-1=e^ipi

These questions are not the same thing. Do you need me to draw you a venn diagram or something?

No, they think that if it gets 2C warmer, then suddenly it's the end of the world or something. That is why we are 'running out of time' and our 'children and grandchildren will not have a future'. The 2C target isn't a 'scientific' target, it is a political target.

Why not say 'one of the reasons' instead of 'the reason'? Forgive me if I interpret this type of wording to mean that you are implying that the vast majority of the blame for the existence of ISIS lies with the invasion of Iraq.

Are you implying that I misinterpreted you?

Actually, increasing atmospheric CO2 reduces the surface-tropopause temperature gradient, which reduces the thermal efficiency of hurricanes. It is not unexpected to have a decrease in the frequency and severity of hurricanes due to increases in atmospheric CO2 from human emissions.

Please explain to me how 'we are running out of time and if global temperatures increase by 2C then our children and grandchildren won't have a future' is not alarmist BS. What is it's scientific justification?

You must have misunderstood what I meant by 'exact same thing'. I meant that they take advantage of ignorance to spread alarmism. I apologize for my ambiguous wording though. "We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” he said. “We are running out of time.”" "we have the tools for action to try keep temperature increases within 2°C to give our planet a chance and to give our children and grandchildren a future." "“If global warming is not a strong enough reason to cut CO2 emissions, ocean acidification should be – we ARE running out of time,”" Yep. Alarmism. They could have just reported the facts, observations and implications. But instead they feel they need to insert this unjustified alarmist BS.

Position with respect to what? Be specific please.

Exactly. One cannot morally derive who should own what land.

Yes, that is expected since economic output is accelerating. But accelerating atmospheric CO2 does not imply accelerating warming. That is why the logarithm is more useful in this context. No. I do have a problem with people trying to misinform the public though. I'm not the one that thinks that physical laws such as conservation of energy or the second law of thermodynamics are mere inconveniences that can be circumvented to satisfy one's dogma. Apparently many climate alarmists can to. Include your and your claims that a warmer climate will be 'more energetic' which will result in more hurricanes. Apparently all the physics we know about heat engines must be all wrong. It's not like reducing the temperature gradient between the surface and the tropopause would have any effect on hurricanes... *sarcasm* Yes, and that also corresponds to the little ice age. That isn't my position. Yet another strawman argument.

Read the context. I was refuting Dre's absurd position where basically 100% of the blame lies on Bush/Blair for their invasion of Iraq. It was Obama/Cameron that decided to fund the Syrian 'rebels' in order to wage a proxy war against Russia.

And the WMO news release does the exact same thing. This is taking advantage of the ignorance and scientific illiteracy of the public in order to spread alarmism. The public doesn't understand the geological record, nor what 'pre-industrial levels' means. Why not simply state the facts in a way that cannot be easily misinterpreted? Oh, that's right, because it would hurt the alarmist cause.

Brilliant and well-thought out response. *sarcasm* Do you like suffering from cognitive dissonance?

The difference here is that the creation of Iraq DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE RESULT of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire after WW2. I can guarantee you that ISIS would not be sacking Sunni towns and cities in Iraq if Iraq did not exist and the Ottoman Empire was still around. Its just a fact. The emergence of ISIS is classic "blowback" from that decision. See what I did there?

If that is how you allocate blame, then maybe ISIS is 100% the fault of the Black Hand. Since if they never tried to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, then WW1 would have never happened so the Ottoman empire would not have fallen and Iraq would not have existed to get invaded by George Bush. Or maybe it is 100% the fault of Gengis Khan for completely messing up the entire world in the 13th century and changing the path of history. Or maybe it is 100% Prophet Mohammed's fault for starting Islam in the 7th century in the first place. How you assign blame is absurd. Some fault goes to George Bush and Tony Blair for their invasion and mishandling of Iraq, sure. But some fault also goes to Obama, Cameron, Harper and others for their mishandling of the Arab Spring, overthrow of Morsi, and the Syrian civil war.

