-1=e^ipi

All you did in your response is call me a 'silly buggar', which I cannot find a definition for. Anyway, if you want to move this discussion forward and not just troll this thread, it would be helpful if we can at least identify where we disagree. I made 4 statements: - The CO2 fertilization effect will cause increases in crop yields everywhere. - Other effects such as changes to temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, wind and other weather effects will have varying effects on crop yields depending on location. - If we do not change our geographical distribution of crops (our current crop distribution is roughly optimized for current climatic conditions) then the overall effect of climate change will have a slight negative impact on crop yields. Most climate studies that measure climate effects on crop yields assume that humans will not adapt to the new climate, which is nonsense. - However, if we are reasonable and change our crop growing patterns such that we grow crops that are better suited to a warmer climate (and the amount of climate change is reasonable such as 3 C global temperature increase & 400 ppm CO2 increase) then crop yields will overall increase. Tell me which you agree with and which you disagree with. I like how you refer to supporting evidence for your argument as 'help/assistance for others' as if supporting evidence is something you climate alarmists do not need to provide, but only provide out of charity. All you did was call me a 'silly buggar', make false claims and continue to ignore the scientific consensus behind the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect.

So you are saying we cannot determine the optimal conditions for life on this planet? In that case why bother with climate mitigation then, cause apparently CO2 and temperature levels do not affect how prosperous life is on our planet. *sarcasm* If you advocates of climate change mitigation do not think that pre-industrial levels at the end of the mini-ice age are not optimal, then why do you advocate trying to return to such levels or to reduce that amount of CO2 humans release into the atmosphere? By this, you mean either a measure of the total biomass on the planet? Estimating this is difficult simply due to insufficient information in the fossil record. We could look at the total number of species on the planet, but not all species are preserved in the fossil record and the number of species isn't necessarily the best indicator if biomass varies greatly. Ultimately, the most useful thing we can do with the geological record is look qualitatively at how life performed at different times as CO2 and temperature varied. Another thing we could do is look at mass extinction events. - The Permian-Triassic mass extinction, as mentioned earlier, involved very significant amounts of global warming caused primarily by the flood basalt eruptions at the Siberian Traps and eventually causing methane hydrate gasification. Of couse the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event had numerous causes, and initially there was short term cooling. - The late devonian mass extinction event is interesting and is more directly related to a large change in atmospheric CO2 levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Devonian_extinction "The "greening" of the continents occurred during Devonian time. The covering of the planet's continents with massive photosynthesizing land plants in the first forests may have reduced carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, reduced levels might have helped produce a chillier climate. Evidence such as glacial deposits in northern Brazil (located near the Devonian south pole) suggest widespread glaciation at the end-Devonian, as a broad continental mass covered the polar region. A cause of the extinctions may have been an episode of global cooling, following the mild climate of the Devonian period. The Hangenberg event has also been linked to glaciation in the tropics equivalent to that of the Pleistocene ice age [29] The weathering of silicate rocks also draws down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This acted in concert with the burial of organic matter to decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from ~15 to ~3 times present levels. Carbon in the form of plant matter would be produced on prodigious scales, and given the right conditions could be stored and buried, eventually producing vast coal measures (e.g. in China) which locked the carbon out of the atmosphere and into thelithosphere.[30] This reduction in atmospheric CO2 would have caused global cooling and resulted in at least one period of late Devonian glaciation (and subsequent sea level fall),[31] probably fluctuating in intensity alongside the 40ka Milankovic cycle. The continued drawdown of organic carbon eventually pulled the Earth out of its Greenhouse Earth state into the Icehouse that continued throughout the Carboniferous and Permian." - The Ordovician-Sulurian mass extinction event was also caused by global cooling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician%E2%80%93Silurian_extinction_event "The immediate cause of extinction appears to have been the movement ofGondwana into the south polar region. This led to global cooling, glaciation and consequent sea level fall." - For the Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction event, there isn't currently a concensus on what the cause of the extinction event, or if there was cooling or warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic%E2%80%93Jurassic_extinction_event "Massive volcanic eruptions, specifically the flood basalts of the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP), would release carbon dioxide or sulfur dioxide and aerosols, which would cause either intense global warming (from the former) or cooling (from the latter)." - And of course I'm sure you are familiar with the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction event where an asteroid hit the Yucatan peninsula in mexico caused extreme global cooling. Now, another option is to use pollen frequency (in ice cores, rocks, etc.) as a proxy for the amount of plant life at any given time and compare that to temperatures and CO2 levels. Pollen is something that is well preserved and easily quantifiable. For example, here is an estimate of global temperature, CO2 levels and dust concentrations using Vostok ice core data from Antarctica. And here is some pollen data from core samples from the Santa Barbara Basin in California for the past 140,000 years. Here it is apparent that there is a strong relation between pollen and global temperatures. During the ice age ~140,000 years ago, we see very low global temperatures and low levels of sage, oak , pine and chaparrel levels of pollen. During the last interglacial period of 120,000-130,000 years ago, these pollen levels spiked. We see drops in global temperatures around 70,000, 90,000 and 110,000 years ago that correspond to drops in the oak pollen record, etc. Your challenge doesn't even make sense. It is not possible to correlate CO2/temperature levels over time with 'today's world'. The first is 1D time series data. The second is a single data point for today. It is only mathematically possible to correlate things that are of the same dimension.

