-1=e^ipi

How about, if the stastistical value of the child's life times the increased probability of living exceeds the costs of the medical intervention?

Actually, 2014 was the 3rd hottest year since records began. http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/2014-annus-horribilus-climate-alarmists

If you feel I have unsubstantiated claims, point them out and I'll try to justify them. You appear to have made some pretty definite conclusions in this thread along the lines of 'the world is going to end and humans are going to go extinct if we don't change our ways and reject the capitalist system'. This matters how? Yes, cause requesting that people substantiate their claims with reason and evidence is so stupid and pointless! What is important is to believe in whatever makes us feel good and doesn't require us to think critically! *sarcasm* What claims have I made regarding the geoengineering schemes? That I think they should be considered as an option? That flies in the face of the scientific community? Read what I wrote again. I wasn't objecting to the 40% figure. I was objecting at the way it was presented in the article and how the timeframe was omitted such that it could easily mislead most readers. And possibly, there is a giant flying spaghetti monster that created everything! I'm going to assume that by possibly you also mean probably (well actually, you said definately in the next sentence, so your claim is even stronger), in which case I want to you seriously back up this claim because it is quite strong. You realized that under these 'hot house' conditions that have persisted for most for the Phanerozoic Eon and include the early Cenozoic, that there have been very uniform temperature gradients with far less temperature difference between temperature and poles than what we have today under 'ice house' conditions, right? You also realize that during the last glacial maximum (26,000 years ago) tropical rainforests were a lot smaller and the amazon was split in two, right? But the tropics were hot enough to incinerate most life during PETM cause you say so! *sarcasm* Yes, that's called overfishing. Have you not heard of it? Are you trying to imply that humanity should do X cause some scientists say we should do X? That is an appeal to authority fallacy. A bunch of other deluded people in society agreeing with you does not count as evidence. Here is a question: Why did it take until the end of the last ice age for agriculture to become viable and for civilization to take off? And topsoil loss? How is increasing CO2 going to cause the global topsoil loss? Also, have you not heard of the CO2 fertilization effect? Do you not think that it will be easier to grow things in the two largest countries in the world, Russia and Canada, if the Earth warms slightly? But no, there will be global collapse in agricultural production because you say so! It must be right because it gives you the doomsday scenario and 'humans are sinful' conclusion you want! That's not dogmatic at all! *sarcasm* That is a regional issue and the Earth will be overall more wet due to warming, unlike the super dry conditions during the last glacial maximum. Yes because not observing a mass extinction during PETM and noticing that terrestrial life did not really suffer (it was primarily deep sea life that suffered) is not a reason based on evidence at all... Far more likely that they are in denial or are being controlled by some hidden entity or something. *sarcasm* In the context of your claim that humans are going extinct, the environmental conditions that humans prefer are very relevant. Much like how the fact that polar bears prefer arctic sea ice is very relevant to the question on the survival of that species in response to anthropogenic global warming. No we don't (see my comment on algae soup). I'm not suggesting that because from what I can tell that isn't going to happen. I'm just objecting to multiple of your absurd claims and you are trying to mix up my claims, perhaps in an attempt to strawman my position. I am aware that inequality has harmful effects. What has this got to do with your claims that the humans are going to go extinct due to anthropogenic climate change? Yes, that's why we live in a 'Patriarchy' with its 'Rape Culture' and men are 'Privaleged' with their suicide rate that is 5 times the female suicide rate, a homeless rate that is 9 times higher than the female homeless rate, a life expectancy that is ~5 years lower, a court system that favours female custody during divorse, females serving 60% the jail time as males for similiar crimes, a male-only draft in some countries such as the USA, breast and cervical cancer getting far more funding than prostate cancer, 60-65% of university students being female, a large in discrepancy school performace, particularly reading, between boys and girls, young women in North American urban areas out-earning young men, etc. *sarcasm* Yes because the gradual increase in various health indicators over time such as life expectancy or infant mortality doesn't exist... *sarcasm* Conveniently at the end of the ice age...

