-1=e^ipi

Yes, you have natural fluctuations such as the North Atlantic Mutidecadal Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. It's about establishing what is true and what is not true. There has been a slowdown in the rate of increase of global surface temperatures during the past decade and a half. This is due to natural climate fluctuations. But somehow, On Guard for Thee wants to ignore this and pretend this did not occur. Well I guess you could always increase the Earth's albedo, or increase upper atmosphere aerosols, or have increased cosmic rays to increase cloud formation, or solar irradiance could decrease, or you could build a giant space mirror. There are many ways this could hypothetically happen! I've never even remotely implied anything of the sort. Wow you climate climate alarmists are deluded. And I'm sure that On Guard for Thee, Waldo and other climate alarmists on these forums who in the past have been shown to not understand and refuse to understand the basics of cellular respiration or photosynthesis understand the physics much better than a person with a physics degree. Apparently 'CO2 produced via cellular respiration is different from CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels', 'CO2 produced by cellular respiration is immediately reabsorbed by the body' and, 'Carbon and CO2 are the same thing'. *sarcasm*

No, there has been a slowdown in the increase in global average surface temperatures, that is a fact. But apparently, if you point this out, climate alarmists interpret this to mean that you think that this somehow disproves anthropogenic climate change, which it doesn't. It's like you are trying to implicitly strawman me.

I have made no such claim. Yeah... Cause it's not like global population will not stabilize this century at 10 billion people or anything... *sarcasm* Define this 'tipping point' and please explain why you think it is realistic that this 'tipping point' will be reached. Also, please explain how it relates to the topic of this thread because it appears to me that you are going off topic. Proof? If the sun rises every day for the past 4 billion years, does that imply that it will rise every day forever into the future? Baseless alarmist claim without evidence, yet again. Someone is going off topic. Wait, I get it. Nuclear weapons therefore we must adopt communism and stop using fossil fuels. It all makes sense now! *sarcasm* At least you have evidence this time. My claim was that agriculture did not take off until the end of the ice age. Your evidence shows that human intelligence was clearly there to start agriculture 18000+ years ago (human intelligence was probably not 'evolved enough' during earlier interglacials), but clearly agriculture did not take off until the last ice age ended. So thank you for providing more evidence that the reason agriculture did not take off until the end of the ice age was because agriculture wasn't really viable until then. Yes this is very well known. If people move from a diet of mostly meat to a diet of primarily grains, plants, etc. that is going to make people taller, reduce bone density, etc. Why do you think homo erectus were so tall? Look, it's not about 'necessity'. It's essentially basic Malthusian theory (alternatively, you can use Darwinian theory). Humans that decided to continue to be hunter gathers would have continued to exist, but would have a relatively stable population since their populations were already in rough equilibrium with the environment. Humans that decided to perform agriculture would have had their populations grow (until the new carrying capacity was reached) since they would have access to a new source of food that was previously unavailable. Agriculture enabled a much greater global population. Have I claimed that hunter gatherers wouldn't be able to build monuments with stone tools? No. So what is your point? Religious purposes? Cultural practice? Boredom? Someone should tell Schmidt that the Garden of Eden is a fairy tale and he/she needs to stop confusing reality with fiction. Yes, except civilization didn't take off despite the knowledge because the global climate made it enviable. Nothing you write contradicts anything I have said in this thread... Therefore, we should all go back to a hunter gatherer society! Makes perfect sense! *sarcasm* Yes, and wildfires are also more common when it is drier, as the global climate was during the last glacial maximum. Yes, and forests were burning 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, 1,000,000 years ago, 10,000,000 years ago, and 100,000,000 years ago. Wait, now you are mixing up wildfires with human caused fires... okay... And please stop using 'carbon' instead of 'carbon dioxide'. It annoys me! Oh, is that what MRAs are about? They aren't about equal rights or gender equity at all! *sarcasm* This is going off topic, so this should be discussed in another thread. I invite you to listen to Karen Straughan's positions with respect to your claim. No it isn't. Did the ancient Greeks not exist? Did the ancient Romans not exist? Did the various pagan groups in Europe not exist? Did the enlightenment not exist? What was the french revolution about? etc. Western Civilization was not build upon Judeo-christian religions. Judeo-christian religions hijacked western civilization and slowed it's progress for centuries. Yes there have been many Matriarchal societies including in the 'old world'. Basque culture is Matriarchal (which has interesting implications about the past since Basque is not an Indo-European language). Many pagan groups were Matriarchal, though over centuries these cultures were wiped out by the Judeo-Christian 'culture' for being witches or whatever. So what is your point?