So the CO2 fertilization effect only applies to plants in greenhouses, but not in plants in the 'real world'? Really? What is this nonsense? Oh but wait, if I reference the CO2 fertilization effect at the end of the last ice age, that doesn't count either cause it was 10,000 years ago, and somehow the CO2 fertilization effect magically stopped working since then! Earlier I wrote: - Other effects such as changes to temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, wind and other weather effects will have varying effects on crop yields depending on location. - If we do not change our geographical distribution of crops (our current crop distribution is roughly optimized for current climatic conditions) then the overall effect of climate change will have a slight negative impact on crop yields. Most climate studies that measure climate effects on crop yields assume that humans will not adapt to the new climate, which is nonsense. - However, if we are reasonable and change our crop growing patterns such that we grow crops that are better suited to a warmer climate (and the amount of climate change is reasonable such as 3 C global temperature increase & 400 ppm CO2 increase) then crop yields will overall increase. So what am I denying exactly? What about my position is unclear. Which of these 3 statements do you not agree with? You are trying to confuse 4 different statements I made as one in order to perform a strawman argument.

The link you have provided does not talk about the jet stream or a north-south shift. It talks about resonance effects at mid-latitudes and how a decreased temperature gradient may increase this resonance effect. Of course it doesn't actually tell me how the reduced temperature gradient increases this resonance effect. It says that 'some equations were developed and used' (paraphrasing) but does not provide a link for me to examine these equations. Anyway, the resonance article was interesting, but I think there is insufficient evidence to make any significant conclusions, as the article itself admits "So there’s no smoking gun on the table yet". Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to explain what you are referring to. Are you referring to a weakening of the northern jet stream? Says the CO2 fertilization effect denier... Yeah, cause things like CO2 fertilization effect, heat engine or geological history of the earth, are so no easily searchable... *sarcasm* Anyway, are you referring to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification So basically you are referring to the decrease in global temperature gradient? Okay, what is your point? I've bought up decrease in temperature gradient. I guess providing that evidence stuff is hard when it's not on the side of climate alarmists.

What is my 'expressed benchmark' that you claim exists, even though I stated that whether someone is an alarmist or not isn't a binary it is a continuum? Some people are more alarmist than others.

