later, and millions spent, those self-same-considered geniuses got thrown out of office as ordinary working people found out how much their propane, natgas, and heating oil was going to cost them. Talk about Elites trying to gentrify an entire State (as Vermont gets rather cold in the winter time).
Sorry for your vote, Wayne. The Electoral College vote count of 312 to 226 (with Harris on the short end) said that not many thought she was even a decent candidate. And she lost the Popular Vote by millions as well. It's like what James said, above.
I may be unwise to respond. Yes Harris lost, and now we have to put up with Trump and his minions for 4 plus years. I fear for the planet. I fear for women. And yes, I fear for all those victimized by very large, quite unnecessary vehicles that can't see pedestrians and bikers. I take it that you agree with Doug Ford and Donald Trump that climate change is a hoax? Well, it isn't, and if we do not voluntarily reduce our consumption, of both fossil fuels and other natural resources, we will be toast. I do not favor mandatory government action, but I do think regulations to push in the direction of sanity are warranted. I suspect you disagree. So be it. Have fun swimming in hot water on top of what used to be beach front property.
You *fear* for them? Like, legit feel nervously fearful? I'd simply ask you, Why?
What can be done in 4 years that's insurmountable and catastrophic, regardless of which party is in power? Why is it that we've gone beyond the idea of reasonable semantics and forever rely on histrionics and hyperbole to convey our messaging?
Our—and by that word, insert whichever country's name you wish to use—effect on the planet, by itself, lies somewhere between "limited" and "irrelevant" on the scale of accountability. Total net zero in the world's biggest economy, the U.S., would barely move the needle on overall global emissions. In so doing, we would hobble our own economic potential compared to nations who have no compunction about using fossil fuels, namely India and China. Small nations like Vanuatu don't even register on the scale, but like to get their name out there playing the roll of victim (all whilst building new airport runways and expanding others to host more and more tourists.) Your decision to live simply as a low carbon lifestyle is your choice; it is not mine, nor do I want it, because I had the great fortune of being born when and where I was.
Re: fear for women ... Roe v. Wade merely turned control of abortion rights over to the states, not the federal government. There is literally nothing in the Constitution which states women have the right to kill the unborn, no more than saying that we have the inherent Constitutional right to self-delete with the assistance of medical professionals. When viewed in terms of health CARE, abortion is like saying the best time to fight diabetes is after your pancreas has blown itself out of whack and your glucose levels spike >400 every time you take a mouthful of donut rather than recognizing a healthy diet of minimally processed whole foods will allow for a long life. Women don't spontaneously gestate; if you don't want to get pregnant, use some fucking (literally) protection.
"But it fails!" Yeah, but the odds of it are remarkably low, especially if you're talking about a woman who is **actively** vested in her reproductive rights. Even a healthy 20 year old woman only has a 25% chance of getting pregnant every month, so the fact that we as a species have been able to increase our numbers to the levels they're currently at is remarkable. Men have rights to reproduction as well, but that's never discussed—so perhaps mandatory paternity testing should be conditional for any further abortion concessions at the legislative level. I know I'd be in favor of it.
Well, if we keep it civil, hopefully Lloyd will see that in writing a political post, he's going to have political comments. Frankly, I believe commentary ADDS to his thoughts, not subtracts from it
No, climate change is NOT a hoax - our climate has been changing for millions of years - there is no status quo so I don't know why people think we can.
I also believe in the ingenuity of people especially as the rates of innovation will end up providing solutions; wearing hairshirts around a fire in a cave is not a standard of living I'm willing to endure for the religious bent of others.
There is a need for regulations but at what point is there too much? I would make the claim that we're already at that point by asking this question: "Name one aspect of your life in which government has not tried to insert itself?". Now, go look at our Declaration of Independence to see what the true Role of Government was supposed to be.
And as far as trucks are concerned - wrap around cameras.
