-1=e^ipi

Yes, and I explained using thermodynamics earlier in this thread why many of the alarmist claims such as more heat = more extreme weather is retarded. But I guess I have to repeat myself. Winds and weather systems are the result of temperature (and as a result, pressure) differences in the earth's atmosphere which is due primarily due to unequal heating of the earth by the sun in equatorial regions compared to polar regions (equatorial regions have more direct sun light). Increasing CO2 concentrations and other greenhouse gases reduces the global temperature gradient between equatorial regions and polar regions, which reduces available energy for weather events. For example, most climate models predict a decrease in the frequency and severity of tornadoes in tornado alley as a response to climate change. In addition, climate models predict that increasing CO2 will increase the temperatures of the planet's upper atmosphere more than the planet's oceans. This reduction will reduce the workable energy for hurricanes (which are essentially giant heat engines, which transfer heat from the air near the ocean's surface to the earth's upper atmosphere), which will reduce the severity and frequency of hurricanes (even the recent IPCC report admits this). Science cannot tell a society what to do or what to not do. Science is a methodology that is useful for understanding the truth of the universe. To determine what a society should do you have to look at economics, philosophy, etc. Furthermore, many of the so called experts you reference are simply climate alarmists with little understanding of science. As for the scientists, in many cases scientists need to be biased and un-scientific in order to get grant money and publish papers, especially if there is large amounts of political interference. This is just one giant appeal to authority fallacy. If you want to justify a position, back it up with evidence and reasoning. Don't just say, oh well these people in positions of authority say so, so they must be right.

Lol what? You claim that russia will run out of oil in 7 years?

There is no satan, there is no god. Just a bunch of faerie tales. Anyway, I gave an example where it has been good (Syrian civil war). Oil and other natural resources in Russia will not run out for a very long time (i.e. all of us will be dead). And by then, the world will be a very different place.

Can't believe that I'm going to merit this thread with a response. No Russia is not becoming like North Korea. How is that even possible? Culturally they are very different and Russia is not isolated like north korea. The north korean state can only be maintained by keeping the people in poverty and ignorant. That said, to an extent I like the fact that Putin has been acting as somewhat of a counter measure to the west, especially with respect to the Syrian conflict. Helping the west avoid a war with Syria and negotiating Syria to give up her chemical weapons (while making Cameron & Obama look like idiots that support organ eaters) were good.

@ waldo - I'll ignore the fact that your AR4 climate alarmist conclusion ignores any benefits of climate change and only discusses the negative consequences, and I'll also temporarily ignore the fact that you ran away from your 'debate' with me because you could not handle debating someone who has a good understanding on science. I'll ask you this, why does the conclusion indicate that climate change is the problem and not the population distribution? Maybe the bigger problem is that certain countries (primarily middle east and africa) are breeding like rabits and addressing the population growth disparity is a better idea? Why do you think it is easier to implement global climate mitigation policies & transfer of wealth from industrialized countries to undeveloped countries rather than tackle the problem of population growth distribution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQBy-USwrOo Oh no, we need to save Santa from global warming!

I'm not so sure. While it is unlikely that the NDP could win, I would not discount a possibility where all 3 parties get roughly equal seats and the NDP squeak by to win a minority government. Trudeau and the liberals will probably be the front runners up until the first debate, in which case many people will realize that trudeau is empty. You also have to account for the fact that mulcair is probably the most moderate leader that the NDP had and the fact that the conservatives have a lot of ammo to throw at trudeau in terms of stupid things that he has said in the past.

To be honest though, incandescent bulbs are less efficient because they give off heat. In the winter, when you heat your home, this reduces your heating bill. Florescent light bulbs also contain mercury vapour, so you need to be careful of how you dispose of them.

Socialist is such a good troll, lol. While it is difficult to predict the results of an election in 2 years time, I think something along the lines of a 3 way tie seems reasonable.

Yes, you would think after 30 pages waldo would understand this.