It is interesting that when I ask you for elaboration/evidence/links I go to great lengths to provide it, but when I ask you for the same, you don't provide anything and dismiss my request... You want to continue well established science despite all the evidence I continually provide? CO2 fertilization is beneficial to all plants because it makes it easier for them to perform photo-synthesis. If you want to explain how the converse is true then please do so. The evolutionary history on this planet and the conditions of which our ancestors thrived (we still share their DNA) has no relevance to understanding how life will fair due to climate change, especially when that climate changes to conditions closer to what our ancestors thrived in? So I provide a paper that explains the importance of the CO2 fertilization effect after the last ice age which made it easier for humans to perform agriculture and you dismiss it because it occurred 10,000 years ago, which isn't recently enough for you? Well aren't you a CO2 fertilization effect denier. Also, perhaps you need to reread this because you appear to fail at reading comprehension: - The CO2 fertilization effect will cause increases in crop yields everywhere. - Other effects such as changes to temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, wind and other weather effects will have varying effects on crop yields depending on location. - If we do not change our geographical distribution of crops (our current crop distribution is roughly optimized for current climatic conditions) then the overall effect of climate change will have a slight negative impact on crop yields. Most climate studies that measure climate effects on crop yields assume that humans will not adapt to the new climate, which is nonsense. - However, if we are reasonable and change our crop growing patterns such that we grow crops that are better suited to a warmer climate (and the amount of climate change is reasonable such as 3 C global temperature increase & 400 ppm CO2 increase) then crop yields will overall increase. Which of the above statements do you disagree with? I do not know what a Watts devotee or a Concern Troll denier are. Could you define them for me?

Thanks for the link but i'm skeptical it supports your claim. The article notes that the upper atmosphere will warm faster than the ocean temperatures which will decrease the temperature gradient between the hot reservoir and the cold reservoir of the hurricane (which is a heat engine)... so I'm not sure how strongly it supports your claim. In addition, verticle wind shear is supposed to increase, which will decrease hurricane frequency and intensity (the reference that was given from the article you provided is http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action/user_files/gav/publications/vs_07_shears.pdf ). After the article admits these things, it then somehow claims that "The bottom line is that nearly all of the theoretical and computer modeling work suggest that hurricanes may be slightly stronger (by a few percent) by the end of the 21st Century, even presuming that a large global warming will occur". Yet it provides no justification, only a reference to Morris Bender and colleagues, 2010, Science., which it doesn't provide a link for. So temperature gradient between the air near the ocean and the upper atmosphere decreases, and vertical wind shear increases (which decreases the severity and intensity of hurricanes) and somehow you think this supports your claim that 'the intensity of storms is proportional to sea surface temperature'? Furthermore, you use the word 'proportional' which is a very, very strong claim in physics. Maybe you want to reword your claim (to positive correlation)? Edit: thanks a lot for the article though, it has given me more information to use when arguing against climate alarmists.

Could you provide me with a reference or theoretical model that explains this? I quite curious about such a relationship.

I am not as optimistic as you about how soon such technology will become available. Changes in income distribution are more difficult to evaluate. But I think that my 67.8 year estimate remains decent.

If Canada were truly selfish, we would have either a very small military (for like search and rescue missions, counter terrorism) or no military. We face no threats and have this big ally south of us with the world's biggest military, so we don't really need one. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have one. The primary focus of our military should be to protect our allies (primarily I'm thinking South Korea and Japan here). In addition, the military serves humanitarian, peace keeping, search & rescue and counter-terrorism purposes. So we still should have a decent military; primarily to benefit other countries. But 1.2% of GDP does seem high to me, so maybe we should reduce it. I'm not sure I agree that any reduction should go to direct foreign aid (we could do other things like invest it in space exploration, pay of the debt, fund sciences, lower taxes, etc.). But evaluating the amount of military expenditures we should have does seem difficult and I am at a loss on how to do so. Maybe it would be more productive to rethink how we can make our military more efficient and more streamlined to it's purpose. Giving the military uses during peacetime (like have contracted arms manufacturers produce other goods for the public instead of arms during peacetime) would be a good way to do this.

