I think Harper's idea is brilliant! I have just notified my own employer that I am taking the next 3 months off because I need to "re-calibrate" my work schedule and I can't do that with by boss watching me (oh -and I have to stay home to watch the Olympics...)

Andrew and all others who are not professional scientists - please read the popular science article by Isaac Asimov: "The Relativity of Wrong" (http://chim.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Relitivity... to better understand how sicience deals with, and judges, varying levels of confidence in scientific evidence. Here is a brief quote: "... when people thought the earlh was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that tihinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Every one of theinterpetations by "climategate skeptics" of the out-of-context emails have already been shown to be wrong. The "hiding the decline" in tempratures actually refered to declines inferred indirectly from tree ring growth when we already had direct temperature measurements that showed an increase. The "trick" was simply a new statistical method of correcting for imprecise tree ring correlates of temperature using more accurate direct temperature measurements. The analysis was all published years ago. Why do you think that these cherry-picked - and purposefully deceptive- quotes from emails were released now, who do you think would benefit from it, and who do you think has the financial ability to do this?

The problem of climate change is important but it is only a consequence of a larger problem: our entire economy is dependant on a non-renewable resource (oil & gas) that is fast running out. Solve the energy problem and you also solve the problem of climate change. Those who claim that it would cost to much remind me of those industrialists at the end of the 19th century who argued that it would cost too much to convert a coal-based economy to an oil-base one!
Put a real price on carbon and use the revenues to subsidize the research, development and startup costs of alternative energy sources and you will see how quickly the market is able to bring on new energy generation.

So we simply declare that we still have a monarchy, with the same powers as now, except that the monarch and the Governor General are the same person and will henceforth be a Canadian citizen. Then we declare that the Canadian Monarch will henceforth be elected by the members of the Order of Canada rather than being chosen by accidents of birth (i.e. non-hereditary) or by the Prime Minister. Then we declare that our elected Monarch will henceforth only be able to hold the position for a maximum of 8 years.
Then we will have a "Monarch" that reflects modern Canadian values rather than those of medival England.