-1=e^ipi

Perhaps it makes more sense for the children to live with the parent that will give them the best care, regardless of if they were the 'primary caregiver' or not. Apparently working to provide income to support your children is not caring, at least it isn't in cybercoma's world. Maximizing stability is not necessarily the same thing as maximizing well-being, and the child would have a stable environment if they lived primarily with either parent (regardless of if the parent was the 'primary caregiver' earlier in the child's life).

I have many criticisms of the paper, but this isn't really one of them. The general features in terms of the distribution of warming are still present, and we know the mean temperature change. The range of climate sensitivity hasn't really changed much over the past 20 years (1.5 - 4.5 C), although significant progress has been made recently so expect AR6 to constrain the range. I see no reason to expect that the results are biased due to using outdated models. The paper does a Richardson approach, which has 2 main advantages: it is relatively simple, so is easier for people to understand and it looks at the overall change in output so doesn't have any bias due to overly focusing on either the costs or benefits and takes into account substitution effects. Sure, I can start one. Also, you might want to read this first: http://gecon.yale.edu/sites/default/files/gecon_data_20051206.pdf It discusses the methodology in obtaining some of the data used in the 2008 paper. Could you please support this claim with a source?

Or you have to make decisions to satisfy your wife even if it is to the detriment of your children.

Incorrect. http://motherboard.vice.com/en_au/read/peer-reviewing-climate-denial All you have to do is say yes, but you refuse to. Why are you such an evolution denier?

Tons of nonsense papers get published (example: Christopher Monckton papers). Waldo, do you accept the nonsense results of Christopher Monckton just because they get published in scientific journals? It's a new result, so it probably isn't published by anyone else yet. That isn't a yes...

It's boneheaded to reference a recent scientific result that I think is interesting and relevant to the discussion? Tell me waldo, do you accept the scientific consensus that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?

Given that developing countries are going to economically catch up to developed countries, it would probably make more sense to look at the population weighted loss in income (which is 1.44% in the paper I mentioned in my last post). This would also be consistent with using a logarithmic social welfare function (I explained some of the justification for this here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24624-so-what-would-an-ndp-government-do/?p=1065976). Now climate impacts on economic well-being are a roughly quadratic function of temperature change. Unfortunately, the Yale study only looks at economic impacts for 3 C change relative to today (I would need at least 1 more data point to estimate the quadratic impact function). Tol 2002 (http://aida.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/Tol_impacts_JEP_2009.pdf) does estimate this impact function by looking at various estimates in the literature. He gets 2.46*T - 1.11*T^2 as his best estimate (where T is temperature change relative to today in celcius and this gives the % change in GDP). This suggests that the first 1.1 C of warming relative to current temperatures has a positive economic impact, after which the impact becomes negative. If I rescale this impact function to agree with the 1.44% result of the yale paper, I get 1.357*T - 0.612*T^2. Another thing I found was the SSP database (https://secure.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/ene/SspDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=about). It gives the economic cost of various RCP scenarios. If I look at the SSP2 results (which has the most reasonable projection of future population) then it is clear that greater mitigation has a larger cost. In particular, by 2100 one has: RCP GDP per capita (2005 US $) Temperature Change relative to 2005 in Celcius 2.6 57693 0.812 3.4 58645 1.263 4.5 59094 1.694 6.0 59469 2.249 8.0 59721 3.014 This suggests that the mitigation cost is roughly 0.806*(T-3.014)^2 percent of GDP, where T is the temperature change relative to 2005 and this result was obtained using a simple least squares regression of the data above. So if one wants to estimate economic well-being, one wants to look at benefits minus costs. As a simplistic approximation, let's compare the rough costs of mitigation implied by the SSP Database with the rough benefits implied by the Yale paper. One wants to find T that maximizes net benefit: 1.357*T - 0.612*T^2 - 0.806*(T-3.014)^2 => 0 = 1.357 - 1.224*T - 1.612*T 1.612*3.014 => T = 2.1927 One thing that I want to mention is that the results of the SSP database are based on ECS being roughly 3.2 C (this is the CMIP5 median). However, recent evidence is that ECS is roughly 2C. If warming is roughly 2/3 what is suggested by the RCP database then mitigation cost is roughly 0.537*(T-2.009)^2 percent of GDP, which suggests that optimal T is 1.5308. Both results are roughly what occurs under RCP 6.0 (gives T = 2.249 under ECS of 3, or T = 1.499 if climate sensitivity is roughly 2/3 what is assumed in the SSP Database). So this suggests that it makes sense to follow an emission pathway of roughly RCP 6.0. So some mitigation makes sense, but not an absurdly high amount. According to the SSP Database, the average level of carbon dioxide emission tax from 2020-2100 to achieve RCP 6.0 is $22.39 (US 2005 dollars) per ton of emission. By comparison, the Social Cost of Carbon according to the white house in 2015 is $37. If I use the gdp deflator implied by the central bank of St. Louis (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPDEF/), then $37 in 2015 dollars is worth $30.96 in 2005 dollars.

