hitops

That is part of being peaceful. Peace is not gained by weakness. People like ISIS don't just go away because we want everyone to be friendly.

I would suggest contempt for other humans might be one of those. I have talked with several of the childless vegan variety and heard them directly suggest it would be good if huge sections of humanity died. Hopefully you do not subscribe to that. It is not even 1/10 of what we spend on healthcare. Compared to other countries, our military expenditure per capita is quite low. We don't even beat Denmark or Holland.

We are not?

I guess you are calling $140K and above wealthy. I'm not sure I would agree, but there is no official definition. I don't know where they get their 1% at $444K. I thought most put it at just under $200K.

You are part of it. Do you have contempt for yourself? I'm asking because people who think like that generally what they are doing is fine, it is 'everyone' else who is the problem. We spend almost nothing on the military in relative terms.

In my experience people who live like that tend to have contempt for others. This may not be you specifically, however you did voice disgust with humans. Why no disgust with yourself, as a human?

I take it you will stop consuming and lead by example?

No wilber is right, it really doesn't benefit the wealthy as much as middle class people who want to have a spouse at home. Because the cap is $2000, that amount really makes a difference to the guy making a middle income + wife making low income (part time work typically) whereas it doesn't mean much to the wealthy.

Sure, when you care about your kids like you and I, kids end up being a lot of work. My volunteering experience in my city's roughest area has left me without a doubt that many parents simply do not. If you feed your kids pop and put them in front of the tv, and just don't do anything when they are upset, and let them wander outside whenever they want at any age, then actual energy output into parenting is incredibly little. Due largely to my firsthand experience as mentioned above, I can tell you without a doubt that they do. Ghetto native moms have told me directly (I volunteered at an inner city program in the core) They may not know how to do math, but they have long known that more kids gets you more of that sweet government gravy. All modes of accumulating quick income to hit the liquor store, are very well understood, I can assure you. People know a lot about their priorities. They don't though, that's the sad truth. More pokey will not change that, it will just mean they will still not feed their kids good food or properly cloth them. They will just spend more on their own priorities, largely related to their own short-sighted self-indulgence. If you don't know these people or have never lived with/around them, that is why you may not believe that. There is a reason the vast majority of lottery winners end up in exactly the financial position they started within a few years. What that person needs is luggage. It your choice where you live, other people should not pay for your choices.

How do you figure? Good point.

The waste of time and money going into this meeting, is a fraction of a drop of a bucket compared to the potential waste of time and money coming out of it.

Maybe I'm explaining it badly, I'll try again later.

Kriging only makes sense if the under-represented areas are not dramatically different from the sampled one in a given area. Surely we can agree that it goes without saying that the arctic is very different than the rest of the earth and also in a different location (captain obvious). If we cannot agree, refer to my previous link for an explanation of why it in fact is not similar, and thus why Kriging is inappropriate.

You cannot estimate a direction. You have to first know the direction, and know some of the variables, at which time equations for estimates become usable. No quadratic equation will give you the direction. For every variable, you need to tell it - or + The problem is not about knowing what variables you want (although certainly some we do not know). It is knowing the value of those variables. You need actual numbers, or your equation has nothing to crunch. And if you are going to say we can estimate the variables, that is circular. Put another way, if I have a simple equation like x + y = z, and also I know that (x/a) + b2c/d = e, but I do not have a single reliable number for any of x,y,z,a,b,c or d, then I can't really do much can I?

Cowton well-intended error is that he just added in data where there was none (infilling). Because there were not enough land records (due to lack of measurement in the artic and antartic), he just supplemented it with satellite data of his choosing. Obviously taking data from two sources introduces a selection bias. And what a shock, the entire change in the 'pause' comes from his own changes to the raw data, as shown here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/cowtan-wray_before-after.jpg?w=720 We have the same problem in medicine when combining patient groups with different characteristics and trying analyze. It is a form of bias. This is widely known, it is a basic statistical principle. The irony is that the satellite data alone, or the land data alone, show little to no increase. It is only when you mix them into a special brew, modified for maximum impact as Cowton did, that you get the bogeyman you are looking for. And of course, the yet unanswered problem of how most climate models badly overestimate temperature, and how Spencer's model does better, remains. Believe it or not, even a large number of emoticons, lol's and exclamation points in your posts cannot change that. There is no perfect model, but why we would believe models the IPCC relies on even while they fail to reflect observed data, is unclear.