The USA and most developing countries have a much lower inflation rate now then they've had 30 years or earlier due to changes in monetary policy. Most central banks in developed countries have a target of low stable inflation. Both the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have a 2% inflation target rate. Furthermore, the USA is a developed country that has seen roughly consistent real GDP per capita growth of about 2% for the past 200 years. Therefore, we should expect the Nominal GDP per capita of the USA to grow by approximately 4% per year. Given that the current richest people on the planet have a networth of approximately $70 billion, we can expect that the networth of the richest person in the future to be approximately $70 billion * (1.04)^t, where t is the amount of time in years in the future from the present. Setting this equal to $1 trillion and isolating for t gives: t = ln(100/7)/ln(1.04) = 67.8 years. Therefore, the first person who will be a trillionaire is either not born yet or probably a young infant. So your question is silly, we cannot even guess who the first trillionaire will be cause that event will happen in the distant future. If I were to guess what the person who becomes the first trillionaire does, my guess is it will be someone who develops a business that creates new organs/bodies from people's stem cells, thereby greatly increasing people's life spans to near immortal levels.

Could you provide more elaboration on the Arctic/Polar amplification? Temperature gradients create pressure gradients which in turn causes wind which causes weather events. The relationship between temperature gradients and frequency/severity of weather events is well known and is true on Earth, Jupiter and other planets/moons with atmospheres. Sigh, anyway I'll provide you with more evidence until you accept that temperature gradients are the ultimate cause of weather events. Article explaining that tornadoes are common in tornado alley due to a large temperature gradient between warm air from the Gulf of Mexico and cold air from Canada. http://theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/404/ Article explaining that hurricanes are heat engines caused by a temperature gradient. http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_spring2011.web.dir/Levi_Cowan/formation.html Look my position has been consistent: - The CO2 fertilization effect will cause increases in crop yields everywhere. - Other effects such as changes to temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, wind and other weather effects will have varying effects on crop yields depending on location. - If we do not change our geographical distribution of crops (our current crop distribution is roughly optimized for current climatic conditions) then the overall effect of climate change will have a slight negative impact on crop yields. Most climate studies that measure climate effects on crop yields assume that humans will not adapt to the new climate, which is nonsense. - However, if we are reasonable and change our crop growing patterns such that we grow crops that are better suited to a warmer climate (and the amount of climate change is reasonable such as 3 C global temperature increase & 400 ppm CO2 increase) then crop yields will overall increase. I need a citation to prove that room temperature of 21-25 C, which is most comfortable for humans, is higher than the current global average temperature of 14 C? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_temperature https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now Do I need a citation to prove that to prove that humans originated from east africa? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans I've also found yet another wiki reference to the CO2 fertilization effect on a previous link I provided. The beginning of human agriculture during the current Holocene epoch may have been strongly connected to the atmospheric CO2 increase after the last ice age ended, a fertilization effect raising plant biomass growth and reducing stomatal conductance requirements for CO2 intake, consequently reducing transpiration water losses and increasing water usage efficiency." And here is a link the the scientific paper it is referencing: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/boyd/AgOrigins.pdf With respect to plant life flourishing under conditions of higher temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations, I have already provided plenty of evidence / explanations (Cambrian explosion, age of dinosaurs, end of last ice age leading to human civilization). But I suggest, if you are really interested, to go to the wikipedia page and look at each of the geological periods. It gives a detailed explanation of how well life performed during that period, which kind of new evolutionary developments occurred during that period, the average temperature and CO2 levels during the period, the positioning of the continents and mass extinction events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian And the reason I haven't used the word sensitivity yet is because I'm not a gaia worshiping climate alarmist who believes that life on earth is so 'sensitive' that an increase in CO2 levels by a few hundred ppm will cause a mass extinction event. Life is resilient because it evolved to be that way and has survived numerous mass extinction events far greater than what we are doing by increasing CO2 levels slightly and making the planet more habitable for plant life. What? I say that saying an increase in CO2 levels by 300 ppm will cause a global temperature increase of 3 degrees will not make one an alarmist and somehow you think that saying an increase in CO2 levels by 450 ppm will cause a global temperature increase of 5 degrees will make one an alarmist? That makes no sense.