So you quote an article that admits that global surface temperatures are not increasing as fast as they were than in the 90's. Okay...

Jumping to conclusions and generalizations about people without sufficient evidence. You play the role of the Social Justice Warrior well. But to be serious, I've actually been through the 21st century progressive education system, but whatever. Lol. Thank you for the laugh.

Wow, you are denying the existence of the hiatus, while subtly implying I'm a naysayer. Who is the 'denier' now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

I still think Socialist is a troll... But all this 'social justice' is... *sarcasm* To be fair, some computer fonts are cursive and if someone ever has to read an old book, a diary or whatever (might be relevant if you work in a museum) then knowledge of cursive might be useful. The ability to at least be able to read cursive is somewhat useful.

And actually, if +/- 0.09 is the 95% confidence interval for each year, then two years are only statistically different at the 95% level if two years differ by sqrt(2)*0.09 = 0.13. This means that 2014 is actually statistically tied with 5 other years... Edit: and the reason they are using 'hottest year on record' is because the alarmists don't want to point out that warming has slowed/stopped for the past decade and a half. If 2014 wasn't statistically tied for hottest year on record, but the slowdown in the warming for the past decade and a half did not occur, then the headline would be 'NOAA confirms that Earth has warmed by 0.1 degrees over past 15 years' or something.

Not it isn't hair splitting. It's about alarmist misleading the public's perspective. Imagine if the NOAA data had 2014 ranked 3rd, but statistically tied for 1st. Then the headline would be '2014 statistically tied for hottest year on record'. But in the case we have now, statistical significant gets thrown out the window and the headline is '2014 hottest year on record'. And if the HadCRUT or GIS data has 2014 as 1st and the NOAA data had it as 3rd, the alarmists would ignore the NOAA data and instead go with the HadCRUT or GIS data and the headline would be '2014 hottest year on record'. Whatever the data is, it always gets presented in the most alarmist way. You don't see anything wrong with that?

I was just pointing out that there are some liberals in Saudi Arabia (maybe 10% of the population or less). Plus nearby countries have much larger liberal populations (Egypt is like 30% liberal). I'm not disagreeing that this is the case. I was point out that there are more liberal sections of the population. But over the past few decades this attitude of 'Saudi government isn't as bad as the hard-line conservatives, therefore we should continuously support Saudi Arabia and overlook their clear human rights issues' has clearly been a disaster because it has resulted in the spread of Wahhabist ideology globally, which has created terrorism in Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia, India, Canada, USA, France, Britain, Space, Australia, etc. We now have a whole generation of Muslims raised in this situation funded by oil money due to Saudi Arabia and the problem will persist for decades at least. One definition of insanity is that if you keep trying something and getting the same result, you keep trying it while expecting a different result. The relationship between the West and Saudi Arabia needs complete overhaul, and if anything, I'd rather the west be aligned with Shia-majority countries than Sunni-majority counties because the Shia are not the ones spreading Wahhabist ideology and committing all these terrorist attacks (though I don't think we should be allied with Islamist Shia entities such as the government of Iran either, I was just stating a preference given to bad options). Also, the interpretation of how 'Islam will take over the world' is very different in Shia Islam, especially the main branch of Shia Islam, which is twelver Islam. In twelver Islam, the world will not be united until the Mahdi comes, so that means Shia can peacefully wait for the global conquest of Islam. Where as in radical Sunni Islam, the interpretation is that the global conquest of Islam will be done by Sunni Muslims over time, which is why the Sunnis are so much more willing to launch global violent jihad. Yep. Perfect example for why 'rule by majority' doesn't always work.

