Yeah, it’s weird. Running attack ads when there is no election. I think it makes the CPC looks like they are so worried about Dion, that they would run these things now.

But I guess they’re feeling good about themselves now that they are investing some money in alternative fuels and even setting emissions targets in the near future.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

>feel proud of their party this morning?

I don’t know who feels proud, but the Liberal attack ads are not a correct comparison in any event. The corrrect comparison is all the occasions on which past remarks and performances of CPC members have been quoted or re-broadcast. Clearly, to a great many people of all levels of education and intelligence, referring to a person’s past remarks or conduct in order to portray him and/or his ideas a certain way is entirely acceptable. I suppose everyone who expects to do so in future will not bother to mount the high horse at this time.

In Stock’s case, Chretien called an election. I suppose it was one of those “necessary” elections worth paying for rather than an “unnecessary” election like the last one people whinged about so much.

Here’s hoping the tinyurls will get through if I blank out the dots…

Liberals on Stockwell Day: Kinsella & Barney, anyone? And here’s Brison comparing Ignatieff to Day (http://tinyurl com/2rkxn8), complete with editorials from CP about his disastrous reign, although the Cdn Alliance party increased support across the country under Day (http://tinyurl com/33×72y). Oh, look, the Liberals accused Day of having a Hidden Agenda (wow, that’s really getting old, isn’t it?) http://tinyurl com/2jz3nf

Liberals on Harper, prior to dropping the writ in 2004: http://tinyurl com/32yl6f

So, if the other guy did it, is it okay for my guys to do it? In a perfect world, no. Sadly, we are not in a perfect world. The partisan in me thinks the ads are pretty funny, but the nonpartisan in me would prefer that our political climate was such that these ads had no reason for being. I can live with ads that attack policies/politics and/or records, but draw the line at personal attacks.

My 2 cents

>You can’t think of any examples of Liberals running ads

Since you’re playing a game of strict definitions, I will do so as well: divide time into “before”, “now”, and “after” with respect to the selection of a party leader. Now you can answer your own question. If the preferred Liberal technique to unsettle a new leader is to call an election at taxpayers’ expense, and the preferred Conservative technique is to run some ads at the CPC’s expense, I favour the latter. You see it as you wish, and I’ll see it as I wish.

Balb: Liberals on Harper, prior to dropping the writ (last link) - here’s a direct quote (2nd paragraph):

“…Liberal ads targeting Conservative leader Stephen Harper hit the airwaves across the country this week — except in Quebec — days before the writ is expected to be dropped…”

So yes, those would be ads, paid for by the Liberal Party, attacking Stephen Harper, when no election had been called. If I recall correctly, the CPC leadership convention took place earlier that year (March, I think).

Throbbin: Please explain to me (multi-syllable words are okay) how Canada writing a cheque to Russia or China for “carbon credits” helps curb either greenhouse gases or pollution? If it’s easier, explain how Syncrude cutting Putin a cheque will have ANY bearing on the environmental footprint created by development of the oilsands in northern Alberta?

In short, it won’t.

If we are going to trade emissions, I’d prefer Syncrude cut a cheque to… I dunno, Quebec BC Hydro. At least that would keep the money in Canada, and we might even see some investment in greener technologies HERE.

Yes, it’s a stupid, odious practice regardless of who does it.

When you learn to read clearly enough to know who you are quoting, so that I may have some assurance you are not merely skimming text and leaping immediately to preconceptions, I may start to pay attention to what you write.

Sorry IrC - sounded like your tone.

Actually, I think targets are totally achievable. No one is asking any single business to bring us back to Kyoto set emissions, each business and industry only has to do it’s part. With attitudes like yours, it’ll be hard.

I never did understand why the uber-conservative rligious-right has fought recognizing climate change so hard. Maybe the world is ending soon, and it doesn’t really matter Candace?

We don’t all share your faith, but the science is hard to argue with.

>I never did understand why the uber-conservative rligious-right has fought recognizing climate change so hard.

Perhaps you don’t correctly understand what the uber-conservative religious right is, or who its members truly are, how many of them actually can be bothered to comment on web sites, or what they actually think about climate issues.

Some people also have difficulty separating distinct issues or agreeing on what they are discussing.

An example would be “climate change”. When you ask someone whether he recognizes “climate change”, are you asking whether he recognizes the uncontroversial idea that climate systems are dynamic, or is it a shorthand question by which you mean to ask whether he supports the Kyoto Protocol?

When you ask someone whether he believes in “global warming”, are you asking whether he recognizes that in gross terms the global average temperature to the extent we can measure one must either be increasing or decreasing (having an infinitesimal likelihood of remaining constant for any significant length of time), or are you asking whether he believes that global average temperatures are increasing rapidly due to manmade GHG emissions?

When you ask someone whether he believes manmade GHG emissions are causing global warming and he replies “Yes”, do you interpret the answer to be that he agrees manmade GHG emissions are the principal cause of global warming, or that he agrees that manmade GHG emissions are a contributing factor to climate change?

If a person answers “Yes” when asked whether he supports reduction of GHG emissions, do you understand that to mean that he supports reduction of GHG emissions, or that he supports the Kyoto Protocol specifically?

Those are all just questions I made up; I don’t impute them to you or anyone else. My point is that the discussion is rarely broken down into sufficiently distinct questions, and people wind up assuming belief or non-belief exists where no meaningful question on the matter was asked or answered.

I tend to agree with you IrC, the lack of a a solidly framed question to debate (and in the majority of cases I believe this to be calculated and deliberate) allows for a great deal of stupidity on the part of the hysterics and fear mongers on both sides of the issue.

Here are my suggestion for properly framed questions (as well as my answers to them)

[1] Is the climate changing? Yes, I believe that it is. I believe this because I have seen the changes and I know and trust elders who have told me that they have seen much more of a change over their lives than I have.

[2] Does climate change include global warming? Yes, I believe that it does. I believe this because I have seen the changes that have resulted from this and I know and trust elders who have told that they have seen much more change over their lives than I have.

[3] Is global warming caused by human activities? If I had to give an absolute “yes” or “no” answer to that question I would have to say no.

[4] Is global warming likely compounded by human activity? Yes, I believe that it is. The reports and data that I have read, plus good old fashioned common sense, tell me that this is a reasonable and responsible position to take.

The reports and data tell us that the initial changes will be seen in the Arctic - see [1] and [2], this is where I have seen the changes. As such the reports gain additional traction in the forming of my position.

The trick here (and I am probably as guilty of this as any) is not to allow “the other side”^[tm] to frame the question in terms of the absolute.