Oh look, you straw man my position yet again! Read what I wrote again: I guess Canada must be part of Europe then. The primary thing the Chinese government is interested in is keeping the communist party in power, so what they say they want to do and their true intentions do not exactly match. That aside, the whole 'developed countries should reduce their emissions the most for historical reasons' is silly. For one, you cannot change the past and it is better to concentrate on the future. Secondly, I don't see any reason why people in developed countries today should be punished for things that their parents or grandparents did, especially when the parents and grandparents did not know about the environmental impacts of what they were doing. But if you do want to go with the whole 'sins of the forefathers' argument, then maybe developing countries should be paying developed countries for the technologies they benefit from that were primarily developed in developed countries.

Oh look at all these touchy-feely comments. And here I thought that this was a thread to discuss climate change, not a thread to boost everyone's self-esteem. Am I the only one left who has a desire to discuss climate change? There is a difference between disagreeing with someone, and backing up your position with evidence/reasoning compared to ignoring half of someone's reply, strawmaning the other half, repeating the same talking points over and over, then leaving the conversation once you get backed into a corner and might actually have to concede that you were wrong about something.

If you want to continue this discussion, then I suggest you actually read and respond to my post. If not then you should leave this thread.

If you are done with this thread then why do you keep responding? I won the debate and had better arguments, so your desire to give up is understandable.

The idea of getting all nations to agree to a climate deal, when the majority of world leaders do not understand science (or worse, believe in creation myths & religion) seems far fetched. If the only countries were Canada, the US, EU, Japan, Korea, Australia and other developed countries an agreement could be attainable. The Europeans, for example, sincerely want to address the issue of climate change. The problem is the other countries. Climate alarmists have convinced poor low lying & island nations that if we don't stop emissions now, their countries will be under water in a few decades. This obviously doesn't help. The arab league and many muslim countries believe in creation myths and religious fundamentalism, so deals based on science with these countries is unlikely. Furthermore, many oil exporting countries want compensation from other countries for reductions in CO2 emissions. Most remaining developing countries see global warming primarily as a way to grab money from rich coutries, or for the ruling class to line their pockets. Then you have countries like China who will try to prevent any discussion of developing countries from reducing their emissions because climate change is supposedly the 'historical fault of developed countries' so they only want developed countries to reduce emissions. But this is only a cover up. Really the chinese are more interested in maintaining the communist party in power, so they do not want any reductions in GDP growth which could threaten their hold on power.

Nope. And your post probably violates a forum rule. Maybe you should try responding to my post or admitting that you are wrong about some earlier claims.

You will not know that for sure until you read it, will you? Self projection much? Are you not used to people calling you out for your logical fallacies? How, pray tell, can one determine the fertilization effects on CO2 on plants if one is not allowed to use studies where one places plants in environments with increased CO2 levels and one is not allowed to use the geological record? Wait till the global CO2 concentrations increase? And ironically, you used the so called 'enclosure growth mediums' that you hate so much are in your claim about the decrease in effectiveness of herbicides (read my post). Untrue straw man. Self projection much?

I think you might be confusing demand (as in a quantity) with a demand curve. The demand curve can increase, and demand can still meet supply. This wikipedia article will probably help you to understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

I just did, and you decided to not even bother to read my post.

How lacking in reason you must be to forfeit the debate.

Oh, victory then! Clearly reason is too strong for your dogma.