They are somewhat concentrated in some places such as Ottawa. Why do you think a candidate for the recent municipal election wanted to impose Sharia?

No, I am not saying that. Western countries have interfered in the middle east for numerous reasons, including oil. It's a dumb name this is misleading and is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate. I reject the dichotomy of intervention vs isolationism. Things should be treated on a case by case basis. Sometimes intervention makes sense. The original reason for the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia was primarily oil if you go back to the 1930's and 1940's, but it has evolved a lot since then and the oil relationship doesn't apply to the entire middle east either. You may have heard of this event known as Word War 1. After WW1, the Ottoman Empire was defeated and collapsed. Nations like Turkey was born and many of the Ottoman Empire's former territory (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon), etc. was controlled by Britain and France. Intervention via Western Colonialism long pre-dates intervention for oil purposes. Many muslim-majority non-ME countries such as Pakistan and Algeria were also colonies. Heck if you want to go back even further, there have been many conflicts between muslim-majority countries and Europe over the past 1400 years. How do you think Iberia and the Balkans were colonized by the Umayyads and the Ottomans respectively? What do you think the battle of Tours, the battle of Vienna or the conquest of Constantinople were about? Haven't you heard of the crusades? Have you heard of the first Barbary war? You may have also heard of this thing called the Cold War, where the US and other western nations were primarily interested in defeating communism, not oil. God-loving muslims happen to make good allies against godless communists and the interests of the west and many muslim-majority countries happened to overlap. Ever heard of the Iranian revolution? Do you think it's just a coincidence that the west is strongly allied with Sunni-majority countries like Saudi-Arabia and Turkey, but allied against Shia-majority countries like Iran (and to an extent against Assad's regime)? Was that about oil, or about trying to prevent the spread of communism during the cold war? How about the US support for the Taliban in Afghanistan? Do you really think that was about oil rather than defeating the USSR? Why do you think the US decided to arm Saddam Hussein against Iran? Was that oil or because of the cold war? The gulf war, okay that was very much about oil. But it was also about maintaining the integrity of International Law that was set up after WW2. Then you had George Bush come in, who thought the Saudi's were super awesome and moral because they believed in God strongly (and many christian fundamentalists think belief in God = good and moral person). Then you had 911, which was committed by people from Saudi Arabia and the UAE that where Wahhabi Sunni Islamists, the ideology that was spread by Saudi Oil money. The invasion of Afganistan was a justified response to these attacks since the Taliban refused to had over Osama bin Laden. Then you had the invasion of Iraq by the USA and the UK which was primarily driven by stupidity, overconfidence in intelligence (which was propagated by confirmation bias), and the desire to get revenge on someone for 9-11 (again, not due to oil). Of course we would never invade Saudi Arabia, because they have been the west's BFF for so long, even though they have far more oil... And then you have the cultural relativist Obama get in (as well as 'ISIS are not Muslim' David Cameron). Obama very quickly aligned himself with the Muslim Brotherhood all the way back in 2009 (see his speech in Cairo, or look at the fact that many people close to him are in the Muslim Brotherhood). This alignment had nothing to do with oil and everything to do with Obama's cultural relativism + the standard western guilt mentality that 'muslims are oppressed / are a minority so can do no wrong'. Then you had the Arab spring, where most westerners deluded themselves into thinking that it was all about overthrowing evil dictators and that 'everyone wants what westerners want'. The foreign policy of the west was naively dictated by this and all of the western politicians ignored the strong possibility of Islamists taking over (which was obvious to anyone that looked at the history of the middle east, and was obvious to some people like Putin). The libya invasion was arguably justified, but Western governments weren't skeptical enough about Islamists taking over. Plus, even mentioning the issue of Islamism is 'racist' and 'we must not offend anyone' which is why you had the Obama administration blame a random poorly made video for the assassination of the US ambassador to Libya. Then you had Western governments naively support the rebels against Assad because again most westerners did not consider the problem of Islamists and believed in this 'Assad is an evil oppressive dictator that we must overthrow' narrative, so the west funded Islamist 'moderate' rebels in Syria (which Saudi Arabia wanted the west to do, because they wanted to wage a proxy war against Iran). And in that past year, that stupid funding of 'moderate' rebels in Syria has backfired and now ISIS has taken over large parts of Iraq and Syria. Finally, rather than getting Sunni-majority regional powers such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia to intervene, the west has decided it has to intervene against ISIS even though if Sunni-majority counties dealt with the issue, ISIS would not be able to invoke Surah 9 of the Quran to get more recruits. Also, the west, especially the USA, has had this 'we must intervene everywhere' mentality since WW2 and if anyone tries to challenge this mentality, people bring up Hitler. So there are many factors that have resulted in the current relation between the Middle East and the west. From religious conflicts over the past 1400 years, to colonialism, to WW1, to the cold war, to oil, to belief that theism makes a person good, to religious apologism, to cultural relativism, to western progressive guilt syndrome, to the false dichotomy between intervention and isolationism, to ignorance and to stupidity. Oil is just one factor and not even a major one anymore. This is why I reject the 'its mostly about oil' hypothesis. Also, if it were 'all about oil' then the USA would have built the Keystone XL pipeline, yet it's been delayed for a longer period of time then it took to defeat Hitler. Numerous reasons. Weak politicians wanting to avoid an unhappy populace (from higher gas prices) to get re-elected are probably the primary reason. Though I think right now 'Canadian oil is evil' has a lot to do with it. Plus you had the eco-radicalism over the past decades that has prevented things such as new offshore drilling in the USA. Tarrifs on ME generate revenue, unless they are so high that it becomes too expensive to import. But didn't you want the importation of less oil? So you want a reduction in ME oil, but not a complete reduction, and you want to collect revenue? Then moderate tarrifs are the best way to go. It seems to me that you are making an excuse to implement a carbon dioxide emission tax. Minimizing western dependence on oil would mean not importing any oil, which you have constantly implied you don't want to do because you want to collect revenue. Secondly, this implication is just false. Removing oil imports does not necessarily improve economic stability because there are fluctuations in the price of North American oil (due to changes in supply, demand, costs of extraction, and idiot politicians making it difficult for companies to operate efficiently or transport oil efficiently such as in pipelines) will no longer be cushioned by the global oil market. Security, again it varies; In WW2, Japan had little access to foreign oil and this reduced their security since this limited Japan's military capabilities. As for environmental health, isn't the reason all the environmentalists against the Oil Sands because it emits slightly more CO2 per barrel than Middle Eastern oil? If the USA and Canada replace ME oil with Canadian oil, isn't that 'bad for the environment'? Cause ISIS and Islamism will just conveniently disappear... It's not like the Quran prophesizes that Muslims will take over the world or anything... *sarcasm* Or you could use North American oil... Which has nothing to do with the problems in the Middle East. If you want to advocate a carbon dioxide emission tax based on the merit of negative externalities associated with human health and the environment, then do so. But don't use the problems in the Islamic word as an excuse to implement this tax in order to avoid the burden of proof that shows that the carbon tax is an optimal response to the supposed negative externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions. As said earlier, minimize is the wrong verb here, you want to use reduce. Also, 'blow to the economy' is poorly defined.

