FTFY

It's easy to think you don't care if you're relatively well off. If you're a subsistence farmer living less than a meter above sea level in Bangladesh, it's a different situation.

...But then, it's also a different situation for you when millions of climate refugees start trying to find somewhere else to go. Even less likely you'll be able to maintain not caring when there's a life-or-death fight over water resources involving nuclear powers.

Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer. Certainly not as thoroughly peer reviewed as the IPCC reports, but still worth a read.

It's mostly true that reactions dependent on kinetics speed up with temperature. Ozone holes, though, are a very very different process. The ozone hole results from surface reactions on polar stratospheric clouds. The colder it gets, the easier it is for those clouds to form, and the more severe the rate of ozone depletion.

Do some homework before calling "bullshit".

(I am an atmospheric chemist, I am not your atmospheric chemist, etc...)

I think that what a galactic princess sticks into her droid in private is none of your business.

> The Pirate Bay Founders Go Legit

Bwahahahahahaha

For those who don't know, we just had a federal election up here in May. The conservatives, led by a radical right winger, took absolute power (a majority of seats in the house of commons) with only 39% of the vote. 61% of Canadians voted for more centrist or progressive parties that - for the most part - have a fair amount in common, but because the vote was split between the other parties, the conservatives cleaned up.

The system is utterly broken, but the decline in voting rates over recent decades (mostly in younger voters who recognise how appallingly unjust the system is and are disenfranchised by it) won't improve much with online voting techno-fixes. If you want people to engage in their democracy, we need a proportional representation (or at a minimum a ranked-ballot) voting system that makes people feel like their vote won't be wasted because depending on which party you vote for, or chance of where you live.

Ah yes, the "trickle down effect". Consider your understanding of economics downgraded to AA+

Simple: The author of the article is a well-funded climate denier working for the Heartland Institute. Same folks who tried to convince people that there was no link between second hand smoke exposure and cancer.

Yes, but that changes nothing.

Previously, temperature shifted due to ice ages, and CO2 amplified that shift (CO2 being responsible for the significant proportion of the actual temperature increase). This time, we've kicked things off instead.

It's not hard to understand. Recommended reading: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/