Bullshit. You don't believe this, it's just an excuse to enable your prejudice. If you really believed it you'd be up in arms over opposite-sex married couples who don't have children and supporting same-sex couples who have children (adopted or other wise).

Good, because if the models predicted events that did not happen, that would be a bad sign for them. The "polar ice refreezing" that you are refering to didn't happen. Polar ice did rebound from a record low, which it was widely expected to do. In fact, every record low polar ice year is followed by a few years that are higher than the record low before until we reach the next record low. However, the overall trend is still downward.

From my understanding, that is correct. Warming in the arctic is changing the wind flow which is allowing colder Arctic air to be pushed over the North East section of North America.

The National Science Foundations seems to think it will be 1 or 2 million years from now. Are you sure you know the difference between reporters and scientists?

Maybe, the flip out at you because it's not true? Mars isn't warming.

You can look at the social contract as citizenship in the country to which you were born. Of course, that makes it a negative option contract, and you can therefore opt-out by formally renouncing your citizenship. However, by keeping your citizenship (and the rights and responsibilities inherent in that citizenship), you are implicitly choosing to be bound by the social contract. In most countries, you are not bound to the rules of the contract at birth, but rather have a graduated system where at certain ages you become more bound by the rules and more entitled to the privileges of adulthood.

While that story is terrible, I am a bit sceptical. Do have any evidence to show that it actually happened, and is not just an urban legend that you're repeating with no supporting evidence? I found nothing related when I did a quick search for the story. Fundamentally, it seems a bit unlikely that the system would release someone who was convicted of murder in the first degree to "make room", and double unlikely when he seems to be highly unrepentant and has not been in prison long enough for his "mentally retarded" girlfriend to move on.

Of course, the recidivism (ex-convicts committing another crime after release) rate is highly variable between countries, for instance Canada has a recidivism rate of around 13% while the United States has a recidivism rate of around 60%. However, even in the United States the recidivism rate for people charged with murder and released is around 1.2%, the vast majority of released murder convicts never commit another crime (let alone another murder). The criminals most likely to be caught and sent to prison again are burglars, drug dealers, fences and illegal arms dealers. And they would never be subject to the death penalty, anyway. I suspect the very low murder recidivism rate for murderers is because most murderers are released long after their most violent years have passed.

So you might frame the question, should society murder the 98.8% of murderers who will never commit another crime to stop the 1.2% who will?

Well, I can think of a few differences:

1. The first case costs the state (taxpayers) significantly more money because of legal bills.
2. There's more time for the error to be discovered in the second case, which means the wrongfully convicted may not die in a cell.
3. The blood of innocent isn't on society's collected hands because they didn't deliberately murder an innocent man.

Executions are never really "fair, equitable, efficient [or] effective". Legals costs make them expensive and inefficient, in America they are predominantly performed on black prisoners which makes them more racist than fair or equitable, and since they are more expensive and have a lower deterrence value than life in prison they are not terribly effective. Frankly, all it does is satisfy a very primal urge to see a simplistic punishment applied to the person who we believe has done wrong. There's a conservative part in all of us that wants to see death dealt to those who have wronged us, but unfortunately, that's neither practical, reasonable nor moral.

No, it doesn't. The mainstream predictions are actually doing ok. The simple fact is that you do not understand climate science and thus you assume the experts know nothing about it either.

Actually, that was the argument that was settled in the 1970s. Back then some scientists figured we would be heading into a new glacial period which would outway the human contributions to global warming. They were wrong, we aren't going into a new glacial period, instead it looks like human activity will end the Quaternany Period by melting both Ice caps. An event which we think hasn't happened in the last 2.6 million years.

No, actually, it's not. Somewhere around 95% of the world's glaciers are losing mass year-over-year. Ocean acidification is not caused by water being removed from the oceans. We know this because a) sea levels are rising, instead of falling and b) ocean acidification is sufficiently explained by rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Extra CO2 is absorbed into the oceans, which causes the acidification.

Consider the way Anthony Watts was savaged for blatant idiocy by Media Matters in Climate Skeptic Proves Conclusively That He Knows How To Waste Time, Money, his opinion doesn't carry much weight. If you're going to tell us we should listen to someone, at least find somebody with more chops than this "Hey, they used video editing in a video!" moron.

Honestly, reading that made my opinion of Anthony Watts fall to a new low. It's really pathetic when someone claims "Fraud!" because video editing was used to make the thermometer readings actually legible.

Given the recent history of the Conservative Party of Canada and it's various flunkies it's probably safer to draw the opposite conclusion, namely that Harper clearly intends to abuse this to persecute his political enemies. After all, his political flunkies have already declared that environmentalists are essentially the same as terrorists on more than one occasion.

That's a new one, I hadn't read that lie before. This one isn't even believable at first glance. the hockey strick graph was a multi-proxy graph so it can't be based on one tree because if it was, it would be a single proxy graph. Furthermore there are now 14 (or more) different reconstructions that confirm the shape and conclusions of the first hockey stick graph using different methods and different proxies.

When you're going to lie to people, at least try to make it believable, ok?

I'm not attacking your character, because you really do believe in a paranoid fantasy. Also, I'm not trying to associate you with anti-vaxxers, you do that with your words and your behaviour.

The primary problem with what you've written is that none of it is true. If climate change research is based on "bad science" it should be trivial to discredit it, but it's not. Every time someone show some so-called "bad science" in climate change, it turns out they've greatly exaggerated what they've found. The real criticism of the hockey stick graph, for example, put a practically unnoticeable bump in the "handle" part of the graph, yet the statistician who found the error continues to claim he "disproved" the graph because he found that there was a better statistical regression method that should have been used instead that had no real impact on the graph on the conclusion drawn from it.

It's like trying to prove in a court of law that you shouldn't get a speeding ticket because you were going 100 mph over the speed limit, because in reality you were only doing 99.7 mph over the speed limit. Inconsequential.

You seem to have mistaken pity for fear. I think you're delusional. You think that thousands of scientists have been studying a subject for 30 years and yet not one of them have realized the truth that you know without ever having studied it at all. You're a text book case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Contrary to what you believe, even the so-called skeptical scientists admit that global warming is true, that it's happening and that's it's man-made. They mostly disagree on how fast it will progress but personally, I don't think the evidence even supports their positions on that issue. They clutch at faint hopes (clouds or other mysterious negative feedbacks that have yet to be discovered) that things will not be as bad they likely will be. They cling to these hopes for many different reasons, such as money, faith, or publicity, but as the evidence accumulates the fringe theories are slowly being disproved one after another.

Pull your head out of your ass and you could enjoy the air too.

So why with a Republican President (Bush) and a Republican Majority in Congress and the Senate, did government scientists still find that AGW was real?