But you still don't know the direction of the effect. Furthermore, depending on the variables you put in, the 'effect' could range from nothing to enormous. So yes, it can be modeled. But no, if you don't actually know the values of any of the variables going into that model/equation, it is not very helpful. And also that is not answer to my question, which about how you define 'too hot'. You still need a definition, to know if your regression reveals that you have met it.

Check it out: https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/helping-families/ One thing I noticed that you don't really hear much about, is how it does not scale depending on number of children. For example if you put in an income of $60,000, and 2 kids, the benefit is $741.67. Firstly, that is an insane benefit. Secondly, you might think that adding another kid (2 to 3) might likewise increase the benefit by 50%. Nope - it goes to $1200, a 62% increase. Add another kid (3 to 4, a 33% increase in kids) and you hit $1733,33, a 44% increase. Every kid you increase, you get a larger relative increase in payment. How does that make any rational sense? At 4 kids, you are actually getting paid like a part time job, just because you produced children. The above example family of 4 is increasing their annual income by 25% (an extra $20.7K) simply for having kids. Popping out kids is officially a fully worthwhile and highly profitable form of generating income (or more accurately, living off the income of others). Don't even get me started on the welfare mom. She will bang out a cool $3200 off her 6 kids, monthly. Why should she stop there? $4266.67 in only 2 kids away! If you are a single person, or married/common law but have no kids, or earn well, you are paying for these people to increase their income by having kids. I doubt they will ever thank you. Obscene. We have never in our history had such an incentive against work.

Even assuming continuity, this gives us almost no useful information on the question. It does not even tell us the direction of the relationship. Even if you have empirical data, you still need to assign a definition of 'too hot'. Obviously 100 degrees would be but that is a moot point since nobody is claiming we are going to 100 degrees. They are claiming we are going to 2-3 degrees above today. Whether that would qualify as 'too hot', is known by nobody. It is the height of folly to begin economy-wide changes that lower the standard of living and increase costs for everyone, given the above vast uncertainties.

Yes, and I agree in principle. The problems: - we ultimately do not know the relationship between productivity and temp, might be continuous, might not be. - 'too hot' and 'too cold' are not defined. There is as much chance that warming will optimize production, as will diminish it. We have no idea we are on this curve (sort of like tax rates on a laffer curve)

You attack the analogy maker rather than the analogy. What does that tell us? There is nothing wrong with his analogy. All kinds of wacko things can be proposed using the logic of climate change activism. I can't say that aliens will invade.....but I also can't say they will NOT invade. But obviously, we need to pour incredible resources into building a giant gun to shoot them, because we should be prepared just in case right?

Software developers routinely release software with tons of bugs, and fix them on the fly. That's why we get updates for everything. Calling an argument ridiculous does not qualify as responding to it. Please learn the difference between pollution and C02 emissions. You'll be therefore be pleased to know that there is no evidence to suggest one will happen. Even if we accept that CO2 concentrations (those we are able to produce) matter, it certainly makes no difference how fast or slow you get there. What 'matters' (according to alarmists) is the absolute level. Ad hominem is not an argument. I note you did not say what was wrong with it. Not sure, you are so far the only one who has said it. There may be good reasons to get rid of fossil fuel usage, but reducing CO2 emissions is not one of them. Here is a good run down: http://www.wsj.com/articles/fossil-fuels-will-save-the-world-really-1426282420 There is nothing close to fossil fuels for cost to extract vs energy obtained. With the exception of nuclear and some hydroelectric, everything else required the use of more fossil fuels, not less, because they are subsidized. There many be good situations for solar, like the remote villages in your link. But worldwide almost nothing is produced by solar, relative to total global energy production. We don't have to promote solar. If it was great, profitable, workable, effective and reliable, people would rush to it. But they don't. There are clear reasons why. This could of course change someday.

I'm quite familiar with regression analysis. I have had them performed for papers I was writing. But you get out, whatever you put in. This paper just makes a bunch of assumptions, and then runs regressions. It is the assumptions that we cannot possibly know. I would be doing the exact same thing, if I posited that aliens will invade. I could put in whatever I want for what would happen (just like they do in the above), run the models, then show how it will be bad. Then explain why we should spend money to stop it. Assumptions do not become facts just because you plug them into equations.

How can we estimate the benefits, when we do not even know if there will be any?

I would not contest anything you've said here, but it is not related to the topic.

And it has been done, and it is huge. Hence why we should not do it. Conversely, we have no clue what the costs are to CO2 rising. There may be none, or there may even be benefits. It is the strangest thing, we are actually proposing to intentionally cause ourselves huge problems, in order to avoid encountering something which may not even be a problem at all.