-1=e^ipi

Your claim is an exaggeration. The Christians also have the option to leave and the option to stay and pay the Jizya. This is how it has always been in Islamic states that follow Sharia.

Not everyone lives in Ottawa, and beaver tails suck.

Edit: title should be: Stupid Conservative Ottawa MPP Candidate doesn't understand difference between CO2 and carbon, but the title got cut off. Stumbled upon this video recently from the last Ontario election. Martin Forget, the conservative MPP candidate for Ottawa-Vanier not only doesn't understand the difference between CO2 and Carbon, but thinks that it is 'science beyond him' and is a trivial matter that isn't really relevant. What a joke. Good thing I spoiled my ballot and did not vote for this idiot. The absolute lack of scientific knowledge by politicians is disgusting. Interestingly Dave McGruer, the Freedom Party MPP candidate for Ottawa-South, commented on the video. Too bad Ottawa-Vanier did not have a Freedom Party MPP candidate, I may have voted for him/her. Thanks First-Past-the-Post! *sarcasm* And it's not just the provincial senate that is a joke. Look at our so called 'sober second thought' senate and how they react to a simple presentation by Ian Clark. Go to 10:00, the actual content of the presentation isn't so much relevant as the reaction by the senators. They don't even know wtf a greenhouse gas is and only 1 of the senators has a science background. Also, retarded bilingual policies mean that the overheads of the presentation are not allowed to be available on CPAC or online to the general public. The senate is a joke and should be abolished.

Actually, I'll go back to Chris Keating's Blog to see what has occurred the past month. Oh look, since then he has denied the concept of burden of proof and denies the impossibility of proving a negative using the scientific method. lol. http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/the-challenge-is-impossibleits-religion.html Oh look, apparently someone offered Chris Keating $10,000 dollars to prove that they are not a dragon. http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/personal-attacks-are-not-proof.html

Oh yes, the $30,000 offer. Actually, it was originally $10,000 until the Young Turks did a story on it and then they offered an additional $20,000. But if you go to Chris Keating's website and look at the offer, it's absurd. His request is for people to 'prove using the scientific method that man-made climate change is not occurring'. That's absurd, science cannot prove a negative. Even the recent evidence at the LHC for the existence of the Higgs Boson does not prove that the Higgs Boson does not exist, it merely shows that under reasonable assumptions that based upon the evidence one can be certain up to 5 sigma that Higgs Bosons exist. Chris Keating is trolling the climate change deniers and it is primarily a ploy to sell his book. Of course the climate change deniers are dumb enough to 'try to disprove man-made climate change' and the original offer was a response to some climate change deniers claiming that they had proof, so maybe they deserve it. Anyway, a few weeks ago I contacted Chris Keating asking him if he wants to reword his request to be more reasonable. His response was basically along the lines of 'the deniers are the ones making the claims so the burden of proof is on them' and 'they deserve it'. So yeah he is just trolling them. I then asked him if he could prove using the scientific method that unicorns could not exist; he of course could not. Anyway, my $10,000 offer stands: If anyone can prove using the scientific method that unicorns do not exist I will give them $10,000.

Oh good. Can you not post in any future threads I make? I'm planning to make one on the deglaciation of Antarctica soon and I would prefer that you do not derail it.

Yes, the 'horror' of pigouvian taxes and tax shifting. It is amazing how much of the voting public can't grasp these concepts and only understand high tax vs low tax.

Same BS over and over again, as expected. Dismiss large posts as 'manifestos' (even if it doesn't fit the definition, you don't seem to care about the meaning of words), respond in incoherent nonsense, make absurd claims & strawman me (How am I disagreeing with the duration?), etc. Originally, I was hoping to at least agree upon the physical mechanism of changes regarding the northern polar jetstream and agree upon the order of magnitude of expected change; but you are simply too science illiterate for that. With respect to your question... floods happen. You point to 3 observed floods in the past... okay, what are you trying to say about these floods?

Yes, the subject that you want to discuss so badly that you dismiss my 7800 word post in the thread on jet-streams. *sarcasm*

Was the child alone or with other children?

I'd rather be raped and tortured than be killed by a grenade.

Basic Probability. For one location in one year, the probability of having a one-in-300 year flood is 1/300. The probability of then having at least one one-in-300 flood in one of the next 3 years is 1 - (299/300)^3. So that means the probability of having two of these events in 4 years is 3.32 x 10^-5. But, you aren't choosing your starting year randomly, you are picking it based upon already having observed a flood. Like if you observed these two flood events occurring like, a year, two years or even a decade earlier, you would probably still claim that such an observation supports your dogma. For that reason, the probability should be multiplied by at least a factor of 10, giving 3.32 x 10^4. Now if there are at least 10000 locations on earth to look for these one-in-300 year floods (and there are easily fare more than this), then the probability of observing at least one of these events is 1 - (1 - 3.32 x 10^4)^10000 = 96.4%.

Dude, this may suprise you but the Earth is a really really big place. Every year you are likely to get a once in 300 year flood somewhere on Earth.

Percentiles are clearly defined. But the terms 'very high', 'extremely high', etc. do not generally have a common accepted & well-defined definition.

... I don't follow what you mean...

Thank you for providing information that I already knew. It is very helpful. *sarcasm*

Is this supposed to refute what I wrote? To what extent do you mean open to interpretation? Can someone be a Muslim and not accept that 'there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is the final prophet of Allah'?

I suggest that it is more accurate because religions tell people what to do and religion is a choice.

Sadly, many people in this thread cannot grasp the concept of occum's razor. Clearly these are well-defined scientific terms. *sarcasm*

Pretty much.

It's all a bit mystery... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

Yeah, because invading Afganistan was totally unprovoked...

He was 15 years and 10 months old. And actually, according to the UN convention on the rights of the child, this is old enough to be recruited into armed conflict and not be considered a child soldier. Obviously, I don't care what the UN thinks, but you guys do.

Argus, Canada has a very low population density and as a result we have significant economies of scale and could benefit on a per capita basis in the long run by increasing population. Public goods such as roads, national security, etc. would be much cheaper per capita with more people. Canada spends the 2nd highest percentage of its gdp on roads and transport infrastructure after Australia (we spend approximately 1.8%). More consumers and more producers would mean more competitive markets, which would lower prices (lack of competition is one of the reasons why Canadian prices are higher than American prices). There are many reasons why increasing Canada's population via immigration can be beneficial.

Medics that are trying to help people and get murdered aren't victims. It's clearly their fault if people murder them.