Yes, it does pay to keep things civil. I come from a strong environmental science background, so it is hard to get accused of lying by some who are on the right. This will be a pivotal year. If nothing convinces Trump, Ford, and others I fear a collapse is coming sooner rather than later. Pay attention to signals from the planet. At this time they are not on a healthy track.
>>"Pay attention to signals from the planet. At this time they are not on a healthy track."
The only "proof" you or anyone else has as to signals from the planet is the attribution bias from the media regarding normal atmospheric phenomena.
Every year, floods occur—sometimes widespread, massive floods that inundate entire regions like the one a few years ago that hit Pakistan. And, unsurprisingly, they've occurred since time immemorial—same goes for droughts, wildfires, tropical cyclones, tornados, blizzards, ice storms, and the like. There is no signal in "worsening" severity or frequency of any of those (the one exception: heavy rain events) and in many instances they're becoming less intense, not more intense, contrary to prevailing GCM climate models.
To me that says the PR campaign by climastrologists has been very persuasive, because **actual** data doesn't show anything is getting noticeably worse except the rhetoric being floated by these charlatans.
So Michael Mann, Kathryn Hayhoe, James Hanson, NASA, NOAA, et al, are all charlatans? I suggest a broader reading list not composed of think tanks funded by billionaire fossil fuel company owners. I will not comment further.
My background is in Biology (respiration at the subcellular level) and grad level Computer Science, so I know systems level analysis quite well.
I also posit that we don't know as much as we think we might - we keep discovering more and more items that have yet to make it into such systems analysis. However, I dryly point out that using NOAA's numbers, our air here in the US is MUCH cleaner by magnitudes than back in the day. Progress IS being made even as the Media is trying to make bank by overhyping doom and gloom.
"so it is hard to get accused of lying by some who are on the right." - here as well, sir! I can be partisan but my engineering & science background allows me to compartmentalize and view things strictly by what is known, what is unknown, and where the holes is systems can be seen (or the absence thereof).
I'm trying to walk that tightrope that Lloyd has virtually set up
"On this issue alone I would vote (voted already) for Harris"
I'd say a bunch of things but Lloyd would lock the comments down again, right Lloyd?
Or do I have the Freedom of Speech enumerated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Fundamental Freedoms, Section 2, Clause b "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"?
We have a similar situation in San Diego. Our recently elected mayor, Todd Gloria, installed LOTS of good bike lanes. His adversary in the upcoming election, who will probably win, wants to take them out.
I LOVE the bike lanes. I can travel all the way downtown and several other destinations entirely on my bike. WAY safer than before.
Blogging is nice and gets [some] word out about a topic.
To be brutally honest, unless you are willing to get your hands dirty in the politics of your city, your words, rarely do more than just amounting to "not much" because you're preaching to the wrong audience. What are you doing to get "your kind of folks" elected? Are you speaking to / giving testimony in front the RIGHT people? Catching the politicians in their offices, going to their meetings, getting in front of TV cameras, mics in front of your face, Letters to the Editor, and assembling your "mob" in getting organized to push your agenda and win elections to put the folks' butts favorable to your issue(s) into those elected seats?
If not, it's just "dust in the wind"...
Same for people who complain about their salary; most have never asked their employer to compensate them more and are content to get paid whatever the boss says they’re worth. But of those who HAVE asked to renegotiate their wages, something like 80% get an increase.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I am surprised where I am, we don't have more bike lanes. Between them not following the rules of the road like: biking on the wrong side of the road, running red lights, not even looking at stop signs. People driving cars and trucks would think they would want to put them in a lane of their own. It seems most of them think they are pedestrians.