The Houthi's are probably the least islamist group in Yemen, but the West will undoubtably call them terrorists and try to overthrow them since our BFF, Saudi Arabia, doesn't like them.

Technically, you don't know that and that hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Then I am a 'complete asshole' for wanting people to be charged for a crime they committed and to not send the message to other parents that child neglect is okay. They made a bad decision that killed her. That is child neglect. If I see a child suffering on the streets am I supposed to keep it to myself?

So in that case, they should get 90% the sentence of manslaughter?

So you are against the word 'probably'? Don't you realize that's how science works? They test hypothesis and given confidence levels using statistical tests. The scientists at the Large Hadron Collider haven't proven that the Higgs' Boson exists; they have only shown that it probably exists at a 5 sigma level (so 99.99994% chance). No. For most of the past, fluctuations in CO2 levels have been driven primarily by changes in the Earth's orbit (if we are talking about the ice ages, that is driven by Milankovitch cycles), Solar activity (if we are talking about events such as the medieval warm period or the little ice age, that is due to solar cycles; over long periods of time such as hundreds of millions of years, that is due to gradual increase in solar irradiance as the sun progresses through its life), volcanic activity (Permian-Triassic mass extinction is a good example) or changes in the positions of continents (this is generally the main cause of temperature fluctuations from geologic period to geologic period). See for most of the past, it was changes in temperature (due to changes in solar out, earth albedo, ocean circulation due to continents) that ultimately caused fluctuations in CO2 levels (since solubility of CO2 in water decreases with temperature), where as in the past several decades the direction of causation has been reversed by human activity. It will also point out that the longer term general decrease in CO2 levels of the past few hundred million years is due to life being better and better at being able to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and perform photosynthesis. Furthermore, over the ages as life flourished, died and became fossilized, a lot of the Carbon was removed from the biosphere and atmosphere and stored under ground. If humans did not intervene as the only ecological niche capable of rereleasing this back into the biosphere (volcanic activity or plate tectonics is too low) CO2 concentrations would continue to get lower and lower until they reach a point around 150 ppm where photosynthesis starts to become unviable. Now that said, the gradual increase in solar activity has been more than offset by the reduction in CO2 levels over the past few hundred million years. But in any case, it would be wrong to directly extrapolate CO2 levels from past ages without also considering factors such as changes in solar output or the position of continents. Furthermore, to try to extrapolate the differences in climate between the Pliocene and the Pleistocene as due to differences in CO2 levels is wrong in so many ways. Primarily, the reason the Earth has been cooling for the past few million years is because of the changes in the positions of the continents. Particularly, the formation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, the closure of the Tethys Sea, and the creation of the Isthmus of Panama (which occurred ~3 million years ago and is the main reason for the difference between the Pliocene and the Pleistocene). With respect to your comments on Venus, that is pure alarmism. The physics simply do not support the possibility for a 'runaway greenhouse effect' to occur by increasing atmospheric CO2 by a few hundred ppm. No it doesn't. To do that you would also have to demonstrate that the time scale of evolution is much shorter than I think most scientists would accept. You are basically saying that the timescale for evolution is less than half the evolutionary distance between humans and chimpanzees. If you want to provide proof for your absurd claim I am open to it, but I find it hard to believe. In addition, some biological traits take longer to evolve and adapt than others. The basic biology of life at the molecular level takes the longest by far. Plant photosynthesis is optimized for much higher CO2 levels because historically they were much higher. This is why if you do experiments in a greenhouse and control for CO2, plants grow best at like 1000-1500 ppm. So first your are saying that ability for life to adapt is fast, because life is somehow optimized for the Pleistocene climate, but now it is too slow. You maybe have noticed but there are these things called Seasons that occur Annually that life on Earth seems to deal with just fine, where the rate of change is much higher than anything you are talking about. Furthermore, fluctuations in the Earth's climate over the past 1000 years due to solar cycles, North Atlantic Muti-Decadal Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. has produced rates of climate change that while smaller than the current anthropogenic rate of warming, are not orders of magnitude smaller. Here is a question: If you were an alligator, would you prefer to live in a climate with a temperature of 25 C that is warming at a rate of 0.02 C per year, or a climate with a temperature of 40 C that is warming at a rate of 0.01 C per year. Obviously you would prefer the 25 C because the climate level is far more important than the rate of change on an ecosystem's ability to support life. If you want to properly justify this whole 'but the rate of change is high' argument you are going to need a lot more evidence than what you have provided. You have to go back in time to any of the mass extinctions because there were only five of them and they were all a really long time ago. If you want smaller extinction events, you don't have to go that far back. Extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene, extinctions due to the onset of Antarctic Glaciation 34 million years ago, etc. Many of the extinctions in the past couple tens of million years are due to the climate getting colder. Speculation without sufficient evidence isn't really meaningful. I have pointed to the Cambrian explosion, the higher levels of biodiversity and biomass during warmer eras such as the Carboniferous or the Cretaceous, the fact that human civilization didn't take off until the end of the ice age, the fact that biodiversity and biomass are far higher in a tropical rainforest than in tundra, etc., but none of that really matters. Because you have baseless speculation! Wow! Gaia theorists! We are going into pseudoscience and religion now! Well some of them do, but the cheaper and more cost-effective ones do not. And assuming that warming is 'bad' (which you haven't proven and I don't agree with), offsetting increasing CO2 levels with stratospheric aerosols (for example) for many reasons might be preferable than just having a lower atmospheric CO2 level. The net effect of the aerosols and the higher levels of CO2 would reduce the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles, making the Earth's climate more mild, and you would also have the benefit of the CO2 fertilization effect, which would be helpful to plant life everywhere. With respect to the oceans being more acidic, they have been far more acidic in the past when CO2 levels where many times higher and life got on fine. I also notice that 'how much acidification' never seems to come up with you. Any acidification is bad apparently... