-1=e^ipi

To be fair to Moore, he was probably referring to over the past 500 million years. Over which, there is only weak correlation, not strong correlation.

Here is an explanation by Zeke:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full Great new paper by Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan and others on bias in sea surface temperature data set trends due to changing method of measurement. The bias due to changing from buckets to engine room intake, particularly during WW2, was corrected for. Good to see that the change from engine room intake from bouys has now been properly corrected for as well. Edit: or more accurately, it was already corrected for by NOAA, the paper just tests to see if the adjustments done by NOAA are justified. In addition to recently correcting for other biases, such as coverage bias, bias due to not properly accounting for seasonal change from sea ice to ocean, and bias due to using sea surface temperature to represent the temperature of air slightly above the surface, it looks like the 'pause' is now more dead than ever.

It was only tough because Trudeau was such a weak candidate. Harper was and still is immensely unpopular for good reason. If the LPC picked a better candidate, such as Martha Hall Findlay, the LPC would have been ahead in the polls well before the election even began.

You must be a pretty high CO2 emitting person then. The amount of vacations Trudeau does is excessive, and if he cared about CO2 emissions, he wouldn't always travel by plane to some far away place.

Think of all the CO2 emissions caused by these unnecessary frequent vacations that take place all around the world.

Wow, all these upset monarchists in the thread. You would think that given their strong opposition to equality under the law they would be able to formulate a decent argument beyond 'I don't feel like it' or 'there are more concerning things'. Not a good argument. Saying X will solve some problems but not all problems therefore we should not implement X is a terrible argument. By this logic, a global pigouvian tax on CO2 emissions would solve the climate change issue, but it wouldn't solve the issue of Islamic terrorism, therefore we would not have a global pigouvian tax. Does that make sense?

Good thing I made no such claim. I was referring to how it creates a psychological president for society at large, I was not referring to legal effects. But now that you bring it up, the queen signed our charter. If we want to get constitutional or charter change, the monarch could try to veto it.

What I wrote is correct. The head of state of Canada under our current system is; necessarily the British Monarch, and the British Monarch is necessarily the head of the Anglican Church.

The monarchy is a relic of the past and should be abolished. It violates egalitarianism because it suggests that some people in society should get their position based upon birthright and it violates secularism because the head of state of Canada is necessarily the head of the Anglican Church. Most people think the monarchy only has a benign influence on society but I disagree. By creating a precedent of birth right it helps justify other birth right anti-egalitarian aspects of Canadian society, specifically with respect to the existence of the 'Indian' act and how Canada gives special status to some individuals in society on the basis of birth right. Also, since the monarchy is a relic of the past, the monarchy indirectly helps the SJWs attain power because SJW claims about society being a white supremacist hetero-patriarchy or whatever are partially supported by the existence of the monarchy. Sweden is a country that is much further down the rabbit hole of SJW insanity and they also happen to be a monarchy.

Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. US intelligence is 100% reliable.

Turkey has massive internet censorship. So there is a good chance that a google search, or the use of any other search engine, will not provide accurate information to Altai.

Okay, it's probably really unfair for me to lump Indonesia in with Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Pakistan, but they have been moving towards mass internet censorship in recent years, which is concerning.

Saudi Arabia is the 4th largest military spender in the worth, plus they have all their Gulf State Allies and all their terrorist connections. They are arguably the 4th most powerful nation on Earth. Also, the fascist Erdogan is somewhat friendly with Wahabbist beliefs, and Turkey has the 2nd largest army in NATO. Pakistan is also friendly to Wahabbist beliefs and they have nuclear weapons. Now factor in Germany, where Merkel is extremely friendly with Erdogan, imprisons comedians that make fun of Erdogan if Turkey requests it, is hostile to freedom of speech and now imprisons people that make the wrong facebook comment, and currently has had a large influx of migrants, many of which share Wahabbist beliefs, and has very interesting demographic trends. Germany is currently the ally of the USA and Canada, but that could change in 20 years. Then you also have Indonesia, which has a very conservative religious Sunni government that bans everything they disagree with, which is currently the 4th most populous country on Earth. I think it would be naive to underestimate a Saudi-Turkey-Pakistan-Indonesian alliance, especially if some of our traditional European allies become neutral. Canada and USA need to seek alliances with Russia, Latin American countries, Philippines, Taiwan, maybe India if we don't want the geopolitical situation to get out of hand.

No, Mitt Romney and you are still wrong. The #1 enemy of the USA is not China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, nor ISIS. It is Saudi Arabia. The sooner the west wakes up and works with the Russians for mutual benefit, the better.

I'll throw an unusual option in this thread: The Republic of Korea would probably make a good colonizer.

The idea that you can explain trolling with just a single reason seems ridiculous to me. There are multiple reasons and causes.

I'm getting the impression that you have a complete inability to distinguish between a person denying anthropogenic climate change and someone taking the mainstream scientific position that runaway global warming for Earth is unphysical given estimates of the strengths of various feedbacks.

If you want links to attempts to quantify the magnitude of the CO2-temperature feedback, links to the magnitude of the CH4-temperature feedback, links to estimates of climate sensitivity, links to expected evolution of solar irradiance over the next few billion years, links to the physics behind stellar evolution, links to how to go through the calculations to determine if warming is runaway or not, etc. then I can provide them for you. Just please be specific to what information you seek or want clarity on.

I don't believe in such a tipping point for the same reason I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because there is no good evidence for the existence of such a tipping point. The magnitude of various feedbacks have been well estimated be it from paleo climate data, climate models or instrumental observations. And the mainstream scientific position is that they are not sufficient to cause a tipping point. The various feedbacks amplify warming, but are not sufficiently strong to cause runaway warming. Maybe in 2 billion years when the sun's irradiance is higher it would. That would indeed be foolish. Fortunately, that is not the position I have.

I suspect by 'irreversible' you are referring to claims of 'perpetual global warming', 'run away global warming' or some 'tipping point' the exists just above 2C of warming. Estimates for the CO2 - temperature feedback are generally around 20 ppm / C or less. Current atmospheric CO2 is around 400 ppm. The upper end of the estimates of climate sensitivity by the IPCC is around 4.5 C per doubling of CO2. That's not even close to being sufficient to cause 'perpetual' or 'runaway' global warming. But your belief is understandable given the large amount of misinformation out there regarding the issue of climate change. Many people, including Green party leader Elisabeth May, falsely believe that such temperature-CO2 or temperature-methane feedbacks are large enough to make runaway global warming realistic. They haven't gone through the calculations or looked through the data and the misinformation that they have and use to justify policy is concerning.

In addition to that, what is your understanding of 'irreversible'? Do you not think that ice can refreeze? Or is this some sort of second law of thermodynamics argument?

A good chance? How does one estimate probability without a model?