-1=e^ipi

Interestingly, environments where men are modestly dressed in a suit while women are wearing skimpy outfits are also called patriarchal. All roads lead to patriarchy apparently.

To be fair, to me, being an atheist is more important than being Canadian. Some people just don't value nationalism very highly. So I don't see anything inherently wrong with most Muslims finding religion more important than Nationality.

Or... if it were left undefined and up to the discretion of unelected judges in our inferior common law system.

To be fair, some women also do that.

Is any progress occurring on this issue? Again, it makes larger, more in depth threads basically impossible and greatly increases the frequency of typos.

The Federal, Ontario and Provincial 'liberals' are all about corporate welfare. They don't believe in free enterprise nor do they believe in an even playing field. The message is that if you have a company and you want to succeed in Canada, you don't do that by offering better services / goods or by trying to reduce costs to be more profitable, you need to get cozy with the provincial / federal politicians, maybe pay them $1500 to meet for dinner, or let them stay at your tropical island mansion house. The end result is that we penalize more profitable and efficient companies to prop up less efficient and less profitable companies that just have better connections with the government. This is not good for society as a whole, is very vulnerable to corruption, and is franking disgusting.

@ Blackbird - "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Wendell Phillips 1852.

The USA doesn't have some section 1 limiting their first amendment like Canada has limiting section 2 of the charter. Whatever the government deems a 'reasonable' restriction is allowed. Thus, our freedom of speech is an illusion. Fact is, criminal codes 319 and 320 are not deemed unconstitutional by our failure of a constitution. If we had proper constitutional protections of freedom of speech we wouldn't have to put up with such nonsense.

Not reasonable at all. All hate speech should be legal and a society that bans 'hate speech' is a society that does not have freedom of speech.

No it doesn't. It pretends to. But section 2 is limited by section 1 and as a result we do not have true freedom of expression in Canada like the fortunate citizens of the USA have.

Canada doesn't have freedom of expression. See section 1 of the charter and all of our 'hate speech' laws.

That doesn't mean sometimes running isn't good. Sometimes tactical retreats make sense. For example, battle of Dunkirk in WWII.

God is imaginary.

I'll also add that if you look at paleoclimate data, such as over the Pleistocene or the Holocene, historically the correlation between CO2 and temperature has been ~25 ppm per degree Celcius. Yet since ~1850, global temperature has increased by ~1C, yet atmospheric CO2 has increased by ~120 ppm, so we are well outside the historical correlation between temperature and CO2, which is another reason we know humans are the primary cause of increasing atmospheric CO2. Of course the conservation of mass calculation is an even more convincing argument.

That's not true. You can use models to try to reproduce historical temperature data. GCMs have a tendency to overestimate warming over the historical period, which could be an indication that they are a bit too sensitive to greenhouse gases.

Which theory? The hypothesis that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily human caused? Or are you referring to predictions of temperature changes? Are you confused? My comment was with respect to the causes of changes in CO2. I said nothing about how much warming is due to CO2 changes. Simple conservation of mass calculations can demonstrate easily that the changes in atmospheric CO2 is human caused, but such calculations say nothing about how much warming that change in CO2 causes.

You want me to do some conservation of mass calculations in this thread? I've done them in previous threads on climate change. I don't have a wife, and don't intend to. I'm an asexual virgin and I don't want to get screwed over by the sexist court system, so I intend to remain that way.

Conservation of mass calculations can easily demonstrate that the increases in atmospheric CO2 are overwhelmingly due to humans. We know roughly how much fossil fuels are being burned, so we know roughly how much CO2 is being put into the atmosphere. We also know how much air is in the atmosphere. The rate at which atmospheric CO2 is increasing is only about half the rate at which we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere, because the oceans and biosphere are absorbing a fair amount of the CO2 emitted.

They are attempting to internalize externalities due to air pollution. But if they have no intention to internalize the externalities of CO2 emissions then that is of concern.

While income taxes are not the most efficient forms of taxation, there are still worse forms of taxation than income. Corporate tax and the Capital gains tax both have higher marginal costs of public funds. For example, see table 1 here: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/bev-dahlby-012-3.pdf With respect to moving from income tax to CO2 emission tax, the economic impact of revenue switching towards a $30 tax CO2 emission tax for BC has been estimated to be around 0.08% GDP. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765515000317 So i don't think it makes sense to pretend that CO2 taxes are more efficient than even income taxes. Also, given that empirically determined exponent the abatement cost function is typically around 2.8 (this is what William Nordhaus' DICE model uses), the costs of moving towards CO2 emission taxation are not linear. So using the 0.08% number, a $60 tax would have a ~0.56% decrease in GDP, a $120 tax would have a ~3.88% reduction in GDP, as so forth.

With respect to the topic of why Michael Chong sucks, here are some reasons: 1. He has said that the Charter enshrines Canadian values. Given the preamble of the charter, the implication of this is that 'recognition of the supremacy of god' is a Canadian value thus atheists are unCanadian. 2. He is completely against any reform to our health care system and has gone as far as to say that support of our health care system is a Canadian value. Newsflash: According to the World Health Organization Healthcare rankings, Canada is ranked 30th, the USA is ranked 39th, and France is ranked 1st. Moving from our entirely public system (well technically we have 13 systems) to a mixed system like France, Australia, Japan, Germany and all the other countries that exceed us in the rankings makes a lot of sense. 3. He is against the abolition of supply management. Yes he supports the completely immoral cartel on eggs/milk/poultry that harms the poorest in society by doubling the price of these goods, and has zero economic justification. You might think that this is a small issue, but I think it is a strong indicator of how an individual will approach problems. Is Michael Chong willing to stand against the status quo and powerful lobby groups to stand up for the wellbeing of society as a whole? The answer is clearly no. Australia got rid of their supply management, and they are better off as a result. Why can't we do the same?

One issue is that the levels of taxation being proposed by both Chong and Trudeau are not being related to estimates of the net negative externalities associated with CO2 emissions. If you look at the 2 main integrated assessment models used by the EPA, Nordhaus' DICE model and Tol's FUND model, they both suggest a tax of about $20 / ton (which increases exponentially in real value by about 3% per year). But Trudeau and Chong want to just linearly increase the level of taxation by $10 per year without adequate justification. And they will not change their policy if new information is obtained. For example, the IPCC's 5th assessment report has no estimate of the best estimate of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) due to conflicting estimates between instrumental estimates, paleoclimate estimates and General circulation model estimates. However, the 4th assessment report gave a best estimate of 3 C, thus that is what has been used in the Paris agreement, for example, to determine what emission levels are needed to meet the 2 C target (and the 2 C target isn't supported by integrated assessment models, but that is a bit of an aside). However, once the 6th assessment report comes out, it very likely will contain a new estimate for ECS and if you have been following the scientific literature, the new best estimate will likely be less than the 3C estimate of the 4th assessment report. If this occurs then surely it would make sense to adjust the level of taxation to take this new information into account. But Trudeau, Chong, Notley, heck everyone, refuses to adjust the level of taxation as new information is obtained, which to me is completely insane.

Cool, let's use this thread to share Quran burning videos! Here is the amazing atheist in 2010 burning the Quran, Bible and The God Delusion: Also here is my depiction of the alleged prophet Mohammed: O T ^

I like the plate-caree projection. Simple, easy to use and it's used by NASA, climate scientists, etc. Easy to work with if you are trying to do any programming with it.