Here in Guelph (rhymes with ELF) Ontario we have a 12 year old cycling master plan. The implementation will likely take at least that many more years to build out. To my shock, this fall a 2km section of protected bike lanes was installed on a busy road (ironically called a "parkway"). The bike lanes already existed, but were unprotected, perhaps they'll stay. The cycling plan didn't come from the sky, but was the subject of lengthy public meetings & citizen input and has been in place for a dozen years, yet on a whim this plan can get tossed out. People who share the current Ontario Premier's PoV seem more interested in division than looking for solutions, more interested in Ruling rather than representing, more interested in distraction than responding to the issues at hand. Perhaps the minister of Transportation who "takes a leap of faith" in his daily commute could address the 2 LRT lines that are years late in opening or a $6 Billon 2 stop subway that's more than double the cost originally projected. No, better to blame and divide than actually govern.
"...yet on a whim this plan can get tossed out."
No, not a whim. By an election. More of the folks that DON'T like them voted than those of you that DO. See, simple. That why I wrote what I did to Lloyd, below.
"...more interested in division than looking for solutions, more interested in Ruling rather than representing, more interested in distraction than responding to the issues at hand."
Well, now I know what your political PoV is, although more nicely put than deplorables, irredeemables, garbage, and anti-American from the Party from whom I share none of their values.
Respectfully, you may not have a full picture of the situation as only 40% of voters chose the present Premier, & while building a $5 Billion highway to nowhere was part of his pitch to voters 2 years ago, removing cycling infrastructure was never part of his platform. In our city we've had 3 elections since the cycling plan was implemented, so the citizens of this city have continued to support this plan. For added fun, the Premier has called our present Mayor a "looney lefty" a remarkable statement given the Mayor has been a member of the same Conservative party. Wedge issues distract from real issues & real solutions; the very definition of Ruling, not Representing. Elected leaders are supposed to represent ALL their citizens not just their financial backers & business partners, & allow for discussion on issues not just pull policy from a hat. Perhaps once the RCMP have finished their investigation into but one of Mr Ford's cases of shady deals, he'll have yet another "Dead Cat" policy to distract.
>> as only 40% of voters chose the present Premier...removing cycling infrastructure was never part of his platform.
Totally irrelevant and that's not how elections work. The majority of those that actually bothered to vote put him into office and they expect him to do what he promised. You don't seem to know what he may have promised others - naive, you may well be.
What it tells me is that 60% of your voters just didn't care enough to bother. And your side either was way too small or they didn't care ENOUGH either.
Heck, I call a lot of folks RINOs (Republican in Name Only), meaning they don't really share my Conservatarian beliefs and they don't support the values enumerated in its Platform. Often, they support the other side more than "our" side. So, I just helped, a couple of days ago, to knock them off politically.
In actuality, BTW, "looney lefty" is really very mild.
And remember, what one faction of the electorate may consider to be "wedge issues" are REAL issues to others.
>> Elected leaders are supposed to represent ALL their citizens
Naive, you are. No, they aren't. Here in the US, I have never felt that elected officials that disagree with with me are going to do what I ask, especially if they are in the opposite party. In fact, knowing what I want, they do the opposite. That's why we have elections - to do what *I* want done and others like me; get MY people into office. That's why we HAVE opposing political parties - they are supposed to uphold THEIR values and not other peoples'.
Your side failed. Try again next election. Or, as the T-shirt that my son gave me states: "Stop Whining. DO Something" (kinda what I tell others - he just made it more obvious).
Years ago, I supported a candidate to the hilt - he had said the right things and had an elected track record that backed up those words. He made promises to both me personally and to my followers. Once he got into Congress, he got co-opted and went "swamp". So having "used me" and then double crossed me, I made sure that his opponent, who I couldn't STAND, beat him in the next election.
And I made sure he never won again any race. There's some advise in there for you if you can divine it.
>>” Elected leaders are supposed to represent ALL their citizens.”
The liberal’s definition of representation is “agrees with me” whilst their definition of ruling is “not what I want them to do.”
Just because you disagree with an elected official doesn’t make them an overlord immune to the people they represent; it often means they have a bigger picture goal to achieve.
>> it often means they have a bigger picture goal to achieve.
Or, they've decided to latch onto someone ELSE'S bigger picture to "get ahead" in politics. "Power" is such an alluring drug and the higher you climb, the more you get.
