-1=e^ipi

I don't mind discussing the net benefit thing, I mind when people misrepresent what I write. Particularly when I make claims regarding the CO2 fertilization effect and they interpret that to mean claims about the entire effect of increasing CO2 concentrations. Why is the sign of the second derivative particularly relevant? What is 'both sides' to you? If you are talking about me and waldo, waldo position consists of misrepresenting what I write, not understanding occam's razor or the burden of evidence, fallacies, etc. If you are talking about climate change alarmism vs climate change denialism, I represent neither of these sides as they are both ridiculous.

No one chooses when and where they are born. Being born is not an accomplishment. The concept of birthright is insane.

No I don't. I owe nothing to the sovereign and the sovereign owes nothing to me. Nope. No she isn't. She is a person. You are deluded. I accept laws if they make sense and have value to society. Not due to a bizarre concept that I owe allegiance to someone based on birth. You can't make agreements of behalf of people that aren't alive yet. That is insane. I was born and live in Canada. Unlike the sovereign. Why don't you renounce your citizenship and go live in Britain? Better yet, North Korea where they have a much stronger concept of birth right. (Edit: to clarify, I do not think you should go live in Britain or North Korea if you do not want to, I was merely trying to demonstrate how ridiculous I find your suggestion that I should renounce my citizenship)

Could you define what 'jackass move' means to you? Anything that might hurt your feelings or pride such as pointing out the fallacies in the 'arguments' that you make? The moon is made of cheese. See, I can make BS false claims without evidence too! In the above quote you make 4 of these: the claim that my claim regarding a global increase in crop yields was unsupported, the claim that I have 'nothing left too offer', the claim that I have not been misrepresented or taken out of context, and the claim that I am a concern troll. ^ Continued red herring to something that I've already responded to several times. Anyway, I am not one to let people get away with BS arguments. So you can keep making your nonsense arguments consisting of fallacies, unsupported false clams and misrepresentation, and I will keep knocking them down.

This tactic is too ridiculous. If I don't let you strawman or misrepresent what I write then I am 'weaseling my way out'. So you want to be able to either strawman me or accuse me of 'weasel words' (which isn't even a fallacy)? And now that you've been backed into a 'corner' regarding the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect and it's net effect on crop yields, you are trying to red herring your way out using a out of context quote from several months ago? Let me know when you want to discuss the issue of climate change like a reasonable adult.

To me it does seem too much. You also have to take into account that some blame should go to the man on the motorcycle (going over the speed limit on a motor cycle at night with a little girl). 6 months + loss of driving privileges for a few years + community service seems more than enough to me. Interestingly, I was speaking about this topic with some of my family members, and they were surprised that I thought that she should get any jail time.

2 years seems unjustifiably long given her lack of intent and the fact that 20 years is the maximum sentence. Maybe 6 months at most.

I owe my allegiance to the sovereign? What nonsense is this? I'm indebted to someone from birth based on their birth right? Did/do the slaves and all their descendants owe allegiance to the East African Tribal Leaders and their descendants, including the agreements the East African Tribal Leaders made to have them enslaved? If not, why the double standard? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g9zxduFtSM

Not making overly ambitious claims is 'weasel words' now? Can you prove this claim? And if you can prove this claim, why does it matter? Anyway, what matters is if you actually understand the claims I make and I would prefer you do not misinterpret me. Again, that had different context. You are confusing what I said with respect to the net effect of CO2 fertilization and with the net effect of climate change over all. You are creating a red herring because your continued attempts at trying to strawman me are failing. Why not actually challenge or accept the points I make? What is your definition of 'example'? Because what you write makes no sense in this context. A claim isn't an example, and what you are referring to is better described as 'supporting evidence' not an 'example'. ...It follows from 'increasing crop yields globally' that in the absence of significant negative impacts from CO2 fertilization in other areas of the economy, that this will be of 'net benefit' to society... There is no inconsistency in my position. Your representation of my position above is again incorrect. Adding smiley faces doesn't change that. The context of the quotation is that I was asked to give a somewhat reasonable guess for the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 based on what we know about plant growth at different levels of CO2 and on historical data over the past 600 million years. 1200 ppm was reasonable based upon the evidence I provided in that context and reasonable in the absence of opposing evidence. The main purpose of that post and on similar posts was to shed doubt on the belief that many people have that somehow per-industrial (meaning like 1800s) levels of atmospheric CO2 were somehow optimal for life on Earth.

Idk. As far as I know, Canada has no visible majority, especially not with young people that live in cities; everyone is a visible minority. You can justify taxation on a utilitarian basis. You can justify not robbing a bank on morality. You cannot use either of these methods to justify racist laws and institutions. Oh but my ancestors did not sign contracts or consent with anyone. Neither did the majority of the ancestors of Canadians.

