-1=e^ipi

Affirmative action is immoral, racist and bigoted and as far as I am concerned, anyone that supports discrimination based on race/ gender/ sexual orientation is a racist / sexist / bigot. This includes the so called 'progressive racists' that were discussed in the other thread. I would even go further and argue that anyone that supports the racist reserve system / indian act is a racist/bigot.

Can have a positive impact occasionally doesn't mean that the net effect is positive. The definitions that you or I accept doesn't matter. What matters is the definitions that muslims accept. And what muslims define as true islam ultimately comes down to the teachings of the prophet Mohammed as recorded in the Quran and other Islamic texts. But here is the biggest issue. Islam ISN'T Christianity! The level of flexibility of interpretation of islam is far less than in christianity. If one ignores verses the Quran or the Hadith then one commits a great sin and will go to hellfire. The quran is the word of god through the prophet mohammed; all muslims accept this. Christians can ignore verses, rewrite the bible to exclude parts they don't like, and constantly re-interpret their religion to fit their word view because they do not need to take the bible literally. That's the problem. At the theological level Islam and Christianity are different in how serious one must take the holy texts. Unlike christianity, if there are 2 contradicting versus, Islam has a method of abrogation to deal with this so there is less ambiguity in the religion. Islam also encompases far more aspects of life (divorce, income tax, law, how non-muslims should be treated in an islamic state, etc.). Even the level of commitment to the religion is far higher (Christians do not pray 5 times a day). That is in a western country, not a country where islam is dominant, so the comparison isn't remotely fair. Muslims in western countries are influenced by western values and often do not know what is in their own holy books. In addition, when muslims are a minority, they must appear peaceful so that the kaffir do not get suspicious. The Quran even compels muslims to appear peaceful when they are a minority. It's why things like Taqiyya (lying to non-muslims) exist. This goes back all the way to the prophet Mohammed. When he was a minority in Mecca (the polytheist Quraish were the majority) he was very peaceful and that is where more tolerant versus from Sura 2 came from 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Later on he moved to Medina where took over the city and made it muslim; the verses became less tolerant. Later on, he broke his alliance with Mecca and invaded it, versus became even less tolerant. Eventually he took over all of arabia, completely expelled/killed/murdered the Quraish (the concept of jizya only applies to monotheists not polytheists) and then started offensive Jihad in Syria where he started a war on the Byzantium empire that would continue for nearly a millennium until Constantinople was taken. During his offensive jihad, mohammed 'revealed' the jihadist verses as found in Sura 9 such as fight those that do not believe in Allah nor the prophet Mohammed until they submit and willingly pay the jizya. Mohammed wasn't peaceful like jesus in Christianity; he committed genocide and murdered many people. Anyway, I do not see a trend among muslim majority countries that shows they are becoming more tolerant as time progresses. Turkey as you have mentioned, has even regressed. In fact, the only reason turkey ever became tolerant in the first place was because of intervention from western powers that ended the Ottoman empire after WW1. I doubt secular turkey as we know it today would exist if the Ottoman empire did not lose WW1. I do not agree. Ideologies contain beliefs and ideas.