And that's when I step in (at least locally), regardless of Party. It IS just so much fun to return their hat sizes to what it was when they first started climbing that ladder (often for a decent reason but then get WAY over their skies).
Why do we elect such idiots? What is it about car/truck/SUV culture that sucks people in to absurdity? A big car (or bigger truck) is only safer until the next guy gets a bigger truck. Yet safety is the logic of those in bigger vehicles, without concern for those of us who have chosen to go small and appropriate. "You" elected Doug Ford. We will vote to chose (hopefully not) a bigger and more powerful fool tomorrow. On this issue alone I would vote (voted already) for Harris. In my small city we have not reached a "critical mass" of bike lanes to attract timid cyclists out of their cars, but we are getting closer. We must work to assure that we do not elect a Doug Ford equivalent here.
>> Yet safety is the logic of those in bigger vehicles, without concern for those of us who have chosen to go small and appropriate.
So, are you supposed to make their vehicle decisions for them? Or use Govt to FORCE your beliefs upon them in what would have been a personal consumer choice decision? And after that, now that Govt has made that decision, what comes next?
The US State of Vermont went far Left in the last election and started down the road to have Govt make choices for peoples' decisions for energy (like home heating). Full of steam and heads up their prodigious posteriors, they KNEW that they, a small handful of lawmakers, had the knowledge to completely control several different industries that ordinarily have millions of decisions made by 100s of thousands of people every day.
Two years later, and millions spent, those self-same-considered geniuses got thrown out of office as ordinary working people found out how much their propane, natgas, and heating oil was going to cost them. Talk about Elites trying to gentrify an entire State (as Vermont gets rather cold in the winter time).
Sorry for your vote, Wayne. The Electoral College vote count of 312 to 226 (with Harris on the short end) said that not many thought she was even a decent candidate. And she lost the Popular Vote by millions as well. It's like what James said, above.
I may be unwise to respond. Yes Harris lost, and now we have to put up with Trump and his minions for 4 plus years. I fear for the planet. I fear for women. And yes, I fear for all those victimized by very large, quite unnecessary vehicles that can't see pedestrians and bikers. I take it that you agree with Doug Ford and Donald Trump that climate change is a hoax? Well, it isn't, and if we do not voluntarily reduce our consumption, of both fossil fuels and other natural resources, we will be toast. I do not favor mandatory government action, but I do think regulations to push in the direction of sanity are warranted. I suspect you disagree. So be it. Have fun swimming in hot water on top of what used to be beach front property.
>>"I fear for the planet. I fear for women."
You *fear* for them? Like, legit feel nervously fearful? I'd simply ask you, Why?
What can be done in 4 years that's insurmountable and catastrophic, regardless of which party is in power? Why is it that we've gone beyond the idea of reasonable semantics and forever rely on histrionics and hyperbole to convey our messaging?
Our—and by that word, insert whichever country's name you wish to use—effect on the planet, by itself, lies somewhere between "limited" and "irrelevant" on the scale of accountability. Total net zero in the world's biggest economy, the U.S., would barely move the needle on overall global emissions. In so doing, we would hobble our own economic potential compared to nations who have no compunction about using fossil fuels, namely India and China. Small nations like Vanuatu don't even register on the scale, but like to get their name out there playing the roll of victim (all whilst building new airport runways and expanding others to host more and more tourists.) Your decision to live simply as a low carbon lifestyle is your choice; it is not mine, nor do I want it, because I had the great fortune of being born when and where I was.
Re: fear for women ... Roe v. Wade merely turned control of abortion rights over to the states, not the federal government. There is literally nothing in the Constitution which states women have the right to kill the unborn, no more than saying that we have the inherent Constitutional right to self-delete with the assistance of medical professionals. When viewed in terms of health CARE, abortion is like saying the best time to fight diabetes is after your pancreas has blown itself out of whack and your glucose levels spike >400 every time you take a mouthful of donut rather than recognizing a healthy diet of minimally processed whole foods will allow for a long life. Women don't spontaneously gestate; if you don't want to get pregnant, use some fucking (literally) protection.
