I think the normal cycle is actually more like 25 hours (what you get if you live in a cave and don't know what time it is outside), but certain impulses throughout the day push it into the 24 hour frame. Things like light, eating, exercise, habit for example.
Research in that area is unfortunately very politically loaded. I don't think simply claiming "there is a lot of research" in such a politically disputed subject is sufficient.
As for b), if a Chinese investor buys some house from a Canadian, why is the money parked?
Trickle down or not, it seems in general if you can sell something (in this case houses to Chinese people), it is good.
If you build houses to sell to Chinese people, you also employ people from the building industry, for example. I'm not convinced that "trickle down theory" is the correct theory to apply there.
Special issues presumably arises with land and housing as a good - you shouldn't simply sell all your land to some foreign powers, presumably. Still, in general it holds.
If you worry about land area, you could build a huge skyscraper in a corner of the town that doesn't disturb too many people, and sell the flats to Chinese investors. Very little land use, huge margins.
Why would it displace people, if you build cheap houses to sell to Chinese Investors?
That an influx of money doesn't benefit the economy would also be interesting for most Western governments. "Stimulus" by monetary means seems to be a very popular approach currently. (I don't know, but it seems debatable).
I also don't think prices are going up only because of Chinese investor. I also live in a city with the problem of steeply rising prices (Berlin, Germany), but the fact is simply, it is a very popular city with many people wanting to live here.
I'm not convinced. If Chinese investors buy properties unseen, you could build lots of cheap apartments and sell them for lots of money. Sure it would be wasteful for a while, but in the end a lot of money would have flown to Canada, and presumably at some point the madness would stop.
I'm guessing regulation is the real problem, as it is so often.
Even if foreign investors let houses sit empty, the rising prices should be an incentive to build more houses, leading to more supply of housing eventually.
Speculation is after all a bet on future demand, and useful for anticipating future demand.
I'm not sure the former owners of the houses would agree. They made good money from the houses they sold to Chinese people. Is that necessarily a bad thing?
I have not been to Vancouver, but it sounds very attractive: next to the sea and the mountains, good health care, working democracy and civilization and so on.
It does not sound implausible that housing prices are soaring.
Also perhaps a lot of government regulation that make it difficult to build more housing.
And there are other sources of money besides "money laundering" - why assume of all sources, "money laundering" is the driving force?
Like lets say newly rich Chinese people appreciate the investment in Vancouver. Is that then "money laundering"? Do they just equate "foreign investors" with "money laundering"?
I'm sorry, but does that article offer ANY evidence at all for the impact of money laundering, except for the "just so" story in the middle? ("money launderers beat up prices, and the rest of the market just runs with it" - as if people were able or willing to pay arbitrary prices).
I haven't really seen Quantum Mechanics applied to climate science, though. Maybe it exists, but it doesn't seem to feature high in the public discourse. So I guess it is all bunk, because it is not Quantum Mechanics?
So you are taking the contents of the article at face value, but somehow I am the silly person doing mental gymnastics?
Common sense is essentially how people think. Scientists are also people. If claims don't add up or data is missing to support a claim, common sense can be used to spot it.
You are thinking in Quantum Mechanics? Or scientists do, as opposed to normal people? Because scientists are somehow "superhuman"?
"how much evidence there is in the "there is no climate change" side?"
Why are you bringing up "there is no climate change"? Nobody made such a claim. But even if there is climate change, not every article has to be taken at face value, and not every theory on how it comes about has to be automatically considered true.
I guess you could describe all science as "mental gymnastics". And all we humans have is common sense.
"The simple truth is you've already made up your mind about climate change in general, and now you're just looking for tiny crumbs of evidence that researchers are slipping up somewhere, and criticizing anything that doesn't fit your notion of how this should play out. "
That exact line could be handed back to yourself, except that you are sucking up all evidence that confirms your point of view.
First of all I criticize the alarmist headline. As for the article, I know see data goes only back 41 years. Is that even a meaningful geological timeframe?
Also there often seems to be the assumption that every year should be like average. In fact, average implies that some years should be below and some above.
Not saying there is nothing going on, but I don't automatically believe we are all going to die just from that article. (We as in mankind, every individual will of course die, unless there is a major scientific breakthrough).
Even if imperceptible slow (to our human senses), there would eventually a point of "ice free in October". A simple report about that event doesn't tell me anything about the rate.
But doesn't arctic ice all be floating in sea water mean it has no effect on sea levels? Why "there is no going back"? Since it has been ice free in the past and then ice came back, why shouldn't it happen again?