Yes I get you hold this belief. I disagree with this belief. Why is it not possible for things to be worse than Mao/Stalin? What point are you trying to make? Mao/Stalin did bad things, yes. Does that make bad things done in the name of religion any less bad? no. And there are plenty of examples of mass genocides that were religiously motivated; from the Spanish inquisition to the Armenian genocide to the Bosnian genocide. Heck, even the old testament lists several genocides that were done in the name of God. But again, what is the point? Some bad things are motivated by religion, and some bad things are motivated by non-religious reasons. Both. Cars can have equipment failures (faulty breaks, flat tires, holes in fuel tank, etc.). Just because moderate muslims believe they are following true islam, doesn't mean they are. And I suspect as time goes by, more muslims will have the time and ability to read the islamic texts (plus use online discussion forums to discuss with other muslims the true nature of islam) to properly understand islam enough to go to true islam. Now I suspect that you might have a bias towards believing that societies become more moderate as time goes by, but with islam this isn't necessarily the case. I'll give you some historical examples: - Al-Andalus (Islamic Iberia) was relatively tolerant of other religions (and by this I mean they allowed Christians and Jews to live on their lands provided they paid the Jizya, didn't own property, etc.) for hundreds of years during the so called Islamic golden age. However, this ended around the middle of the 11th century when the muslims of Al-Andalus started a policy of convert, die or exile towards the jews. This resulted in the Granada massacre of 1066 as well as the Jewish philosopher Maimonidies having to leave Iberia. - For most of the history of Islam, Saudi Arabia has practiced more tolerant versions of islam such as sufism or ismaili. But since the 18th century, the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia has been Wahhabism. Furthermore, in the past few decades, especially after 911, Wahhabism has been on the rise, replacing more moderate forms of islam in many parts of the world. - Before the Iranian revolution, Iran was far more peaceful and tolerant of religious minorities, didn't have strict Islamic rules with respect to the dress code, etc. But since the 1980's revolution, it has been a strict islamic theocratic state. Why is it weak? You have not explained why? A car isn't an ideology, it is a machine. So obviously it doesn't have beliefs, but it does have wheels. For an ideology like islam, beliefs are the wheels of the car. Anyway, good luck trying to tell a muslim that islam doesn't have the belief that there is no god but allah. Nonsense. Some cars can drive automatically without a driver. Also if you leave your car running and aren't in it, it will still pollute.

Really? You think humans going extinct as result of warming is a possibility? This despite the development of human civilization in the past few thousand years (and evolutionary blink of the eye)? This despite the fact that humans evolved in hot equatorial conditions? This despite the fact that humans are the only species on the planet capable of spreading life to other planets? You are talking about CO2 poisoning here? You would have to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40 times before you start to see even minor effects of CO2 poisoning. Also, for most of the past 500 million years, CO2 levels have been much higher and life did fine then. How did our ancestors survive CO2 levels such as 1200 ppm?

Sigh, it's the UNPCCC's own target, which are based upon various models (thus they think it is doable).But I'll find you some better citations later (don't have time right now). But again it is impossible to know what will happen when human activity can vary depending on how much is done to mitigate climate change. I was under the impression that biology was required to pass high school and that the C4 cycle was taught in most high schools. I guess I was wrong. Sigh, what are you talking about? The wikipedia page entry discusses the time period during which C4 plants evolved & became significant & explains the selective pressures that caused it. Yes C4 plants are particularly adapt to high temperatures, high light intensities and dryness, because under these conditions CO2 becomes the dominant limiting factor of photosynthesis. The whole C4 cycle is to give plants a better way at obtaining CO2. Sigh, why do I have to explain such well established science? I might as well be arguing with a flat earther... Here maybe this will help: http://www.co2science.org/dictionary/define_c.php "It is thought that the primary selective mechanism for the development of C4 photosynthesis is the low level of CO2 that has prevailed during the last 50 to 60 million years." Plants are plants. Increased CO2 levels increases the rate of photosynthesis in all plants be it an apple tree, a dandelion or grass. You are making a strawman argument. I claimed that the effect of CO2 fertilization will increase crops globally. However, other effects of increases in CO2 levels (changes in temperature, weather patterns) may offset this effect. Science is inherently skeptical and that is why the paper mentions the secondary effects. Water is a pollutant? What utter nonsense. Hey, at least i'm using the UNPCCC's own projections. Unlike some climate alarmists that wont even quantify the amount of change and will instead pretend that if we do not do anything the world will be flooded and boil over.

Definition of climate: the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. Definition of alarmist: a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities. These aren't my definitions, they are taken from dictionary.reference.org.