I can't show up to Canada with the same racial characteristics, as I do not have those characteristics as I am (mostly) not of that race. And again, many unanswered questions remain: Where do people of other 'groups' like Chinese Canadians fit into this? Where do people of mixed race fit into this? Can I make a contract that indebts my grandchildren to the grandchildren of someone else? If not, why the double standard? Who gave some unelected monarch from hundreds of years ago the power to make these deals? I never agreed to any of this. And I can just imagine the same logic being applied to Black Slavery: 'Slavery isn't about race, they are contracts between two groups of people (between the Europeans who took them to the Americas and the East African Tribal Leaders that agreed to sell the slaves to the Europeans (including the promise of enslavement of all their ancestors))'.

You can repeat these lies all you want. The posts in this thread suggest otherwise. Again, you are misrepresenting my claims. In the first post in the thread (page 7) I said: "It seems to be of net benefit overall" See the word, 'seems'? I never claimed that increasing CO2 levels slightly is definitely without doubt of net benefit. Rather the implication was that I saw more reason to believe that the net benefit would be positive rather than negative. You asked me to justify my claim, so I did in my next post. In the next post I gave 6 reasons in support of my claim, referenced some cost-benefit studies, and also talked about the effect of reducing global temperature gradient on heat engines and 'extreme weather events'. Yet somehow you continue misinterpret all this to be that I was using the CO2 fertilization effect alone as PROOF of a claim that is far stronger than anything I have claimed. Again, same 'argument' where you misrepresent what I say. Please understand the difference between a partial derivative and full derivative. And better yet, understand the concept of occam's razor. Saying that the net effect of CO2 fertilization is positive is no more unreasonable than saying that the net effect of increasing sea levels is negative.

No, the complaints of 'racism' arise from the inherent racist nature of treating people differently based on their race.

You mean the racist declaration that was initially rejected by Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, UK & others because of its clear unworkability within a Liberal Democracy? Of course later on these countries caved in to politically correct peer pressure and have signed it in spirit but it remains non-legally binding.

Oh look, you are taking what I say out of context. That is such a new tactic... *sarcasm* Oh look, more misrepresentation... And it isn't really an analogy, so much as the CO2 fertilization effect is basically the partial derivative of crop yields with respect to CO2 levels. And yes I have been clear about my claims regarding the CO2 fertilization effect. On my second post (on page 7) I wrote: "Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere has a fertilizer effect on plants and makes it easier for plants to perform photosynthesis. This will help increase crop yields globally." You've been misrepresenting and strawmaning me ever since.

This concept is too difficult for many posters to comprehend.

Still waiting for a definition of 'we'... So all my non-white non-native friends that opposite state institutionalized racism are white supremacists? So if the hypothetically government made a contract that black people should indefinitely be slaves of white people then that should be honored? How about North Korea's system of punishing people for the 'crimes' of their parents and grand parents? Is that moral? Can I make a contract with another individual and sell my grandchildren into slavery to the grandchildren of the other individual? Should my grandchildren honor such a contract?

It's not about 'jealousy', it is about being opposed to racism and racist laws. Also, who is this 'we' you keep referring to. Define 'we'.

When was I talking about second derivatives?

Yes. How do you get from there to "You think individual Canadians should be able to pick and choose which laws they want to follow and ignore the rest"?

People keep misinterpreting me. I said that the net effect of the CO2 fertilization effect is positive. Obviously there are other effects that will occur as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. I'm not making as grand a claim as people are suggesting I am.

No I never claimed this.

Actually, I want Canada to move to a mixed system like Germany or Switzerland; our current system sucks. And currently I do not have a health card because I got mugged. Have I advocated 'getting rid of all laws'? No. You state-institutionalized racist policy advocates are the ones arguing that 'we' (whatever 'we' means) signed the treaties so state-institutionalized racism must be maintained indefinitely.

My apologies, after looking at the question another time I realize I misinterpreted it. I've been suffering from a concussion the past week (was mugged and assaulted) so please forgive me if I misread a question (especially given how many times I've been misrepresented in this thread). To answer the question, since the net effect of the CO2 fertilization effect is positive on plant growth, that will lead to a positive net effect on the economy since agriculture makes up some of the economy. Yeah, I don't know what 'everything is going to be groovy' means. How does one determine what is 'groovy' and if something satisfies 'grooviness'? With respect to quoting me saying 'purely positive' I meant that the net effect of CO2 fertilization is positive everywhere on Earth.

This is so true. Liberal white-guilt nonsense cannot really work on people who are not white. You state-institutionalized racism apologists keep referring to 'we'. Guess what? I didn't sign these 'deals', neither did my parents, or my grandparents, or my great grandparents, etc. Who is this 'we'? I often see people use it to refer to European Canadians, but what about everyone else? Where do Chinese Canadians fit into this for example?