I do not believe that long term trends (50-100 years) in diurnal temperature variation is a result of climate variability. You will want to change the crops you grow when temperature, wind and precipitation patterns change as a result of the climate change from increased CO2 concentrations. While the CO2 fertilization effect is beneficial everywhere, it isn't always enough to offset the effects of climatic changes from the increased CO2 concentrations so adapting to the new climate makes sense. Your attempts to straw man my position as "CO2 is plant food" continue to fail. The radiative greenhouse effect occurs because our atmosphere is more opaque to black body radiation from the earth (~ 300K temperature) compared to the black body radiation from the sun ( ~6000K temperature). As a result, black body radiation from the earth is often absorbed by the atmosphere and re-emitted towards the earth. The earth will try to reach an equilibrium temperature such that the amount of solar energy coming from the sun is equal to the amount of black body radiation being radiated by earth into space. Because polar regions receive less energy from the sun per unit area than equatorial regions, and because the amount of radiation emitted by a black body is proportional to the temperature to the power of 4, increasing green house gases will cause polar regions to warm more than equatorial regions. That is the reason behind the claim that the temperature gradient will decrease with global warming. Furthermore, loss of glaciers and see ice in polar regions will decrease the albedo of polar regions, which will amplify the effect of a reduction in global temperature gradient. Wind patterns which drive weather events are the result of trying the equalize pressure gradients which occur as a result of temperature gradients. Reducing the temperature gradient reduces the pressure gradient which in turn reduces the winds responsible for weather events. For example, a decrease in the temperature gradient between Canada and the Gulf of Mexico is expected to reduce the frequency and severity of tornadoes in tornado alley. And you still haven't explained how climate change will increase the frequency of the resonance pressure effect for the mid northern latitudes. I would really like to see a theoretical model which explains this. See, as a person with a strong science background, I need to see some models to explain why certain phenomenon will result from increasing CO2 concentrations. You can provide as many out of context quotations from conclusions as you want but I actually need a theoretical explanation or it is not sufficient. This matters why? You keep insisting that crops are so biologically different from other plants that the effects of climate change is the opposite for crops compared to all other plants. Care to provide justification for your double standard? This is untrue. Are you purposely failing at reading comprehension so you can straw man me? Both the 13 year lull in global warming and a supposed reduction in global primary production from 2000-2009 can be explained by climate variation. Do you agree with this?

Self reflection much? Oh look, you still do not respond to the occum's razor argument. I guess you refuse to ever change from this dogmatic position despite evidence. Evolution does not matter & How life performed under different climactic conditions does not matter for you. I guess you are a creationist then. That explains your refusal to acknowledge any significance of evolution. Oh look, you cannot name a single feedback mechanism which I have ignored and instead straw man my position as "CO2 is nothing more than plant food". I'm sorry to hear that your reading comprehension skills are poor. Here is your context: - "We get more extremes of flooding as a consequence and at the same time, in the places where it is not raining, things are drying out so we get droughts that are more extensive and longer lived." Typical climate alarmist nonsense. Places that are wet will get even wetter and places that are dry will get even drier? Why? Well it fits with the climate alarmist dogma and makes climate change seem bad so it must be true! The truth is, some places will get more dry and some places will get more wet with climate change, but some places that are wet will get more dry and some places that are dry will get more wet. The whole climate change will make everything more extreme nonsense has no scientific basis and in many cases the opposite is true (decrease in temperature gradient between poles and equator, decrease in temperature gradient between upper atmosphere and ocean). I do not ignore the role of weeds as you pretend. Though weeds and pests can always be countered with herbicides and pesticides. What is bizarre is how you pretend that increased CO2 is good for weeds, but bad for crops at the same time. Ironically, the claim that increased CO2 reduces the effectiveness of pesticides in the video was based on this so called 'isolated non-real world enclosure greenhouse growth mediums' that you seem to hate so much. But as long as it helps your dogma, consistency isn't necessary, is it? You still haven't explained how the CO2 fertilization effect magically stops working outside of indoor gardens (which it doesn't). Spin it how you want. A study that only takes into account temperature effects and not CO2 fertilization effects is going to be biased. Not to mention the sample data that the regression was based upon was biased. Why only south-east asia? Why not include rice growing regions such as China, Korea or Japan which are colder and could benefit from the warmth... cause the study is biased.

Cost percentage, where energy comes from, doesn't matter. What is relevant is the demand of energy relative to the supply of energy and the marginal cost to produce energy. The demand curve for energy is very inelastic (compared to other markets) so a small change in the supply of energy leads to large changes in price.

The percentage of where ontario's energy comes from isn't very relevant with respect to price. What is relevant is the demand of energy relative to the supply of energy and the marginal cost to produce energy. The demand curve for energy is very inelastic (compared to other markets) so a small change in the supply of energy leads to large changes in price.