The results of a projection ultimately depend on both the model used and what Humans decide to do (with respect to curbing CO2 emissions). So there isn't just one model/target, there are many. But yes, 2C is the current goal of the UNFCCC (though it might be a bit unrealistic given governments' unwillingness to curb emissions). 2.5 C or 3 C goals are more reasonable. I'd rather not go through the entire UNFCCC data base and search through countless scientific articles till I find one that matches these projections. Will this link be sufficient for you to believe me? It's pretty clear from the link that the UNFCCC has a 2 C target, so unless you really want to argue that the UNFCCC doesn't know anything about climate science and hasn't examined countless climate models, I suggest that you believe me. http://unfccc.int/focus/mitigation/items/7169.php#intro Also, please note that these are 2-3 C increases from pre-industrial levels (so usually 1850-1880 as the baseline), which was during the little ice age. So the increase is based on global temperatures that were below the average for the past 2000 years. Well I'm sort of glad that you are finally asking reasonable questions about science. But seriously, how bad is your science education? Did you even pass high school? For one, there is no such thing as CO-squared, use a subscript not a superscript (CO2). I usually type CO2 cause i'm lazy, but CO2 is just retarded. Secondly, you really have never heard of the C4 cycle? Sigh, let's try the wikipedia cycle which I already linked previously. Oh look, they even have a paragraph on the evolution of the C4 cycle with references at the bottom! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation#The_evolution_and_advantages_of_the_C4_pathway "C4 plants have a competitive advantage over plants possessing the more common C3 carbon fixation pathway under conditions of drought, high temperatures, and nitrogen or CO2 limitation. When grown in the same environment, at 30°C, C3 grasses lose approximately 833 molecules of water per CO2 molecule that is fixed, whereas C4 grasses lose only 277. This increased water use efficiency of C4 grasses means that soil moisture is conserved, allowing them to grow for longer in arid environments.[10] C4 carbon fixation has evolved on up to 40 independent occasions in different families of plants, making it a prime example of convergent evolution.[11] This convergence may have been facilitated by the fact that many potential evolutionary pathways to a C4phenotype exist, many of which involve initial evolutionary steps not directly related to photosynthesis.[12] C4 plants arose around 25 to 32 million years ago[11] during the Oligocene (precisely when is difficult to determine) and did not become ecologically significant until around 6 to 7 million years ago, in the Miocene Period.[11] C4 metabolism originated when grasses migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments,[13] where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway.[14] Drought was not necessary for its innovation; rather, the increased resistance to water stress was a by-product of the pathway and allowed C4 plants to more readily colonise arid environments.[14] Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species.[10][15] Despite this scarcity, they account for about 30% of terrestrial carbon fixation.[11] Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy. Present-day C4 plants are concentrated in the tropics and subtropics (below latitudes of 45°) where the high air temperature contributes to higher possible levels of oxygenase activity by RuBisCO, which increases rates of photorespiration in C3plants." Sigh, do I really need to hold your hand every step of the way? Just try using the key words 'CO2 fertilization' in google. Here is the first paper that comes up: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract Here is an article discussing the results of the paper: http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx Also, with your request about global yields, increased CO2 levels will make it easier for plants to perform photosynthesis everywhere. Of course this will be largest in dry arid conditions where CO2 is usually the limiting factor. There are other things that affect crop yields including temperature, rainfall, cloud cover, etc. which complicate trying to determine the changes to crop yields as a result of climate change, but the CO2 fertilization effect is purely positive. In that case you might as well consider O2, N2 and H2O as pollutants since they can also destabilize the ecosystem. Heck pretty much anything can destabilize the ecosystem. But good luck trying to convince people that water is a pollutant. The Clean Air act can define CO2 as a pollutant as much as they like. It will not change the fact that it isn't a pollutant.

2C is the target amount of warming by the UN. Though the current target looks unrealistic at this point. 2.5C or 3C are more realistic.

I do not agree with the premise of the question. I do not believe currently projected climate change (0.4 m ocean level rise in a century, 2 C increase in global temperatures) will result in a mass extinction event (unless you want to be really, really liberal with your definition of mass extinction event). Edit: deforestation and loss of habitat are probably bigger drivers of extinction than increases in CO2 levels by 100 or so ppm.