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JD005220/full The rate of decrease of pH of the Oceans has been 0.11 pH from 1751 to 2004, during which atmospheric CO2 has increased from 270 ppm to ~377 ppm. Extrapolating this trend suggests we go from a pH of 8.14 to a pH of 7.85 by 2100 under one of the more alarmist UN scenarios. Of course over a longer term, warming continues time and since warmer water can't dissolve as much CO2 warmer temperatures will act as a negative feedback to partially offset this effect. In any case, we are looking at a <0.29 pH change. How is that the end of the world (especially given that the Earth's oceans have frequently changed acidity by about 0.3 pH over the past couple million years)? Finally, you can offset acidified oceans through geoengineering techniques such as Iron Fertilization. So you admit that cooling can be bad, and warming can be bad. I'm not in disagreement with this. Life on Earth would probably perform best at a global temperature somewhere between the average of the Pleistocene (14C) and the average since the Cambrian Explosion (22C). What the optimal temperature would be, I do not know, but I suspect it would be above the current 15C that we have for a number of reasons that I have already mentioned. Also, whether the number would be closer to 14C or 22C depends on the timescale of evolution. But a priori I cannot know what the optimal global temperature of life on Earth is. But I see that a lot of alarmists simply assume that life on Earth was somehow optimized for ~14C but have little evidence to back it up. It also seems to ignore the vast majority of the history of the planet during which multicellular life has flourished. If you want to provided evidence via a rigorous statistical analysis or something I am always open to new evidence but from my perspective I think you are irrationally assuming that before the industrial revolution the climate was somehow optimal or perfect. The climate has never been equilibrium and life has always been changing, so maybe life hasn't had enough time to optimize itself to any particular climate. Again, this is a claim that I do not see as strongly supported by evidence. What is wrong with 'I do not know the exact climactic conditions that would be optimal for life on Earth and acknowledge the ignorance of humanity'? If, if... But it wasn't. Our ancestors survived the P/T mass extinction event because those ancestors were better able to adapt to change than the 95% of species that died out. Just because humanity doesn't 'completely understand' something doesn't mean we cannot use our understanding of that thing to solve problems. We don't 'completely understand' gravity yet we can send rockets to the moon. We don't 'completely understand' quantum mechanics yet people are creating quantum computers. Furthermore, unlike rockets or quantum computers, life has the ability to adapt and has lived under more extreme conditions than what is expected via increasing CO2 levels. Really, if you look at the expected change, 'the fate of the world, humanity and life as we know it' is not at stake. The expected amount of change is simply too small for that. Why? If not all extinctions are bad this doesn't necessarily follow. Seriously, if all of the species on the planet except algae and humans died out, humans wouldn't go extinct, we would just have to eat algae soup (Actually, we might also need certain bacteria that are found commonly in the intestines of Japanese people to help use digest this properly). Edit: actually, we might need shrimp or something to eat algae so we have a decent protein source... or alternatively have soybeans. Oh no the alarmist article I already responded to! Again it just makes unsubstantiated alarmist claim after unsubstantiated alarmist claim. An unprecedented rate of change does not necessarily imply the end of the world. Yes. Yes I do. I think you could increase the expected impact on the environment by a factor of 10 and humans still will not go extinct. The only way we will go extinct is either by genetically engineering ourselves into a new species, cyborgization or a robotic uprising. Please provide evidence that 'the Amazon will dry out'. You realize that a warmer planet will have more precipitation because the air will be able to hold more water via the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, right? How will there be no more power? Will the sun stop shining? Will the wind stop blowing? Will there be no more rivers to make hydro-electric damns? Will the moon suddenly disappear so that there are no more tides to harness tidal energy? Will all the thorium, uranium and other radioactive isotopes on Earth that have been around for billions of years in abundance suddenly disappear? Will the center of the Earth suddenly cool down such that geothermal energy is no longer viable? Will all the trees disappear such that there is no more wood to burn? I do, I think in numbers. I'm not sure about you. Have you thought that a reasonable amount of energy is required to maintain the standard of living that we see in developed countries and making energy very expensive may significantly affect that standard of living? What is the time scale of 'long term survival' to you? An infinite amount of time? But in an infinite amount of time the stars will run out of fuel and eventually the universe will be unable to support life (at least according to the current understanding). In 5 billion years the Earth will be devoured by the Sun. In 2 billion years, the Earth will have no more liquid water (without intervention from intelligent life). On the time scale of millions of years, I don't see it likely that humans will still exist because we will probably either evolve into another species or get replaced by robots or something. On the time scale of a thousand years, there is arguably enough radioactive material on the planet to sustain a high level of living for that time (and for a longer time period, we can always use the helium 3 from the moon); heck we may even have hydrogen fusion by then. On the time scale of a hundred years, there are arguably enough fossil fuels for that. So please pick your time scale. See my comment on timescale.