This claim is false. I have been consistent in my position with respect to the CO2 fertilization effect. I have never used the word sensitivity. I was talking about optimal climate conditions for life on this planet, particularly for humans but also for plant life. You are asking for an answer to a question without an answer. Being a climate alarmist or not isn't something that is binary, it is a continuum. Furthermore, the amount of warming depends on the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. So if someone claims that an increase of CO2 levels by 10 ppm will cause global temperature increases of 2 degrees then I will call them an alarmist. However, if someone claims that an increase of CO2 levels by 300 ppm will cause global temperatures to increase by 3 degrees then I will not call them an alarmist.

This is a false claim. I started the 'progressive racism' thread in a response to a locked thread where I was trying to clarify the position that Pat Condell had because people misunderstood it. Or are you talking about the burka thread where I started it out of theological interest to see if my understanding of the Quran and that the Burka was against islam was valid? Also, I have not advocated for some policy that would 'bring religion into some method of evaluation'. Having the state trying determine what is or isn't a religion, who is a member of what religion, and what different religions advocate is not feasible. Considering the effects of religion on society from various immigrant groups, particularly wahhabi islam which promotes misogyny, homophobia and domestic terrorism, should be a factor when determining which countries should be favoured for immigration. But the immigration law itself should not depend on religion or religious beliefs. I have never discriminated. Which policies that enact discrimination have I advocated? Please list them. You on the other hand advocate the discriminative policy of affirmative action. Lol, the way you say I agree with borderline racist policies makes me sound so bad. I have never said I agree with borderline racist policies. What you are referring to is the fact that I think it is okay for an employer to take into account an employee's physical appearance for an acting job where physical appearance is relevant. This is not however a policy. And yes I do not like religion. There are many atheists and other non-religious people that do not like religion either. I do not think that a collection of lies and fairy tales masquerading as truth, misguiding people and giving people false hope about a non-existent afterlife is something to be liked. You do not see the difference between prejudice against people cause they believe, by choice, in a bunch of ridiculous fairy tales when these beliefs have caused numerous wars, genocides and preventions of the advancement of humanity versus prejudice against someone because they are born with certain genetic characteristics, not by choice, when these genetic characteristics are not sufficient to justify their irrational prejudice? Maybe your feelings are just hurt cause you do not like people saying religion is a bunch of lies and ridiculous fairy tales? Okay, so because you are losing the argument, just accuse me of being racist and then leave.

Yes, when have I said that humans cannot affect the global climate by increasing atmospheric levels of CO2? We've been discussing this for pages. If the person makes unscientific/unjustified claims about the amount of temperature increase that is expected for the expected increase in CO2 levels that are much higher than what should be expected. Particularly if they think the earth will boil over, if we will have a mass extinction event comparable to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event or if they think humans will go extinct.

And get your thermodynamics right. The amount of work that a heat engine can perform depends on the differences in temperature between the hot reservoir and the cold reservoir, not 'the more heat, the more power'. In fact, as the temperature of the system gets higher (with the temperature gradient constant), Tc/Th approaches 1 which means that the efficiency of the heat engine approaches zero. So the converse of what you claim is actually true (a colder heat engine will generally have greater efficiency).

Maybe I confused you with the other 2-syllable, name-starts-with-W, anti-science climate alarmist in this thread.

Strawman argument. I said the fertilization effect will increase crop yields everywhere. However, the temperature effects and other indirect effects of increased levels of CO2 will vary depending on region. Therefore, the combined effect will vary depending on region. But keep with your silly strawman argument that I somehow claimed that crop yields will increase everywhere. The date of the study doesn't matter. The CO2 fertilization effect is well established and has been established for decades. Seriously it comes down to basic chemistry. Why wouldn't the rate of photosynthesis 6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy --> C6H12O6 + 6O2 Increase if you increase the amount of available CO2, especially under high light levels when CO2 is the limiting factor?