This is more of a Judeo-Christian view of things than an Islamic view. Islam is a very unique religion. Many adherents to the Old Testament are non-practicing Christians that merely self identify with their religion (ex. self identify as catholic) for cultural/family reasons. Why do you say 'probably'? Do you have very limited knowledge of the Quran so your claim is unjustified? The Quran and the old testament are very different. Both in the amount of violence they teach and with the flexibility of interpretation. The Quran IS THE DIRECT WORD OF GOD THROUGH MOHAMMED! That is a huge difference. Muslims have to take the teachings in islamic texts far more literally.

Maybe you could rephrase this as "there is no evidence that the current level of immigration is optimal" and I might agree with you. Though I've been far more interested in immigration source country distribution than the total amount of immigration in this thread. I'm inclined to believe that immigration has benefited Canada overall (compared to zero immigration) even if the level of immigration and the immigration distribution has not been optimal. @ Micheal Hardner - I think it is far more useful to look at the changes in GDP per capita as a result of immigration than to changes in GDP as a result of immigration. Sort of like what carepov did.

And perhaps if there had been more secular humanists and less people believing in the occult religious nonsense of nazism then perhaps there wouldn't have been a holocaust to begin with. What is your point? Less nazism probably would have resulted in less holocaust victims regardless of if you replace nazism with religious or non-religious ideologies. Or perhaps it wouldn't have changed anything since Mao/Stalin did there actions because they thought that communism was an inherently good economic system (i.e. their motives were not bad, they were misguided by a misunderstanding of economics). So they would have done the same actions regardless of their religion. Or maybe worse, perhaps if Mao/Stalin were religious more people would have died because most religions belief that dead people go to a better place, so there is nothing sad about people dying. Mao/Stalin would value life less. You really want to play this game? While I doubt you could reach your 10:1 ratio, what does it matter? Bad things are done due to religion and bad things are done due to things that are not religious. The second group of bad things doesn't make the first group of bad things any less bad. Islam is an ideology. Muslims are people who agree with the shahada and claim to follow the ideology of Islam. Muslims != Islam in the same way that Drivers != Cars. Do you agree with me or do you think that you are a car? Sure there are moderate muslims and moderate interpretations of Islam. That doesn't mean that true islam as taught by the prophet Mohammed is tolerant. Islam follows a system of abrogation where later verses abrogate earlier verses. This means that the intolerant jihadist verses in Sura 9 (the last major revelation by the Prophet Mohammed) such as "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." 9:29 abrogate any peaceful verses such as "Let there be no compulsion in religion" 2:256 If you understood islam, you would know this. Of course you would rather not. Because I would win that argument. Of course it is inherent of many things. It inherently believes that there is no god but Allah. It inherently believes that Mohammed is the last and final messenger of Allah. It inherently believes that the Quran contains the word of Allah through Mohammed that was preserved orally and written shortly after Mohammed's death by Mohammed's closest companions. Should I go on? Or do you really want to argue that Islam doesn't inherently contain the believe that there is no god but Allah? Zakat isn't charity. And if you want to make these statements you need to back them up. Though I suspect that you would rather just continue to repeat the same unsupported claims over ('all religions are peaceful', 'all religions have multiple interpretations and we cannot know the true nature of a religion', etc.) and over again than realize that your statements are untrue. Does the fact that there are people that believe the earth is flat mean that there is a possibility that the earth is flat? No. Many muslims are simply ignorant of their own religion or are in denial about the true nature of Islam (i.e. they understand that many of the intolerant teachings of Islam are immoral but do not want to abandon Islam because they have a strong emotional connection to it due to family members being muslims, due to not wanting to be alienated by the community, due to fear of the death penalty for apostasy and due to years of brainwashing from birth). Then you also have the issue of Taqiyya where muslims are commanded by their religion to lie about their religion to non-believers if it benefits Islam. There is probably not a single human that is 100% rational. Why is this the only conclusion you can make? Why not it's the moderate muslims that are misinterpreting islam and the extremists are following true islam? Why not the moderate muslims do not understand Islam? Why not the moderate muslims are irrational because of a strong emotional connection to islam? Why not the moderate muslims are performing taqiyya? I do not condemn all muslims as intolerant, I condemn Islam as intolerant. Also, the idea that I never side with the moderate muslims is false (see my thread on the Burka). Lastly, I do not want to commit some sort of reverse-taqiyya and lie to muslims about their own religion in order for them to make it more tolerant. I'm more interested in the truth. Also, if anything I would prefer that all religions die and reason/science prevail than have them reformed. So you advocate reverse-taqiyya?