Yet in North America, we cannot build a simple pipeline to access North American oil. Interesting... It's almost like this 'it's all about the oil' hypothesis doesn't fit observations... Yes. It is called globalization and it is not inherently bad that global economies are interconnected. This silly 'fluctuation argument' makes no sense. If you had a choice to either earn $9 per hour some years and $10 per hour other years (and some foreigner gets to decide) or the choice to always earn $8 per hour, which would you choose. Would you choose the $8 per hour just because it is more 'stable' and because 'it is not susceptible to foreign interests'? Furthermore, globalization can increase stability of markets, especially things like food markets, as well as be mutually beneficial if countries take advantage of comparative advantage. It's a carbon dioxide emission tax. Stop calling it a carbon tax. If you tax a market, you create a deadweight loss for your economy unless you are trying to offset some externality (but you claim the justification for this is to 'reduce dependence on ME oil', so that can't be the case). The more you tax, the less ME oil you will buy and the worse off the economy will be. It's a trade-off. The way you present information suggests to me that you are trying to pretend this trade-off does not exist. Tariffs on the other hand can be of net benefit to a country (under certain conditions if the other country doesn't retaliate, but this is rarely the case). I'll also point out that the demand of oil is highly inelastic (as has been noticed from price changes in the past) a tax on all oil will not have much impact on shifting sources of consumption of fossil fuels. Furthermore, since it is more expensive to produce fossil fuels in Canada, the effect of such a tax will affect domestic producers of oil relatively more than foreign producers of oil and it may result in Canada using proportionally more cheap ME oil, especially if Canadian oil is priced out of the Canadian market by a tax. If you want to reduce reliance on ME oil, you implement policies that target ME oil directly. 'Minimizing' is a much stronger claim that 'reducing' and I'm just going to say that this claim is BS. You are just trying to make excuses to implement a carbon dioxide emission tax even though other policies would be more effective at addressing this issue. If you want to argue for a carbon dioxide emission tax based on these other benefits then do so. But don't use ME oil dependence as an excuse because a carbon dioxide emission tax is not an optimal policy to address the ME oil dependence issue. And it isn't so much a dependence issue as it is a 'the Saudis fund Wahhabist ideology that leads to terrorism' issue. Tariffs can generate revenue and are more targeted. You are just making excuses for yourself.