Let's see, the title is: "Rising carbon dioxide emissions push greenhouse gases to record high". How is that not about 'level'? Furthermore, it is only the fastest rate in 30 years. Not exactly a long time frame. In addition, what is really relevant is the increase in the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, not atmospheric CO2 concentrations, since the radiative forcing of CO2 is roughly a logarithmic function of CO2 concentrations. Look, making claims such as "in 2013 concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were 142% of what they were before the Industrial Revolution" is simply misleading to the public and a bastardization of the English language. Before the 'industrial revolution' could mean in 1750, it could mean in 1000, it could mean 10,000 years ago, it could mean a billion years ago, etc. This leaves the ignorant public to have a false perception that CO2 levels have been basically constant (or at least below 400 ppm) for the past few billion years. Obviously, they mean 142% higher than in 1750 (they want to pick the middle of the little ice age to maximize the different for political reasons), but the public doesn't know this. Why not say 'highest levels in the past 2.6 million years'? That would be far more accurate.

'record high'? Atmospheric CO2 has been much higher for the vast majority of the past 600 million years. The guardian article has many factual errors.

If you don't endorse race-based 'rights' where certain people are given entitlements based on their race, then apparently you are racist. At least according to the majority of Canadians, who are okay with state institutionalized racism.

Come on. Putin isn't that stupid.

Claiming that ISIS is a direct result of overthrowing baathists is absurd. The baathists are Arab Nationalists. ISIS are anti-nationalists. They have basically zero ideology in common. Baathism isn't even a Sunni movement. In Syria, the baathist movement is dominated by Alawites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath_Party_%28Syrian-dominated_faction%29 I agree that Obama mishandled the situation, but I don't agree that is came about because Obama misread Syria, nor do I think 'supporting the opposition' to the extent that certain republicans such as John McCain would have done would have helped the situation either. The biggest problem is that there isn't really a clear divide between 'moderate rebels' and 'extremist rebels'. Even groups like the Free Syrian army had plenty of Islamists, and many rebels constantly change factions. Any help to the moderate rebels will indirectly help the extremist rebels. Any invasion would help give the extremist rebels more recruits because they could use certain parts of the Quran to claim that the kuffar crusaders are invading their lands so it is the duty of all muslims to help them. It's a really messy situation. Certainly many things have contributed to the situation, including: decades of funding of Wahabbism by Saudi Arabia and other gulf state oil, reignition of anti-western Islamist groups due to September 11, 2001, George Bush and Tony Blair invading Iraq under false pretenses, the naive beliefs by George Bush and Tony Blair that the Iraqis think 'just like Westerners' and would welcome their liberators, Barrack Obama's naive beliefs in cultural relativism and muslims being 'oppressed' which explained actions such as his speak in Cairo in 2009 and his willingness to align with Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Cameron wanting to fund rebels in Syria as well as invade Syria, etc. Really, the only realistic way to deal with the Islamists in Syria is to make peace with Assad and make the moderate rebels make peace with Assad. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen because Obama will look bad if he does that since he has made all these 'Red Lines' about Assad. Also, the republican 'hawks' constantly telling Obama 'war, war, war' don't help either.

So your big comeback is 'at least you are not a praying mantis'? There are search engines such as google. Try to use them if you don't know what terms mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights#Men.27s_rights

You know, this sounds a lot like certain arguments that certain islamist groups would make regarding why they think laws should apply differently between men and women. Why are you so opposed to male reproductive rights?

For the sake of equality and fairness. Do you support the current situation where an underage male can get raped by a female and then have to provide financial support to his raper?

No, I mean that males should have the option to opt out of a pregnancy that they did consent to such that they will not be legally obligated to provide financial support.

Couldn't you use the same argument to suggest that abortions aren't needed because the female had the choice of having sex or not and also the choice of using reliable contraceptive devices or not? In North America, for males consent to have sex = consent to be a parent. Where as for females, consent to have sex != consent to be a parent. That is inequality. Males have no reproductive rights beyond consent to have sex.