-1=e^ipi

Apparently WestCoastRunner has super powers and knows how all white people are treated everywhere. 1. You are equating a group of people with bananas. You are devaluing a group of people and therefore committing a microaggression. 2. Wtf is 'white on the inside'? We are all humans on the inside.

Economics can be a science if you follow the scientific method. People make incorrect models of reality all the time in science. For example, Newtonian physics doesn't take into account the fact that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. Crazy religious man who think he represents god on Earth is a scientist? That's a laugh. If he cares so much about addressing climate issues, why is he against condoms and birth control? If the catholic church said 'condoms and birth control are okay' then it would help reduce future global population.

Someone provided the following link on a climate blog: http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/ "But if we don’t insist on running these processes on an expensive ocean-going platform, the cost drops to $0.79 per litre for synfuel and $37 /tCO­2." So it might be possible to capture excess CO2 at $37/ton of CO2. This could get even lower if one takes advantage of economies of scale.

Are you trying to argue the following?: person X of set of people Y believes Z. person A of set of people B believes Z. Therefore, person X is in set of people B. Because that doesn't make sense.

You don't think racist cops will use the SJW inspired anti-manspreading laws to target visible minority men?

Have you tried the test of SJW or Stormfronter? I provided a link to it in this post: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24441-bbc-world-service-gets-trolled-by-fake-sjw/?p=1048815

Is it so hard to take what I write literally, rather than try to insert what you wish I wrote? I already provided links to articles about people being arrested for manspreading. It's not my fault you are too lazy to read them. http://rt.com/usa/263473-nyc-subway-manspreading-arrests/ "Two Latino men were allegedly arrested for manspreading, sitting with knees wide open, thus occupying two seats on May 22 at 12:11am"

The benefits of trade.

I never made a claim as to whether or not being fat is or isn't a choice in that post. I just claimed that SJWs hold two positions (one on fatshaming, and one on manspreading). I did not an argument, I stated facts. You need to improve your reading comprehension.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. You can put your hand into a wood chipper, but I wouldn't advise it.

At midnight even.

I think it's more that they have to make up new problems in order to justify their existence.

But posting photos of people fatspreading would be a form 'fat-shaming', something that SJWs are dead set against. Now posting photos to shame people that are 'manspreading' is totally acceptable and even encouraged by SJWs.

The catholic church benefits from more poverty and more poor people. Poorer societies are generally more religious.

There is a difference between having an ability to infer someone's emotional state based on their body language, and deluding yourself into thinking you have the ability to read the minds of an entire group of people (including those you haven't met) to the point where you convince yourself that you know some hidden motive for the behaviour of 'manspreading'

Why should I concern myself with the delusions of a madman?

Climate sensitivity relates how much warming you get for a given change in atmospheric CO2. The Tol paper and other related papers look at the economic impact for different levels of warming; the result is independent of climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity could be 1 C or 10 C, it wouldn't affect the results of the Tol paper. With the false implication that somehow because tropical developed countries are more adversely affected by specific weather events, they will somehow be the most adversely affected by climate change.

People making corrections to papers doesn't mean their work is discredited. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with respect to climate sensitivity. The meta study looks at the impact of climate change vs magnitude of increase in the global average temperature, it doesn't try to make any claims about climate sensitivity. Magnitude of temperature change is probably the most straightforward measure of climate change. But by other measures, the polar regions will be more strongly affected. Be it changes in precipitation, changes in how the jetstreams are affected, changes in vegetation, etc. The nonsense 'risk index' you provided doesn't even look at changes in floods, storms or heat waves due to climate change. It just looks at the impact by which these events impact various countries (and not surprisingly, tropical developing countries are more affected). And I made no claim that there are no ties between extreme weather and climate change.

He's sitting at an angle with his torso in the corner of the seat, he isn't inconveniencing those around him. The guy beside him is likely 'manspreading' as well. If both of these cases there aren't enough people around them for them to be inconveniencing anyone because there is excess seat space. Not to mention their knees are basically shoulder length apart.

I know the following concept is difficult for you to grasp but please try. It's not simply climate change is either positive or negative; it depends on how much climate change. A small amount of climate change (say 1 degree of warming) is likely beneficial, where as warming beyond that will generally have negative impacts. Yes, I take what you say literally. That's what you are supposed to do in science. You mean someone who doesn't mind distorting facts to suit their agenda? Saying 'tropical regions, while being affected far less by climate change than polar regions, will be the most negatively impacted by climate change' doesn't have the same emotional impact to the public as saying 'developed countries will be the most affected by climate change'. All this risk index is, is a measure of what extent countries have been impacted by storms, floods and heat waves. It looks at which countries are most affected by tropical weather events and finds that tropical countries are most affected by tropical weather events, well duh. It says nothing about which countries will be negatively or positively impacted by climate change.

That would help. So according to you, is this manspreading?: How about the pictures I gave in the first post?

After reading some recent articles on the issue of choice of discount rate for calculations of the social cost of carbon (example: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/ombs-whitewash-on-the-social-cost-of-carbon/)I've been thinking more about the discount rate issue. Obviously it is inconsistent to use 3% discount rates for the social cost of carbon and 7% for everything else (the Office of Management and Budget in the USA recommends 7%, the Canadian Treasury Board appears to suggest 8% http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rtrap-parfa/analys/analys-eng.pdf). Though I want to highlight two issues that aren't discussed very often: The real interest rate appears to be dropping over time: If one looks at empirical estimates of the real interest rate for various countries, there appears to be a global long term trend towards lower real interest rates (https://www.imf.org/external/Pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/pdf/c3.pdf). This means that the discount rate that made sense in the past may be too high to use for the future. This is especially concerning if you look at the justification for the 7% rate at the OMB website (https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094). "Constant-dollar benefit-cost analyses... should report net present value and other outcomes determined using a real discount rate of 7 percent. This rate approximates the marginal pretax rate of return on an average investment in the private sector in recent years." What are 'recent years'? Well given that this is from 1992, this recommendation of 7% is 23 years out of date. So likely a lower discount rate makes more sense. The real interest rate depends on the savings rate: If you have a higher savings rate, your real interest rate will become lower. Under the Solow model, the real interest rate should be roughly proportional to the inverse of the savings rate. The world savings rate is roughly 24% (https://www.imf.org/external/Pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/pdf/c3.pdf). However, under the 'golden rule', consumption is maximized when the savings rate is equal to physical capital's share of income (which is 1/3). So if the world had an optimal savings rate then the real interest rate would be ~72% of it's current level. Both of these issues suggest that the current interest rate used for cost benefit analyses in Canada, the USA and elsewhere are likely too high.

Then why not call it jerkspreading?

How do you know this is the intention of these males? Do you also possess the SJW ability to read minds as well?

Yes, this sort of goes into the point I was trying to argue with my feminism isn't gender neutral enough thread. Mainstream feminism doesn't have the goal gender neutrality or equality. Rather it wants to associate male with undesirable and female with desirable (which is arguably a traditionalist concept).