Could you please define what you mean by 'lowering daytime maximums'? Mass extinction events & natural selection are part of nature. If it weren't for the mass extinction events in history, we would probably not exist here today to have this conversation. Impossible. Ediacaranians would not have sufficient intelligence to agree with me. Heck, pretty much all species other than humans that have existed on this planet (well neanderthals might be an exception) lack the intelligence to agree or disagree with me.

Well there is a difference between face coverings and head coverings. But obviously there are situations were face coverings should be allowed and where they shouldn't be allowed. In winter, face coverings make a lot of sense. If the accommodation is not reasonable then it is unreasonable accommodation not reasonable accommodation.

The thing is, CO2, is an odourless gas that is essential for life on this planet. It is not a pollutant. Furthermore, CO2 levels around 300 ppm started around 22 millions years ago with the creation of panama and this period has seen the lowest CO2 levels in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet. I would argue that without human intervention, CO2 levels would continuously get dangerously low as more carbon is accumulated in fossil fuel reserves, making it harder for planet life to flourish (that's why the C4 cycle has evolved recently). What is hard to believe? The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This makes the atmosphere better able to absorb incoming radiation due to the absorption spectra of CO2, resulting in warmer temperatures as it becomes harder for heat to escape to outer space. There are cyclical effects yes, but there is also a human component.

Lol. You dismiss all positives of climate change as just faith? In that case it should be easy for you to refute the positives I listed in my earlier post. Still waiting for a point by point refutation... I have not seen evidence that suggests that recent increases in CO2 levels are causing mass die-offs of bees and bats. As for salmon, yes warmer temperatures will make it more difficult for Salmon to live in BC, but there will be a boost to the Alaskan Salmon Fishery (which has a lot more coastline per unit of latitude). The BC fishery will just shift to other types of fish that are better suited to the warmer waters. The amount of warming will not be large enough to cause oranges to become dominant in the Okanagan and the Niagara Peninsula. The premises of this question are wrong. We are looking at an amount of warming on the order of ~2 degrees C, most of the warming will occur in polar latitudes (due to a combination of decreased albedo from loss of ice and an slower rate of heat going into space), global dimming (decrease in direct sunlight due to greater CO2 combinations) will have its greatest effect at equatorial latitudes where direct sunlight is greatest, and biodiversity is greatest at the equator. The idea that life cannot flourish at equatorial latitudes if temperatures rise slightly (by like 0.5 C for 2 C warming globally) is ridiculous! The greatest biodiversity currently exists at equatorial latitudes and the planet has been much warmer than currently for most of the past 500 million years. Lol, here we are with your gaia-worshiping religious nonsense. Gaia will punish us for all the evil sins we have committed! The stock market is not a zero sum game. It helps allocate physical capital to the areas of the economy that can put it to the most productive use. Therefore, your statement is flawed.

