-1=e^ipi

To be fair, I doubt many Canadians would do very well at labeling the American states.

There should have been a non-of-the-above option.

Is that sufficient? Maybe we need a completely new constitution.

I already answered this... If you are talking about the CO2 fertilization effect there is basically no time delay.

Sigh, I have explained the importance in using clear and precise language when discussing various issues (especially climate science) but you seem to not care. So I'll respond to your original question in 'conversational English': 'Yeah man, climate change will be super groovy, man. It will trap more of the sun's warmth through the magic of the ozone layer or something, man! This will make the environment more energetic, which will make things more groovy through the power of qi. Also, all the extra plant food will be good for weed, which will make things even more groovy as there will be marijuana everywhere.'

The word doesn't make much sense in the context provided. Do us all a favour and learn some basic calc. Please.

I'm unsure if you've been using the term 'growth limiting factors' correctly but whatever... With respect to your question, the answer is the full derivative, not the partial. Since ultimately it is the full derivative that is more relevant when trying to evaluate the best course of action.

You have yet to define what you mean by groovy, and the rest of this comment is vague as well.

Yes, small as in trying to determine the sign of the derivative of crop yields with respect to CO2 concentrations at current levels (around 400 ppm).

Isn't that what people said about the last election, and the election before that, etc.? Yes cause European health care systems are so bad... Germany and Switzerland clearly perform much worse than us in terms of health care. *sarcasm* The Canadian Health Care system sucks, and so does the US Health Care system. Unfortunately, a large segment of the population has deluded themselves into this false dichotomy that those are the only two options. The market for cars discriminates against people with less resources. The market for movies discriminates against people with less resources. The market for housing discriminates against people with less resources. The market for smart phones discriminates against people with less resources. Should those markets be run by the government as well?

Cybercoma, why not just create a new thread with a clearly defined question and I will try to answer your question as best I can? I'm not sure why you are grouping me with Waldo though. I'd prefer not to be the target of guilt by association.

Interesting. Jason Kenney is undoubtedly popular. But Harper is still 'young' and politicians do not always do what is in the best interest of their party.

I do not mind substantiating my claims. All I request is a clearly and well-defined question you want an answer to. I also suggest that you create a new thread because any posts in this thread will probably get quickly buried.

Yes, if you want out of context conclusions from IPCC reports that show that changes to crop yields are not statistically significant (and the methodology & theoretical models used to arrive at these results are not provided) then Waldo is a good source.

Yes it would be nice. But of course this would involve evaluating expected change under different scenarios (a scenario where CO2 concentrations are high enough to melt the antarctic ice sheet in the long run will look quite different in the long run than a scenario where they are not), creating and justifying a reasonable climate model to evaluate changes over time (then it might be a good idea to write a computer program to simulate the changes), finding a reasonable discount rate to compare changes at different points in time, etc. It would complicate answering the question by several orders of magnitude. Perhaps it would be better to evaluate the question of if a small marginal change in atmospheric CO2 levels is beneficial or not. Because this is more clearly defined, you can make reasonable approximating assumptions (such as taylor approximations) to simplify models, you can use empirically observed evidence to more accurately evaluate parameters in the model, etc.

... Waldo was accusing me of changing my position because I was talking about which belief is most justified... Are you saying I should not respond to that? Could you clarify what you mean by you not caring about logical fallacies? Are you implying that you accept logical fallacies as valid arguments or are you implying that you will not accept them?

I wasn't trying to answer your question in my last post, because I was trying to get more information before answering the question. Also, I think that it would be better if you create a new thread. Waldo is just going to misrepresent me for pages, so anything that is written will be buried. Also, if you do create a new thread, I suggest you try to use as clearly defined and as specific question as reasonably possible, because more clearly defined and specific questions are easier to answer. Another thing that I would like to clarify about my position is that I am not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that increasing CO2 levels by a small amount is positive. Rather I have seen more evidence to support the claim that the net effect is positive than evidence to support the claim that the net effect is negative. If you want me to provide a more comprehensive justification, that would take quite a bit of time on my part and I would have to perform more analysis (which would of course open me up to falsifying my own beliefs, which is fine). Though if I do make a more comprehensive analysis, I would hope that people will read it (not many people read through my post on jet streams for example). Okay, I think you've sufficiently answered my second question in this post and in your other post (by 'both sides' you mean me and Waldo).

So you still refuse to define 'WE'? Maybe I should give you a few options... Does it mean: - White/European Colonists? - White/European People? - Canadians in the distant past? - Canadians, past present and future? - The people in this thread? - Something else? Can you please justify how a group of people gain 'rights' over a million square kilometers of land based on where their ancestors are from in the first place? And is it possible to consistently apply this methodology to other groups of people to determine what lands their ancestors had rights over?

How do I not understand how a nation-state operates? They aren't distractions. You institutionalized racism supporters keep making claims using 'we'. I keep asking you guys to clarify what you mean by 'we' but you refuse.

Red herring tactic. Sigh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology It is only sufficient to show that a belief is the most justified to act on that belief; it is not necessary to prove without doubt that a belief is true. There has been no change in my position. You are just confused because people using skeptical language and thinking non-dogmatically is foreign to you. Both claims mean basically the same thing and the former (in the absence of contrary evidence) justifies the latter.

I understand how our government works. You are confusing understanding of how the government works with agreeing with your bizarre concepts of birthright, legality = morality and institutionalized racism.

I do not 'deserve' one, neither does anyone else. The concept of birthright is nonsense. Can you define what you mean by 'accept the benefits of being a Canadian'?

No she doesn't. You just think she does because you are both delusional in the same way. Much like creation scientists think other creation scientists make valid points. They are forced because the state wants to impose rule of law. That says nothing about the morality of the laws or if those laws are justified. North Korea forces it's citizens to say nothing bad about the state, that doesn't mean the law is justified. Still waiting for a definition of 'we'.

Yes I was, many times. Anyone can verify that by reading this thread. Your definition of example is not correct as I explained earlier. The CO2 fertilization effect is not a example in the context of the discussion. I've provided plenty of substantiation for the CO2 fertilization effect including studies that show that plant growth increases if you increase CO2 concentrations, an evolutionary explanation as to why plants perform better with higher CO2 concentrations based on the past 600 million years during which multicellular life has flourished on Earth, the recent evolution of the C4 cycle in plants, tree ring data, fossilized pollen data, and basic freakin high school chemistry (the CO2 fertilization effect should be obvious to anyone that understands the photosynthesis equation). I provided you with a 'FACE' study, yet you still go on with this nonsense. And as I explained earlier, the other evidence is more than sufficient to justify the belief that the CO2 fertilization effect is positive on plant growth if you just apply basic scientific principles such as occam's razor. But keep repeating the same BS over and over again if you want. I'll keep debunking it.

Why do you make this claim? Another health card is going to arrive in the mail in the next few days (for me). No, where have I made this claim? If I murder or steal from someone then I expect to go to jail. Wow, brilliant and well thought argument! *sarcasm*