-1=e^ipi

I find it ironic that one of our local climate alarmists doesn't see any problem with spending lots of fuel traveling around the world and eating fancy food. If the world is doomed if we don't drastically cut emissions, why are you unnecessarily increasing your CO2 footprint?

If an individual's surplus is going to the owner or another worker, the individual's surplus is not going to the individual. Also, it doesn't make sense to look at the production to be entirely due to the workers since physical capital contributes to production.

Congrats on increasing your CO2 emissions through unnecessary travel. You can see all these places on google.

It shouldn't be a question of the magnitude of change a policy will do, but whether the policy maximizes the well-being of society.

As I said earlier. I think that a global pigouvian tax on CO2 emissions makes sense.

It's a bunch of rent seeking activity by a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians with no strong basis. Politicians can extort money from each other and delude themselves that they are saving the planet while jetting around from city to city staying in first class hotels and eating fancy food. Most of the people there are scientifically illiterate, don't understand physics or climate science, and likely don't understand economics either. How about base global climate policy on empirical data rather than what some politicians and bureaucrats subjectively feel on any given day?

So I haven't visited the asexuality.org forums in a while, but I skimmed them a while and was surprised to find that there are a number of threads discussing this topic, questioning the meaning of identifying with a gender, and asking if a lack of gender roles results in agenderness. Here are some examples: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/122036-questions-for-anyone-not-cisgender/ http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/122205-the-one-question-that-nobody-seems-to-ask/

Yeah, you are free to say 'the most qualified person should get the job'. You are free to say it, though you might get fired over it. Freedom of speech is both a state and cultural issue. Even if the state doesn't restrict free speech, if the culture of a society is anti-free speech then the society as a whole will suffer and will not benefit from true free speech.

Guess I'll do this. First, I'll try to predict the change in China's Real GDP per capita over time using a simple Solow Model. In the long run, China's growth rate will eventually approach the US growth rate (which was ~1.87% since 1870, which corresponds to a linear change in ln(rGDP/capita) of 0.0185 per year). https://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/long-run-us-gdp-per-capita-growth-1870-2088-in-logarithms.png If I take China's real PPP GDP per capita from the world bank (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD) and adjust it to real 2009 US $ using the GDP deflator from the St. Louis federal reserve (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPDEF/#) and look at the difference in the change in ln(rGDP/capita) from the long term change for the past 10 years, then I get the following estimate for the functional form of the change in ln(rGDP/capita): 0.018527 + 0.164962*exp(-0.093912*(year-2000)). Using this estimate, I estimate China's real GDP per capita in US 2009 $ until 2050. Next, I have to estimate how CO2 emissions per capita are affected by real GDP per capita and due to technological progress. To do this I look at the CO2 emissions per capita, real GDP per capita and population for the G20 countries minus Argentina (Argentina had missing data). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL I convert the real GDP per capita values using the GDP deflator and then using the data starting in 2004 I perform a population weighted regression of the following equation: ln(CO2 emissions/real GDP) = β0 + β1*ln(rGDP/capita) + β2*(year-2000) + β3*China + error, where China is a dummy variable for if an observation contains china. My estimates for β0, β1, β2, and β3 are -7.086693657, -0.086201078, -0.017396781, 0.767719507 respectively. As expected, the CO2 efficiency of a country increases with both real GDP per capita and time. Using this, I predict China's CO2 emissions per capita until 2050. Lastly, I need to estimate China's future population. I can get estimates from here (http://populationpyramid.net/china/) and simply perform a linear interpolation for missing years. The population pyramid values are slightly inconsistent with the world bank values, so I offset the population pyramid values by 30426000 for consistency. Putting all this together, I get the following estimates of annual CO2 emissions in gigatons of CO2 (so divide by 44/12 for gigatons of carbon) for China: 2020 12.90 2021 13.21 2022 13.50 2023 13.77 2024 14.03 2025 14.27 2026 14.47 2027 14.65 2028 14.82 2029 14.98 2030 15.12 2031 15.24 2032 15.34 2033 15.43 2034 15.51 2035 15.59 2036 15.64 2037 15.68 2038 15.71 2039 15.74 2040 15.76 2041 15.76 2042 15.75 2043 15.74 2044 15.72 2045 15.70 2046 15.66 2047 15.62 2048 15.57 2049 15.52 2050 15.47 Under BAU, China peaks emissions in 2040. However, remember that China's pledge was to peak emissions 'around' 2030 and there are no consequences for China if they don't peak in 2030. There is basically no change in emissions from 2030-2040, under business as usual, China is peaking 'around' 2040. So all China has done is pledge their BAU.

