-1=e^ipi

40 year trend, still doesn't demonstrate that much. You generally need more than a single trend in science. You generally want a model that explains observations, has a good theoretical basis, and can be used to predict the future.

To be fair, global temperatures will likely decrease next year due to La Nina.

I still don't get how your comments fit into the context of this thread. A 10 year trend in sea ice is hardly conclusive of much, let alone being a silver bullet to defeat all climate change denier arguments. There is also merit in the idea that there will be reduced solar output over the coming decades and that maunder minimum like conditions would lead to a second little ice age if not for increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean? I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to state. What do you mean by 'this little ice age business was all hocus pocus'? Do you mean that you don't think the little ice age did not occur, are you arguing that the claims by Argus are incorrect, or are you trying to say that trends in arctic ice over a decade imply that trends will not reverse in the future?

The title of this thread is misleading. The little ice age was caused by changes in solar output, and is not an actual ice age. Ice ages last much longer and are caused by milankovitch cycles, not by chances in solar irradiance.

Truck of peace.

There might be some otherkin escaping war. They certainly don't identify as human. Your comments are otherkinphobic and deeply triggering.

I never claimed they were.

USA does the same. I guess we should be enemies with the USA as well.

The reality where Russia wants good relations as demonstrated by their recent offer to help with wildfires in Alberta. With respect to claims of the Spratley and Parcel Islands, the Republic of China followed by the People's republic of China have the most legitimate claims to them. If you are referring to the Senkaku Islands, then Japan has the most legitimate claim. But in any case. It's important for Canada not to make absurd territorial claims because then it normalizes the absurd territorial claims of other countries. And those absurd territorial claims, specifically the ones by China, can lead to a world war. You have police for that.

Who's going to invade Canada? Really? The polar bears? Oh no, the horror! There's basically zero overlap between arctic claims by both Canada and Russia if both follow UN law of the sea. Really most of Canada's conflict in territorial claims is with Denmark and that's primarily due to political intervention by Harper to claim the North Pole. The North Pole is rightfully the legitimate territory of the people of Greenland and the kingdom of Denmark and Canada's claim of it is absurd given that it's on the other side of Lomonosov Ridge. If the USA invades? Well they can do that anyway unless we want to spend like 60%+ of our GDP on military, and if they invade and annex Canada, we get a monetary union and a first amendment, so we benefit. Canada is one of the few countries that could get away with abolishing the military. The purpose of Canada's military is basically charity to other countries. Don't get me wrong, charity can be justified and helping South Korea or Taiwan, or fighting ISIS are good causes. I'm just being realistic. No, I'm dead serious.

I say, leave NATO. And cut military spending by half or more. Waste of money. With respect to the original topic, this unnecessary hostility with Russia is stupid. The cold war ended decades ago. Yet most of our politicians in power are dinosaurs that can't get over it. Russia is not communist. Russia shares a lot of the same objectives as us (peace, prosperity, dealing with Islamism, etc.) and the Russian people as well as the Russian government have indicated on many occasions that they want to become friends. Rather than make enemies with Russia, we should befriend them. Work together on dealing with ISIS, work together on Arctic issues, pursue a free trade agreement with Russia, etc. Far more cost effective and productive than unnecessary hostility with Russia. Look at the insanity that this unnecessary hostility with Russia has brought. Harper / Obama / Cameron / Hollande wanted to wage a proxy war against Russia in Syria so they decided to arm the 'moderate rebels' like Al Nusra. And look at the result in Syria. As for Crimea, the Crimean people had a referendum and decided to join Russia. Canada, along with other nations, should recognize and respect the right to self determination of the Crimean people.

That's bullshit. Canada could reduce global warming by a few thousandths of a degree Celcius by reducing CO2 emissions.

Tell that to the people burned at the stake for being witches.

Pakistan approach seems pretty appealing... Remove all people from money.

No, I started with the claim of with respect to the leadership race. You are the one that keeps purposely ignoring that relevant detail. Maybe because policies should matter with respect to governing the country and thus policies should be discussed and debated when choosing a leader for a major federal party. Choosing people who don't care about policies is not only dangerous and stupid, but it throws out meritocracy.

No, I'm claiming that they are not, since people are lying, which explains the discrepancy between polls and observations (Brexit, Trump). But if one wants to test if they are, one can assume the null hypothesis (that they are representative), use that assumption to justify the standard models used in polls, use that to combine multiple polls, then see if observations are within the confidence interval of the combined poll results. If they are not, then that would suggest that the null hypothesis is not true.

No, we are talking representative samples, not non-representative samples.

If the size of the sample is small relative to size of the population, each observation is effectively independent. That is the assumption that goes into the mathematical model to create those confidence intervals in the first place. Take it up with a statistics book if you have an issue with it.

It's not a meaningless distinction. Imagine if Donald Trump just said 'Vote for me I'm Donald Trump and have awesome hair' and had zero policies during the republican leadership race. People would have laughed at him and rightly criticized his lack of policies. The fact is, only 3 people were in a position to be prime minister last year in a country of 36 million. And one of them got the leadership of the natural governing party of Canada, not by having good policies, or through debate, but through having a famous last name. And since his Prime Mister position required that he gained the leadership position in the first place, basically the highest political position in this country was obtained not through good policies, but through birth right. Overall, Canada has a big issue with birth right compared to meritocracy. We have a birth right Queen, birth right special status for people who's ancestors were in North America 11000 years ago, birth right hiring practices that give preference to people based on what sex or race they were born as, and now a birth right prime minister. Wonderful. I'd prefer to live in a society where people gain their position through merit and hard work.

They are all random samples, so of course you can combine them.

Happy Holidays!

The numbers are online. You can look it up if you don't believe me. You probably don't have much background in statistics. A poll will have a margin of error that depends on the number of people surveyed. If you increase the number of people, you reduce the margin of error. Increasing the number of people by a factor of n reduces the margin of error by a factor of approximately sqrt(n). So if you have multiple polls consistently underestimating trump you can combine them and reduce the margin of error.

It isn't nonsensical. Still waiting for you to come up with some policies. There were a lot of candidates that actually had policies in the liberal leadership race. But they went with the substitute drama teacher with no policies due to his last name. We could have abolished supply management, or had an online bill of rights if a decent candidate was actually chosen.