"But it fails!" Yeah, but the odds of it are remarkably low, especially if you're talking about a woman who is **actively** vested in her reproductive rights. Even a healthy 20 year old woman only has a 25% chance of getting pregnant every month, so the fact that we as a species have been able to increase our numbers to the levels they're currently at is remarkable. Men have rights to reproduction as well, but that's never discussed—so perhaps mandatory paternity testing should be conditional for any further abortion concessions at the legislative level. I know I'd be in favor of it.
Well, if we keep it civil, hopefully Lloyd will see that in writing a political post, he's going to have political comments. Frankly, I believe commentary ADDS to his thoughts, not subtracts from it
No, climate change is NOT a hoax - our climate has been changing for millions of years - there is no status quo so I don't know why people think we can.
I also believe in the ingenuity of people especially as the rates of innovation will end up providing solutions; wearing hairshirts around a fire in a cave is not a standard of living I'm willing to endure for the religious bent of others.
There is a need for regulations but at what point is there too much? I would make the claim that we're already at that point by asking this question: "Name one aspect of your life in which government has not tried to insert itself?". Now, go look at our Declaration of Independence to see what the true Role of Government was supposed to be.
And as far as trucks are concerned - wrap around cameras.
Yes, it does pay to keep things civil. I come from a strong environmental science background, so it is hard to get accused of lying by some who are on the right. This will be a pivotal year. If nothing convinces Trump, Ford, and others I fear a collapse is coming sooner rather than later. Pay attention to signals from the planet. At this time they are not on a healthy track.
>>"Pay attention to signals from the planet. At this time they are not on a healthy track."
The only "proof" you or anyone else has as to signals from the planet is the attribution bias from the media regarding normal atmospheric phenomena.
Every year, floods occur—sometimes widespread, massive floods that inundate entire regions like the one a few years ago that hit Pakistan. And, unsurprisingly, they've occurred since time immemorial—same goes for droughts, wildfires, tropical cyclones, tornados, blizzards, ice storms, and the like. There is no signal in "worsening" severity or frequency of any of those (the one exception: heavy rain events) and in many instances they're becoming less intense, not more intense, contrary to prevailing GCM climate models.
To me that says the PR campaign by climastrologists has been very persuasive, because **actual** data doesn't show anything is getting noticeably worse except the rhetoric being floated by these charlatans.
So Michael Mann, Kathryn Hayhoe, James Hanson, NASA, NOAA, et al, are all charlatans? I suggest a broader reading list not composed of think tanks funded by billionaire fossil fuel company owners. I will not comment further.
My background is in Biology (respiration at the subcellular level) and grad level Computer Science, so I know systems level analysis quite well.
I also posit that we don't know as much as we think we might - we keep discovering more and more items that have yet to make it into such systems analysis. However, I dryly point out that using NOAA's numbers, our air here in the US is MUCH cleaner by magnitudes than back in the day. Progress IS being made even as the Media is trying to make bank by overhyping doom and gloom.
"so it is hard to get accused of lying by some who are on the right." - here as well, sir! I can be partisan but my engineering & science background allows me to compartmentalize and view things strictly by what is known, what is unknown, and where the holes is systems can be seen (or the absence thereof).
I'm trying to walk that tightrope that Lloyd has virtually set up
"On this issue alone I would vote (voted already) for Harris"
I'd say a bunch of things but Lloyd would lock the comments down again, right Lloyd?
Or do I have the Freedom of Speech enumerated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Fundamental Freedoms, Section 2, Clause b "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"?
yup.
Er, "yup" to locking down or that I have the Freedom of Expression outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Not wishing to assume.
Well, I guess I get to pick which one is true, seeing that I have no answer to my question? Have I given you a conundrum on which to ponder?
Which will I choose, seeing a lack of guidance?
So, I chose one.