No, I believe that there is an optimal global average temperature for life on this planet. Based upon the historical record as well as understanding the effects of climate change (CO2 fertilization effect, increased growing seasons, greater biodiversity currently exists in equatorial regions, most of the warming occurring in cold polar regions) I believe that this optimal is well above current levels (17-22 celcius might be optimal) and the amount of warming and CO2 increase we are talking about will bring us closer to these optimal conditions. You on the other hand believe that somehow pre-industrial levels corresponding to the end of the little ice age are somehow optimal? Why is this? How do you read what I wrote, go to the wikipedia heat engine link and conclude that? Seriously, do you have to change the laws of physics just to fit your deluded climate alarmist religion? Seriously, I have a degree in physics and this basic understanding of thermodynamics is what allows things like refrigerators, steam engines and internal combustion engines to work. But according to you, for heat engines "the more heat, the more power generated". Wow! So insightful. I guess you deserve the Nobel Prize for proving our understanding of thermodynamics to be false. *sarcasm* Yes. The global economy will continue to grow significantly over the next few decades, so there will be more economic resources to do both.

I keep repeating why it is relevant. Perhaps you should re-read my earlier posts until you understand? Fair enough. There is large uncertainty in estimating the CO2 and temperature levels of earlier periods, but the fact that CO2 levels and temperatures have been higher for most of the past 500 million years remains valid. The points you bring up about climate alarmists distorting science are interesting.

Okay I made a mistake claiming that it was a doubling from 300 ppm to 600 ppm rather than 400 ppm to 800 ppm. But that doesn't hurt my conclusion at all, in fact it helps my conclusion about the increase in CO2 levels by a few hundred ppm corresponds to a temperature increase of a few degrees. Based on well established climate science and the numerous sources I have established. Why do you continually deny the scientific consensus on magnitude of temperature increases that will correspond to increases in CO2 levels from carbon emissions? Here is a question I would like you to answer: What do you think the magnitude of climate change will be if we do not perform climate mitigation policies over the next century? Do you think the earth will 'boil' over and we will have a mass extinction event comparable to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event? Or do you think a few hundred increase in the atmospheric ppm and a few degrees increase in global temperatures as more realistic/science-based? Yet you keep claiming that climate change will cause the extinction of humans. If that isn't alarmism, I do not know what is. How about you try to quantify the amount of change we should expect from not performing climate mitigation policies? Because I do not see how we can discuss the benefits/costs of climate change if we cannot even roughly quantify the amount of change. Seriously? I have to demonstrate that temperature gradient drives weather on Earth? Do I also need to prove diffusion and the thermodynamic laws for you? Like wtf? How much of an anti-science nutcase are you when you continually refute any well established scientific laws/theories/consensuses that I bring up? Did you read my link on heat engines? Or was that too difficult for your deluded climate alarmist brain? Okay, try this link: http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.tempgradient "Winds around the globe are usually stronger in the winter, especially along fronts between highly contrasting air masses. There is a stronger temperature gradient between the poles and the equator during the winter months because the poles receive minimal sunlight at this time of year, while the tropics receive the same amount of solar energy year-round. This causes the jet stream to dip farther south and the winds to blow stronger on either side of the jet stream in winter. The jet stream separates the very cold air mass at higher latitudes from the warmer air mass equatorward." Unsubstantiated? A 5 degree increase will only bring us up to the mean of the average global temperatures for the past 600 million years during which multi-cellular life has flourished on this planet. It would still be below what is optimal for humans (there is a reason we find 22-25 degrees celcius as a comfortable room temperature) and historical evidence suggests that life on Earth has flourished when it has been warmer. But yes, 'unsubstantiated' (sarcasm). What is unsubstantiated is the climate alarmist belief that somehow pre-industrial levels that correspond to the end of the little ice age during a geological period where atmospheric CO2 and temperatures are at there lowest point in the past 600 million years is somehow optimal. The reason the past 500 million years are significant is because multi-cellular life has flourished during this time period, which means that the past 500 million years have had conditions that are good for life. Furthermore, as CO2 and temperature levels have varied over the past 500 million years, so has how well life has faired. From the geological record we can see what CO2 and temperature levels have been optimal for life and predict what may happen if we increase CO2 levels and temperature levels by CO2 emissions. In the geological record we see that we are well below the average for the past 500 years, climate change will merely bring us closer to the average, and life has flourished during warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels.