How did this 'video' get obtained in the first place? This sounds more like an invasion of privacy or tresspassing than anything to do with free speech. I don't get offended. If you think otherwise, prove it. I challenge you to say something or post a picture that will 'offend' me.

Would that even be worse than the current situation in Saudi Arabia? Maybe if all the islamists wipe each other out, liberals might be able to take power. Also, I'm not sure how ISIS is going to ever overthrow Saudi Arabia, the fourth most powerful nation on the planet.

It means that 2014 is in statistical tie with other years, so they don't know for sure if it is the warmest, 2nd warmest or 3rd warmest.

You mean like how the pope normalizes violence against those that criticize religion? Or how about how his opposition to contraceptives, which have helped spread aids throughout the world?

The current prime minister's allegiance belongs to the fairy tale of the talking snake and the rib lady.

Dumb statement by the pope from a religious survival perspective. Breeding like rabbits is one of the few ways religion can be sustained in the long run, be it Islam, Catholocism, Mormonism, etc.

So her parents and everyone around her brainwash her into thinking this magical jesus character exists. She then sees this magical jesus character in a dream. The magical jesus character tells her to stop chemotherapy. She then goes off chemotherapy for 'traditional' and 'alternative' treatement. She then dies a few months later even though she had a 90-95% survival rate with chemotherapy. But, clearly belief in fairy tales had nothing to do with it... Much like how Islam has nothing to do with the recent attacks in France, Canada, Australia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Yemen, Syria, etc. *sarcasm*

Hopefully the parents will go to jail for child abuse & neglect. Which could have been easily treated. Why? Does pointing out the truth make you upset? Look, months ago when this story first surfaced I said a combination of political correctness and belief in fairy tales will likely kill this girl. Now, the combination of political correctness and belief in fairy tales has killed this girl. Is it so wrong to point this out?