Do you deny the benefits of climate change? Do you deny that the benefits of climate change outweigh the costs? 0.74 m over a century is still on the order of 0.4 m over a century and is not catastrophic. What do you mean by 'same credibility'? I'm still waiting for a point by point refutation. What has this got to do with climate change? Bangladesh has always been an area prone to flooding. Maybe they should build dikes like the dutch. The burden of proof lies on the one claiming that we are heading towards a Permian-Triassic mass extinction event. But none the less, i can explain why the claim is wrong. In the Permian mass extinction event there was an increase in global temperatures on the order of 10 degrees Celsius. The magnitude of change we are talking about with human caused climate change due to increases in CO02 levels is roughly an increase of 2 degrees since pre-industrial levels. And pre-industrial levels correspond to the end of the mini-ice age, so temperatures were among the lowest of the past 2000 years. And geologically speaking, we are at a period (i.e. since panama was created 22 million years ago) of the lowest CO2 levels and temperatures in the past 500 million years despite gradual increases in solar irradiance, which is why the C4 cycle has been evolved recently by plants. So the small increase of 2 degrees will only warm the planet to a level closer to that that it has been at for most of the past 500 million years of which multicellular life has existed on this planet. But even if I ignore the fact that the planet has been warmer for most of it's history and the fact that the magnitude of warming doesn't even come close, even if we did duplicate the events of the permian-triassic mass extinction event (i.e. 10 degrees of warming, significant acidification of oceans, methane explosions once the oceans can no longer hold their methane, etc.) it still wouldn't be as large of a mass extinction event as the permian-triassic mass extinction event for many reasons. 1. All life that exists on the planet today descends from life that already survived the permian mass extinction event, the cretaceous-paleogene mass extinction event (you know, the one that wiped out the dinosaurs) and numerous other mass extinction events. This means that life is more durable and better able to adapt than life millions of years ago and it is more able to survive mass extinction events that its ancestors survived. 2. Humans. Humans are the greatest result of millions of years of evolution and natural selection and we have evolved the intelligence that allows us to build today's modern society, go to other planets, etc. Humans are more than capable of helping other species survive the changing climate and even alter the climate to more preferable states (ex. we could cool the planet with a giant space mirror). Anyway, I'm still waiting for a point by point refutation for my argument that climate change is beneficial.

Who is the denier now? Do you alarmists still deny the benefits of climate change?