I'll double post this graph because it completely pwns the arguments of the climate alarmists who continuously deny science and the Earth's history.

So are you saying you agree or disagree with the climate projections I have linked to that discuss the impacts of doubling CO2 levels? The point is that what will occur as a result of climate change is an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels by a few hundred ppm and an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees. Do you agree with this statement. Therefore, the alarmist claims that the Earth will boil over, the atmosphere will no longer be breathable or we will face a mass extinction event comparable to the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event is simply not true and not supported by science. So can we at least agree on roughly the quantity of CO2 ppm increase and temperature increase that will result from CO2 emissions? I have no denied that ocean acidification, sea level rise and ice melting will result from increasing CO2 levels. The extreme weather event claim is however false. Global temperature gradient is the primary driver of extreme weather events and the temperature gradient will decrease with global warming. I think that a 5 degree increase would be fine, especially given the history of the planet. If you start to go over that then I think we would start to see significant environmental impacts, decreasing marginal crop yields and mitigation policies become more justified. With respect to understanding the environmental impacts of increasing atmospheric CO2, it is important to understand the geological and evolutionary history of the planet. The reason I refer to 500 million years ago is because 500 million years ago corresponds to the cambrian explosion where multicellular life started to flourish. The past 500 million years of the planet has a constant theme that increased global temperatures correspond to life flourishing (multicellular life started to flourish during the warm temperatures of the cambrian explosion not during the cryogenian period 650 million years ago where we had a 'snowball earth' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth , life flourished during the time of the dinosaurs when temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher, and humans have flourished since the end of the last ice age); The only exception to this theme is the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event. Anyway, maybe you should look at this wikipedia entry on the global temperature record to understand where we currently are relative to the past 500 million years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record Here are some articles on the CO2 ppm history of the planet in the past 500 million years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml Here is a good study with a graph that has both CO2 and temperature for the past 500 million years. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/10/study-climate-460-mya-was-like-today-but-thought-to-have-co2-levels-20-times-as-high/

Not by all native leaders. But I do agree that many native leaders have a financial incentive to keep the status quo as they benefit from it (at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent).

I do not understand this analogy and do not agree that 'we've established the truth here'. We would be in favour of racial discrimination in one case, but I'm not sure if I would call this case 'racism' because the hiring favoritism is based upon the inherent physical characteristics required for the job (it's very borderline). As for the term religionist, you are not using it correctly. Religionist means excess religious zeal. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Religionist No... I'm not the person arguing in favour of affirmative action. You are. I'm not quite sure I would call that racism (it's borderline). Racism I would reserve for irrational hiring practices that aren't based on individual merit to find the best candidate for the job. In the case of acting, one's physical appearance is relevant towards the position of the job. Again, I have never suggested that we should assign points based on someone's religion. This is unfeasible. Idk why you think that. I've been extremely consistent in my position. I do not pretend to understand progressive minds that think that affirmative action isn't racist and not morally wrong. I'm not changing my tone. You just keep confusing islam with islamism and misreading my posts. I have never in my life discriminated based on race/gender/religion. So I would prefer you try not to personally attack my character. But that doesn't mean that there are not a few cases were discrimination can be justified. Yes, churchers/temples/mosques need to be able to discriminate based upon religion or we do not have freedom of religion/worship in this country.