It would make oil in Canada more expensive (especially in Eastern Canada), since you have reduced the supply of oil available to Canadians.

The word 'out' has morphed into 'anything to reduce our need for ME oil'. Interesting... Look, if you want to reduce how much ME oil Canada uses, then it makes far more sense to target ME oil specifically, not oil in general (let alone anything that emits CO2, which is what will be affected by a CO2 emission tax). Please stop calling it a carbon tax. It is a CO2 emission tax. Then have a tariff on ME oil instead? That also generates revenue at targets the specific thing that you claim needs to be reduced.

Maybe. But it is hard to disentangle the two. Like home-grown Islamist terrorists are technically an internal threat, but that threat is arguably due to Saudi funding over the years. Alternatively, domestic problems of political correctness and religious apologism result in Western governments making stupid decisions with respect to foreign policy that make the external threat of Islamist terrorism greater.

I'm not disagreeing about the existence of NOAA's claim... And look at the uncertainty, +/- 0.09 (I'm assuming this is the 2 sigma confidence level). That means that 2014 is statistically tied with at least two other years. Also, I saw neither HadCRUT, nor GIS, nor satellite anywhere in that link. So thanks for proving my point.

A quicker way would be a trade embargo.

No, it is statistically tied for highest with 2 other years. Therefore, the HadCRUT and GIS data is not in contradiction with the NOAA data, despite the fact that the HadCRUT and GIS data show that 2014 was the 3rd hottest year on record.

No, the 'warmest year on record' claim is based on land based measurements and also the result is not statistically different from two other years.

In that case do you notice any issues with thinking that the NOAA results of 'hottest year' used satellite IR data?

Okay, at least read the blog post I sent a link to because you are just embarrassing yourself now...

That I don't just blindly believe the propaganda that I'm told? Sorry that I find satellite IR data more reliable. Edit: The data set you are referring to can be manipulated (see blog post) as is not statistically different from two other years in the data set.

And how about Raif Badawi or all those females that have attempted to drive despite the law? The Saudi Arabian government is not moderate, nor is ISIS. This insanity of fighting Saudi Arabia's proxy wars for them (first Assad, then ISIS) has got to stop. The biggest threat to the west is Saudi Arabia, not ISIS, not Russia, not China, not North Korea, not Iran.

There are many attempts at trying to objectively measure the value of a statistical life. http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=value+of+statistical+life&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=