Mighty AC

Moonbox, I'm glad that you don't deny that our actions are changing the climate...you just deny the rate at which it's changing. That's something at least. Unfortunately, many of the measurable effects of climate change are on the upper limits of the predictions.

Bingo! That is the point of omnibus bills. Package multiple unrelated items together to distract and provide leverage for their political games. Any opposition member that speaks out against portions of the bill will be labelled as being against the pension cuts.

You avoided the point twice here. The point is an expert in a field has more information that you and is better qualified to evaluate it. In this case 93% of the experts agree that the evidence supports anthropogenic climate change. That is huge. Especially since science is extremely modest; constantly attempting to reproduce result sets and disprove prevailing theories. Those who dispute the conclusions are against a massive consensus of the experts in this field. The experts don't claim the models are infallible. The experts have shown the models predict future trends that have gone on to match actual results. Those same models also jive with past data sets. The experts have determined the tools are currently very good and getting better all the time.You are sounding like a conspiracy theorist here...but to deny the near unanimous conclusion of the world's experts in this field, I guess you have to be.

Thank you sir.

Based on your perception of climate models I can see why you would would oppose a switch to clean energy; but, your belief about the effectiveness of climate models is wrong. The models can reproduce land, air and sea temperatures back to 1900 and have made future trend predictions that have been observed to be true. There has been a lot of misinformation spread about the effectiveness of the tools.

To clarify: 93% of climate scientists support anthropogenic climate changeAlso, respect is not an equal two way street. For example: I am not a doctor so my doctor should not respect my self diagnosis based on a Google search of symptoms and the fact that I have watched House a few times. She is the expert and as such should listen to the information I provide, evaluate it, use what she can and disregard the bullshit. Now if I were a doctor or a specialist my opinions would carry more weight. Climate models are not perfect but they are not required to be. While there are uncertainties with models, they can successfully reproduce land, air and ocean temps back to 1900. They have also made climate predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. So, the tools aren't perfect but they are very good and getting better all the time....and they are trusted by the experts. The people best qualified to judge the effectiveness of the tools. Non climate scientists like us, disputing what a massive consensus of the true experts believe because we think the models are not accurate enough is an ignorant and silly thing to do. You wouldn't disagree with your doctor's diagnosis of a broken bone because the x-ray machine uses electricity and we don't completely understand how electricity works yet?

EXACTLY! A society advances by expunging bad ideas and promoting good ones. In most areas of discourse we are free to challenge, dispel or mock wild unsubstantiated claims. Why should religious ideas be exempt from rational scrutiny? Sam Harris highlights this idea in .I have a question for theists. Are your beliefs so fragile or so crazy that simple critical discussion threatens them? Are they not sound enough to survive without the protective cultural no discussion cocoon?

Skepticism is a great thing. The world needs more of it. Imagine how much better off we'd be if more people questioned religion, astrology, holistic medicine, the motives of government and business, etc. However, questioning should be done with respect. Well, at least a sliding scale of respect. For example, beliefs or opinions without evidence or even a good chance of being true can be challenged with very little respect. Views backed by observation and agreed upon by 93% of climate scientists, the experts in this field, should carry more weight.

Harper is good at politics not governance.

During every election campaign Harper poses in cowboy getup and full makeup. If the current PM can win as a conservative while looking like one of the Village People, I don't think Trudeau's look will hurt him too much.

It's hard to believe that there are people who still think homosexuality is a choice. This is how ridiculous that idea sounds: Should white couples be allowed to adopt black children? I'm just wondering if it's morally justified. I mean growing up around parents who tend to be bad dancers, have smaller male genitalia and are prone to sunburn may cause these children to choose lighter complexions. Once these kids start to think behaviour like that is normal pretty soon their skin will just spontaneously lighten and they'll start listening to Nickelback.

When all costs are considered nuclear and fossil fuel derived power are not nearly as cheap as their advocates claim. Nuclear power costs rarely include all expenses like decommission, contamination, full insurance against an accident, final waste deposit or full construction costs. Fossil fuel sources never include the cost of air pollution. On a level playing field renewable sources are already cost competitive and will only continue to get cheaper. Nuclear Power Myths Germany's phaseout reveals the true costs of nuclear power

93% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. Like gravity and evolution it is real. Also, we already do have the technology and money to generate clean energy and cut emissions. When factoring in the real costs of fossil fuel derived energy, clean sources are already cheaper. Just simply switching $1 trillion in annual world subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy and retrofit projects would put us well on our way to success.