I'm saying that all China did was pledge to do what is expected for China under a BAU scenario. Do you want me to estimate what I think china would emit under a BAU scenario?

Because they would have done all that anyway under a BAU scenario. All they did was pledge to do their BAU.

But that depends on you wanting to keep the subjects alive. The scientific method doesn't tell you that you should want your subjects alive. It's a tool that can help you determine what to do, but by itself it can't tell you want to do.

BAU. And all China has pledged is to do their BAU. With respect to China, there are 4 things you need to understand: 1. China's GDP per capita growth will slow down as it catches up to the rest of the world. 2. China's population growth rate will slow down due to low fertility rates. 3. Economies with higher GDPs per capita have a greater GDP to CO2 emission ratios. (i.e. economies become less CO2 emission intensive as they develop). 4. Technology change over the coming decades will allow economies to be more CO2 emission efficient.

If my memory serves me correctly, the whole '97% consensus' thing is based upon a Cook et al 2013 study where the question asked some something along the lines of 'are you at least 95% certain that more than 50% of warming observed since 1950 is anthropogenic'. I won't even get into details over how not all of the people surveyed where climate scientists, and most did not have the scientific background to evaluate the question, because according to that criteria, I am also in the 97%. What the alarmists do is spin this 97% 'consensus' for 1 aspect of climate change to mean that there is a 97% consensus by climate scientists that climate alarmism is correct. There are many questions regarding climate change and individual climate scientists may take different positions in each of them. Not only that, but the scientific method can't tell you what to do. So any climate alarmist that says 'the science tells us that we have to greatly reduce CO2 emissions or we are all doomed' doesn't understand the scientific method.

Please define what you mean by implausibly low atmospheric sensitivity to carbon. What values of equilibrium climate sensitivity does this correspond to? So disagree with climate change alarmism and you are probably funded by the oil industry, is that what you are suggesting? All you do here is restate your claim and go on to state that bad theories exist. Nothing here contradicts what I wrote. I said he thinks he represents god on Earth. Why are you misrepresenting me? What are these 'libertarian beliefs on economics and climate change' that you claim I have? Please state some of them and explain how they are libertarian. Or he believes in a bunch of fairy tales, which he interprets to mean that birth control is immoral.

Yep. Truth is my experience is very different than what WCR expects, probably outside what she considers within the realm of possibility.

BAU = Linear-trend now? Well I guess this is to be expected from the math capabilities of alarmists. The linear-trend is not China's BAU. China's BAU is their pledge.

Stormfronters and conservatives share many beliefs. Yes. Your average stormfronter probably believes the Earth orbits the Sun. Does that mean we are akin to stormfronters if we believe the Earth orbits the Sun? No. Anyway, I'm not a conservative despite how much many people in this thread wish I were. And I don't consider SJW to be like stormfronters. They are quite different. Okay, you really miss the point of the comparison in the other thread. I wasn't saying SJW and stormfronters share a common set of beliefs therefore they are very comparable. I was demonstrating that the level of bigotry of SJWs and stormfronters is comparable in many cases. If you take a SJW or stormfronter sentence and leave a few words blank (such as a race or sex) then in many cases it becomes indistinguishable from a sentence from the other group. For example: "We should round up all *insert group of people here* and cull half their population in order to make the world safer for *insert other group of people here*" Many of the stormfronter comments in the first post are relatively benign and most of them deal with being critical of SJWs or progressivism. That is quite different.

Well according the academic feminism, gender is just a social construct and any observed differences between males and females is due to social conditioning. Perhaps this behaviour is due to social conditioning. Seriously though, it does sound like social gender conditioning has a lot to do with this. Is the proportion of people that 'manspread' close at all to people that do the behaviour you listed above? I doubt it.

So you are saying that to be 'Canadian' is to be 'white on the inside'? Apparently, if one disagrees with WestCoastRunner, it means one never 'hangs out with Canadian born Asians'.

What does that matter? The value of the arguments I make is independent of my 'credibility'. Who knows. WestCoastRunner refuses to answer the question.

Wtf is 'white on the inside'? Look grandma, Canada isn't a homogeneous place, and not everything was how it was in ancient times.

I just realized something. If Theon Greyjoy is with Sansa, and Sansa eventually meets up with Petyr Baelish, then Petyr may gain control of Theon. If Petyr helps Theon get revenge on the Boltons, then Theon may become loyal to Petyr, opening up the possibility of Petyr gaining indirect control of the Iron Islands. So Petyr is in a good spot to gain control of the North, the Vale, the Riverlands and the Iron Islands.

You avoided answering the question. So because you are never asked where you are from, all white people are never asked where they are from? Is that what you are trying to suggest?

Probably because of the idiotic supply management system that the Canadian government refuses to give up.