Because Senator != Prime Minister. Furthermore, I see no problem with a politician holding double citizenship, especially with a country with similiar values as Canada. I have duo citizenship, what's wrong with that? As an aside, all the more reason to abolish the senate, or better yet, become a republic. The whole concept of pledging allegiance to a country, a flag or a monarch is silly. It would be far preferable to have people pledge allegiance to ideas such as freedom of speech, freedom of press, secularism and the scientific method.

Yes... how dare people try to break things up into syllogisms! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism Much better to just respond with how the overall message of a post makes us 'feel'. *sarcasm* If someone is misrepresenting you, just respond and point out that they are misrepresenting you.

A combination of political correctness and the belief in magic fairy tales such as jesus killed this girl.

Obviously it depends on context. Allahu Akbar has different meaning if one is performing violent jihad then in other circumstances. But more generally, allahu akbar is said in the call-to-prayer and most muslims will recite or think it when they pray 5 times a day. Just youtube call to prayer. Look at the results I get: Allahu Akbar is said many times.

How am I 'acting superior' to others? I do not respect ridiculous beliefs because ridiculous beliefs merit ridicule, not respect. Furthermore, ridicule is one of many tools that can be employed to convey a point. But I have not made the claim that I think I can convert people by disrespecting their beliefs. More is needed such as pointing out the lack of evidence to justify their beliefs. There is no 'atheist fantansyland'. Belief in fantasylands is something that is primarily done by religious people. I made no such claim, please do not strawman me. Furthermore, I reject appeal to authority fallacies, so why would I try to use appeal to authority fallacies to convince people of anything? And you back this claim up how? Do neuro-atypical people not exist in your worldview? Do you not accept the existence of neuro-diversity? I'm pretty sure that 1+1 = 2. But I guess that must be due to emotion because you say so! *sarcasm* I don't know, many things? I'm pretty sure there can be other reasons. Have you dealt much with bipolar or schizophrenic individuals? And you 'know' this how? Yes because the environment has no effect on people at all... Please define an atheist fundamentalist and provide some examples. Because it is well known that family and friends do not exist. *sarcasm* Well I don't think you have adequately defined what 'the standard modern humanist teaching' is but I think Stephen Hawking satisfies your request. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540 Maybe because redemption is a religious concept? Oh wait, not all atheists lack a religion. In that case, I'll use David Suzuki. He is an atheist, but his environmentalist religion certainly has the concept of redemption. You don't appear to understand the meaning of the word humanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism I think your word view is far too simplistic. Tell me, how does North Korea fit into this and which corporation is controlling them? What about Cuba or the Islamic State? Could you please justify this claim with evidence? Or this another one of your baseless assertions? Or maybe the phenomena you are describing is a result of confirmation bias and ignorance, so no conspiracy is needed. Please define 'economic hierarchy' and provide me with a method of determining someone's position in this 'economic hierarchy'. Criticizing religious beliefs is not racist since religion != race. But I guess you and the Ben Afflecks of the world may never understand this simple fact. I'll forgive your dismissal of men's rights issues since you simply appear to be ignorant and have not been informed of these issues. Anyway, this is going off topic, so I'll create other threads on men's rights issues in the future.