Here, I'll keep reposting this until I get a response from one of the members of the Church of Climate Alarmism. waldo, on 16 Nov 2013 - 5:59 PM, said: 1. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere has a fertilizer effect on plants and makes it easier for plants to perform photosynthesis. This will help increase crop yields globally. For the vast majority of the past 500 million years in which multi-cellular life has existed on our planet in significant amounts, C02 levels have been much higher. For example, in the Cambrian Period, atmospheric C02 levels were approximately 4500 ppm, which is about 16 times pre-industrial levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian In fact, low levels of atmospheric C02 levels around 300 ppm is geologically a relatively recent phenomenon. It pretty much started at the beginning of the Neogene period (23 million years ago) when Panama was formed between North America and South America, greatly affecting global ocean currents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neogene Low C02 levels is one of the reasons why plants have recently evolved the C4 carbon fixation cycle (such as corn). http://en.wikipedia....carbon_fixation 2. Warmer global temperatures will result in longer growing seasons (especially in Canada) and more habitable land (which will exceed lost habitable land from small increases in ocean levels). These longer growing seasons will result in increased crop yields and will also make it easier to extract natural resources from polar regions. For example, during the medieval warm period, grapes were grown in Northern England and agriculture was even possible in Southern Greenland by Vikings. http://en.wikipedia....val_Warm_Period 3. Furthermore, for the vast majority of the past 500 millions years where multi-cellular life has existed in significant amounts on Earth, the Earth's global temperature was much higher than it is now. The greatest amount of biodiversity is found in equatorial regions, not polar regions so a modest increase in global temperatures will increase biodiversity. In fact, the geological time periods were there were large increases in biodiversity generally had high global temperatures (such as the Cambrian explosion or the Cretaceous period where dinosaurs flourished). 4. Humans evolved in western equatorial Africa (kenya / tanzania) and only started migrating to other places around 100,000 years ago. Therefore, humans are suited to warm climates (it is why humans are so hairless, have lots of sweat glands and are well suited for long distance running). The temperatures at which humans are most comfortable in (room temperature, so 21-24 degrees celcius) is much higher than the global average temperature (around 14 degrees celcius). Increasing the earth's average temperature will therefore make the planet better suited for humans. As for other species, I'm a human supremacist so do not care for them as much; other species will have to adapt or be naturally selected to extinction as species have been doing for millions of years. 5. Human civilization really only started to flourish at the end of the last ice age. http://en.wikipedia...._glacial_period It was only after this period that agriculture started to take off and humans started to become civilized. I therefore think that there is a strong link between a warmer climate and the rate of progress of human civilization. 6. In the case of Canada, warmer global temperatures will open up the North West Passage. This will greatly reduce shipping costs between Europe and East Asia and will be a great benefit to the global economy. It will also make it easier to access natural resources in Northern Canada. http://en.wikipedia....rthwest_Passage Finally, there have been many studies that try to evaluate the net effect of climate change, and all studies that I know of have concluded that climate change is of net benefit to Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/ne...rmers-1.1031816 http://www.spectator...rry-on-warming/ Are you satisfied now? socialist, on 16 Nov 2013 - 6:38 PM, said: This is just a lie propagated by climate alarmists and has no basis in science. Even the IPCC admits that there is no link between increased C02 levels / global temperatures and a greater frequency/severity of extreme weather events. The truth is that climate change will result in some weather events becoming more severe/frequent and other weather events becoming less severe/frequent. For example, the frequency & severity of tornadoes in South-Central USA (aka tornado alley) will become less while the frequency & severity of tornadoes in Southern Ontario will become greater. Actually, extreme weather events usually occur as a result of larger temperature or pressure gradients in the atmosphere between different parts of the globe. The temperature differences between the equatorial regions and the polar regions is the primary driver of winds. The truth is, if C02 levels increase and global temperatures increase, the global temperature gradient between equatorial regions and polar regions will decrease (polar regions will warm significantly more than equatorial regions) so if anything, more C02 should decrease the frequency & severity of extreme weather events not increase it. The idea of blaming climate change for specific storms or weather events, such as the typhoon that hit Manila is ridiculous. In fact, if you look at the recent climate change on Jupiter (which is a result of a 70 year climate cycle that is caused by atmospheric mixing), you will find that the recent decrease in the severity of extreme weather events (shrinking of the great red spot, decrease in the number of storms, smaller wind speeds) has occurred at the same time that the global average temperature on Jupiter has risen and the temperature gradient between polar and equatorial regions have decreased.

Projections according to the IPCC. And I never made the claim that rate of ocean increases will not depend on what human activity does. But the increases will still be on the order of 0.4 m over 100 years. And you still haven't responded to my earlier post on the positives of climate change. You alarmists act like we are going to cause something on the order of the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event.

I believe that the law should apply equally to everyone regardless of religion. So if hijabs are allowed then bandannas should be allowed. If daggers are banned, kirpans should be banned, etc. And do I believe that 'reasonable' accommodation of religion should be allowed? Well since it is by definition reasonable and as long as it does not discriminate against people for their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs), yes.

@ Wilber, please respond to my earlier post on the positives of climate change. Also your concerns about rising sea levels are ridiculous when the projected rate of increase of sea levels is 40 cm per century.

I am not on the side of climate alarmists.

When have I claimed that humans haven't affected the climate? But why do you completely ignore my entire post? Please reply to it. I think your climate alarmist religion is crazy.

Well reasonable accommodation is by definition reasonable. But I guess now we are discussing when or if there should be restrictions on dress code, or if we should just allow all clothing if it is religious. Then there is the issue of defining what a religion is (ex. is pastafarianism considered a religion?). Anyway, I might ask a similar question on an islamic forum and post a link to the thread. Will be interesting to read responses from muslims.