Waldo, the value of scientific results depends on the methodology used, data used, etc. You seem to be stuck in this idea that scientific method = appeal to authority fallacy, when that isn't the case.

Really? You have a problem with results if they come from PhD's? How dare PhD students try to explain discrepancies between observations and model predictions! The horror! *sarcasm*

Michael Hardner was wondering about the economic impacts of climate change. While looking at gridded economic data I stumbled upon this: http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/gridded_data_ia.pdf It suggests that with 3 degrees of warming relative to today, the decline in global economic output is ~0.34% of GDP (95% confidence interval under the model is 0.28% to 0.40%; of course the model is relatively crude so there is probably lots of specification error as well).

This is more to do with central Antarctica as opposed to the sea ice, but: http://elib.suub.uni-bremen.de/edocs/00104190-1.pdf "CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since pre-industrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, it is shown that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative. Moreover, for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the earth-atmosphere system. These unique findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the well known general warming effect of increasing CO2. The work contributes to explain the non-warming of central Antarctica since 1957."

This test is outdated. For example, SJWs would likely score libertarian when in fact they are very authoritarian.

It really isn't irrelevant. It's not my fault if you can't understand why. Mixing government with broadcasting makes sense if broadcasting is a natural monopoly; less sense if it isn't a natural monopoly.

Never going to happen. A one-tier health system is one of the NDP's sacred cows.

But the website doesn't know that. Let's say hypothetically I thought that Canada's tax on the rich were too high and the USA's tax was too low. Now my answer to the question depends on where I live, and where I live affects my outcome on the compass, yet the compass doesn't take into account the fact about where I live. Government intervention for natural monopolies makes sense. That's why we have crown corporations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly Now when TV and Radio first came out, it was certainly a natural monopoly. But over time conditions changed and it is no longer a natural monopoly.

Here is a question. If a single father gets a sex change, does he/she count as a single mother?

Saying that child custody has a gender bias should not be allowed because it's offensive? Is it a micro-aggression? Hal is saying that there is a gender bias in child custody. So if the father is a junkie whore, the mother will likely get custody, and if the mother is a junkie whore, the mother will get custody. Now you may agree or disagree that a gender bias exists in child custody, or whether the magnitude of the bias is as large as Hal is saying, but it doesn't seem fair to misrepresent Hal's position.

Some of the questions I cannot adequately answer given the options such as: "Rich people pay too much tax." "No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding." In the first case, it depends ultimately on the society in which you live and who you define to be rich. Rich people in France pay more than rich people in the Cayman Islands. In the second case, what if you think that intervention makes sense in the case of natural monopolies but not in the case of club goods with a competitive market? And that over time, broadcasting has shifted from a natural monopoly to a competitive market due to technological change?

Need? Zero. Do I know people that earn far more than that and have no savings because they spend well above their means? Yes. Do I know people that earn less than that and spend within their means? Yes. The premise of your question is flawed because I never made such a claim. I took what you wrote literally. It's not my fault if you can't understand the difference between people saving money and income inequality. People that are saving for retirement are 'hoarding money' and some people that spend beyond their means end up in a 'mess' that they are 'too poor to help themselves out of'. Your post made about as much sense as Justin Trudeau's 'definition' of middle class (which as I recall was anyone earning an income and not living off their savings, so would include millionaire CEOS but not include retired people).

Saving money and not spending more than you can afford = hoarding. Being irresponsible and spending well above your means while racking up debt = oppressed. Got it.

While that proposal isn't bad, I do disagree with some of the criticisms given of a proportional representation system. One of the main premises of the argument is that under a proportional representation system, party leaders make up party lists. This isn't necessarily true. Parties can make up lists any way they want, it doesn't have to be by the leader. If you don't like the way the party is making up the list, don't vote for a party that does this (and there will be more parties to choose from under a proportional representation system). And this whole idea that MPs need to be elected by the local population is flawed. Not everyone votes based on regional interests and not everyone is best represented by a candidate in their riding. You might be, but I certainly am not. Let's say hypothetically that I really like David Suzuki, who is running to be an MP, and want to vote for him instead of someone in my riding? Why should I not be allowed to? Also, by restricting people to only vote for those in their riding, in many cases you prevent people from voting for the party they want to because they are not running in their riding (because they are a small party and cannot afford it). If I want to vote for say the Freedom Party, Libertarian Party or Communist Party, and they aren't running in my riding, why should I not be allowed to?

Why would provinces not get representation in a proportional representation system? Where is the logic in that? Also, don't we have these things called provincial governments that are supposed to deal with provincial concerns?

Why?

Crippling by lending them money? You have a very bizarre definition of crippling. Would these countries be better without loans?

You keep pretending I'm a conspiracy theorist, yet I never claim that there is a conspiracy. Eugenics by the very broad definition isn't inherently wrong.