The second statement doesn't contradict the first. Why have you deluded yourself into thinking it does? Sigh... Why don't you read up on Tarek Fatah's views on this issue then? He is a Canadian liberal secularist Muslim that agrees that the interpretation of many verses in the Quran and Hadith are problematic and motivate religious violence in the name of Islam. Does his existence somehow contradict his arguments? There are good Christians and bad Christians. Good atheists and bad atheists. Good Sikhs and bad Sikhs. And so on. Uh no. The first sentence doesn't imply the second clause of the second sentence. The fact that they are both true is irrelevant to whether your claim of logical implication is correct. Please learn basic logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence All of them are reading the Quran improperly because no correct interpretation of the Quran exists. It's all nonsense and involves cognitive dissonance at some point. With respect to very specific questions about Islam, there may be a correct interpretation of Islam for that question. But as far as I know, no overall correct interpretation of Islam exists. No, that does not logically follow. Please see earlier link on logical consequence. Furthermore, different religious texts say different things so the possible interpretations for each religion are different. Though I am aware that the concept that different religions are different is difficult for your to grasp. Let me put it this way, it is impossible for a Muslim to use Islam, the Quran or the Hadith to justify robbing a liquor store for purposes of self consumption. And you know this how? You barely know anything on Islam. Actually, I'll take you up on this. Prove to me that under Islam: Apostasy and Homosexuality are not crimes under Islam where the punishment is death. And no, pointing to a few Muslims that think this is the case is not 'proof'. Use the Quran and the Hadith to demonstrate that under the teachings of Islam that the death penalty is not the appropriate punishment for Apostasy and Homosexuality. From my perspective, it appears that you are blindly following the doctrine of cultural relativism. All of them, unless they are mute, deaf or have some disability that would prevent them from doing so. Saying Allahu Akbar is very common. I think a lot of posters here have been painted 'into the Islamophobe corner', so it won't be very lonely.

I can't find them. I tried, I can not. Could you please assist me in finding them or give me more information about the origin of the data? Wait... I thought that total levelized costs did not include the supposed cost of CO2 emissions where as total system levelized costs did. I'm confused now... Also, could you please call it 'CO2 emissions', not Carbon. Look, Mighty AC, assuming that the numbers you are referring to (which I cannot find) are correct and are taking into account the cost of CO2 emissions to prove your original claims, do you not see a problem with that? You claimed that "Renewables create more local jobs, wealth and security than fossil fuels.". You were trying to justify that there should be government intervention to create a shift towards society getting the majority of its energy from renewable sources and my understanding is that you were going so far as to say that this is justifed even without even looking at external costs as renewables created more jobs and wealth. But if you are using a value of cost that takes CO2 emissions into account then that doesn't justify your earlier claims.

So there are at least 7 unsubstantiated claims crammed into the above quotation. Where is your justifcation for these baseless assertions? You did put two links at the end of your post however. Is that supposed to be your 'proof'? The new york times article is a perfect example of how the media spins articles on science and tries to use an appeal to authority to justify their baseless political ideology. I love how it tries to use the opinion of some random university student that has nothing to do with the study as an authority figure on the impacts. I also love this claim: "Coral reefs, for example, have declined by 40 percent worldwide, partly as a result of climate-change-driven warming." Wow, 40%?! Over what time frame? Oh, that information is omitted... How convenient. And also, partly a result of climate change? That could mean the anthropogentic contribution is as low as 0.00000000001%. Somehow, I suspect that this 40% number is over a time frame on the order of tens of thousands of years and that this information is being purposely omitted to distort the perception of reality of the reader. With respect to the claims of mass extinctions. Do humans have a significant impact on the environment? Yes. Are we currently in the 6th mass extinction event? Probably. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, that would require proof. Does the mass extinction somehow justify the 'overthrow of the capitalist system' or whatever WIP is trying to advocate? Not necessarily, again that needs proof. Lastly, with respect to policy recommendations that scientists make in their conlusions in scientific papers. You have to realize that scientists are flawed humans with their own biases and that the standard for what people put in the conclusions in their scientific papers with respect to policy recommendations is very low or non-existent. Often researchers can suggest policy recommendations or concluding remarks in their papers that were not justified or discussed anywhere else in the paper and have nothing to do with the otherwise good scientific results of the paper. I've even seen some papers where authors make conclusions that completely oppose what the data and analsysis says because they wanted to out of religious reasons or wanted to approach things dogmatically and obtain a certain result regardless of data. With respect to the 'We're Destroying the Planet' article. It's just baseless alarmism, like you are making. Giving links to other people making the same baseless alarmist claims does not justify your baseless alarmist claims. Even if you had 7 trillion people making the same baseless alarmist claims, that doesn't justify those claims; that is an ad populum fallacy. I'll just go over a few of the absurd claims in the article because I don't have time to go over all of them and the burden of proof should be on the people making the claims (preference should be given to the null hypothesis). "in the previous 10,000 years, a period in which the world has had a relatively stable climate and human civilization has advanced significantly." So let's see... Medeival warm period did not happen, little ice age did not happen, roman climate optimum did not happen, holocene climate optimum did not happen. Got it! Moving on to the next one... "All of these changes are shifting Earth into a "new state" that is becoming less hospitable to human life" Again, where is the justification for this absurd claim? Humans are a tropical species, I've gone over this many times. We prefer a temperature of 22-25 Celcius, which is far higher than the global temperature of 15 Celcius. We are covered in sweat glands and evolved primarily in East Equatorial Africa. "If the Earth is going to move to a warmer state, 5 to 6 [degrees Celsius] warmer, with no ice caps, it will do so and that won't be good for large mammals like us. People say the world is robust and that's true, there will be life on Earth, but the Earth won't be robust for us." Again, conveniently the time frame is omitted as well as the cause of this warming. In two billion years the solar irradiance will increase so much that the Earth will no longer have liquid water, humans or no humans (actually, the only way the Earth would be able to sustain liquid water in two billion years is if you had intervention by intelligent beings). Though I suppose that this 5-6 degree warming is referring to the expected climate change due to CO2 emissions. In a worst case scenario, CO2 concentrations will roughly double by 2100 to 800 ppm, meaning that the long run effect of that change is roughly 3 Celcius, which is the best accepted estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity. Of course by 2100 you won't get the full effect and you are more likely to get a temperature change more comparable to the transient climate response, so about 2 degrees or less. 5-6 degree climate sensitivities are outside even the IPCC's typical range and are either obtained by having people consistently round things up for alarmism reasons, or by people trying to falsely extrapolate the temperature-CO2 relationship during the ice ages of the Pleistocene. With respect to humans going extinct, again as I explained over and over again, humans are a TROPICAL species. A small amount of warming makes the planet more hospitable to human life. This whole 'we humans have sinned so mother nature will punish us' nonsense has no scientific basis; the principle of charma does not exist. Furthermore, even if you somehow increased global temperatures to 100 Celcius, as inhospitable as the planet would become, humans would be one of the species that could exist in that climate due to our brains and technology. Have you not heard of a refridgerator? "Some people say we can adapt due to technology, but that's a belief system, it's not based on fact." Lol. But the 'the Earth is falling and mother nature will punish us for our climate sins unless we repent for our greedy ways' isn't? Please prove: A. That we have a 'winner-take-all' capitalist system. B. Benefiting a scant few is an inherent property of this 'winner-take-all' capitalist system. C. That wealth inequality is necessarily bad. Also, explain why it makes more sense to look at wealth inequality as opposed to consumption inequality, or even better: expected lifetime consumption inequality. I question everything. Including your nonsense claims of 'nothing [will be] left but a gigantic waste dump'.

Cognitive dissonance? So you aren't actually for free-speech... much like numerous westerners who take it for granted or the pope, who thinks that religion should be above criticism if people's feelings are hurt (not to mention claimed that violence and assault should be the expected response if someone's religion gets insulted).

To me the word 'progressive' is used primarily to play an Orwellian word association game to associate a certain set of views with 'progress' (regardless of if those views lead to progress) and avoid having to justify those views with reason or empirical evidence. Often 'progressives' will try to silence debate by labelling a disenting position as 'regressive' and proclaim that 'the debate is over', 'there is a consensus', or 'this view point has been settled' to justify not even bothering to defend their position with reason or empirical evidence. So in reality a 'progressive' belief doesn't necessarily lead to progress, but the Orwellian word play that has infected the English language for decades makes the average person sub-conciously associate progress with that belief.