-1=e^ipi

The social justice warrior ideology spreads and tries to infect everything. Some people are incapable of justifying climate change mitigation policy based on science and economics alone. So they have to appeal to SJWism to justify it. Some how climate change disproportionately harms women, disabled people, transpeople and 'people of colour'. Therefore, we have to stop it. Makes perfect sense... They are in the same category as the people that try to justify their position on climate change using the bible or the quran.

How can such an association have nothing to do with the state? Create an organization tasked with determining and enforcing journalism standards, fill it with your friends, then claim it is 'independent'. Great way to control the media and keep the people in the dark.

See, you already have a nice excuse for when you silence dissidents. What's factual and objective is that the party in power is always right and can do no wrong. We can't allow these 'non-journalists' to come in and report things. That could lead to incorrect opinions from being formed.

Yes, we need to ensure that we have a national broadcaster to ensure that people form the correct opinion. Can't have people forming incorrect opinions. *sarcasm*

The Nazis and Soviets would be pleased. As would the North Koreans. Create an organization and only accredit those with the 'correct' opinions as true journalists. Then ban all the non true journalists from journalism. Great way to control a narrative.

Why just double walled? Why not triple or quadruple? Or maybe 1 really really thick pipe is better than 1 thin pipe inside another thin pipe. Ultimately, it would make sense to do a cost benefit analysis.

Moore's law is dead. http://www.nature.com/news/the-chips-are-down-for-moore-s-law-1.19338

Yes. They overpredicted warming. Other causes of temperature changes were underestimated. It will have an effect, but I doubt it will be great enough to offset changes in greenhouse gasses just based on the magnitude of radiative forcing. We know how much radiation is coming from the sun, how much it changes due to natural variability, the magnitude of GHGs expected and the radiative forcing associated with that.

Tell that to magna. http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/05/08/magna_says_no_new_plants_for_canada_cites_ontario_energy_costs.html

No it isn't. Ad hominem would be like 'person X is stupid therefore person X is wrong'.

I think someone has a confirmation bias issue...

I was answering a question. What I said is factually correct. They pretend TSI remains constant and volcanism stops to make predictions.

Could you tell me what page it was on? Maybe it was referring to the fact that the effect of GHGs dominates changes in solar output since 1950. I can answer that without looking at the link. In the IPCC's 5th assessment report, all their predictions made with CMIP5 models assumed that all volcanic activity would stop after 2011 (or was it 2005, I don't remember) and that solar irradiance would stop changing. This is of course nonsense and both give the IPCC's predictions an upward bias, but it helps create alarm. Really, it isn't that hard to make predictions of future solar activity using fourier analysis or simply use the average level of past volcanic activity (or if you prefer you could do Monte-Carlo simulations). I've read a few people suggesting that AMO may be caused by either solar activity (which may be caused by planetary motion) or changes in the length of day (which may be caused by planetary motion as well). As far as I know, this remains an unanswered question and an ongoing area of research. I'm not sure what else to say, other than El Nino doesn't really have a 60 year cycle, AMO does. Planetary fluctuations remains a good hypothesis for explaining variation in solar activity and maybe changes in the length of day on Earth. But from what I can tell (I could be wrong), this isn't resolved in science and is sort of in the same category as some of the unresolved mass extinction events; hopefully it gets resolved in the next decade or two.

Waldo, prices are generally determined by the marginal cost of production, not the average cost of production. If a government restricts the expansion of all forms of energy except renewables, then the marginal cost of production will tend to be disproportionately reflective of renewables. Of course, given the low penetration, variability issues aren't that big... yet. It is expensive to store energy over long periods of time, which you would need to do if you want to create a mostly solar/wind energy source. The marginal cost of renewables accelerates with the percentage of renewable penetration.

Nah, this is the sunny ways of Gerald Butts. This is how we create the fourth industrial revolution, through green energy and selfies. Your feeble mind just cannot comprehend the vast wisdom and foresight of Ontario's premier and Canada's PM. Fortunately, Notley will help spread sunny ways to Alberta. Also, manufacturing fled Ontario due to dutch disease. Because the Canadian dollar is super overvalued at 70 cents per US dollar. So it's all Harper's fault for putting all Canada's eggs in one basket, the energy sector, even though net exports due to energy products account for only 2.9% of GDP. I guess that means that Australia and Norway, the two countries with the highest standard of living (human development index), both of which have much larger energy exporting sectors as a percentage of their GDP, are putting all of their eggs in half a basket. We can't have Canada be like Australia or Norway, that will get in the way of the fourth industrial revolution.

So is smallc an LPC partisan now?

Lots of completely sane low information voters out there.

I think he should do an online chat roulette with random Canadians every week using a random number generator to determine who he talks to. That way it will be more representative and cheaper.

I don't agree with your 'equivalence relation'. Many parts of the Earth reach -30 C. Basically nowhere reaches 70 C. Global average temperature is 15 C, below room temperature. Global warming warms polar regions more than equatorial regions, so reduces temperature variance. Obviously there is temperature asymmetry where being X degrees below optimal is preferable to being X degrees above optimal. The net benefit of warming is a priori indeterminate.

Yes, but that's not being at wetbulb temperatures of 34 C for extended periods of time. Rather, that's just the peak wet bulb temperature. People can survive in saunas, which have a much higher wetbulb temperature. Humans can easily survive in 39 C wetbulb temperatures for 24 hours without dying. Maximum wet bulb temperatures for extended periods of time on earth are like 31 C. Indoor heating only works as long as you stay inside, yet the people that live in the South Pole station spend most of the time inside. People that live in the south pole are nocturnal for 6 months at a time. Some people take night shifts, etc. Too bad environmentalists are against fossil fuels to bring them out of poverty. It depends on how cold vs how warm. A lot easier to adapt to 30 C than -30 C.

You need wetbulb temperatures to exceed 35 C. To do that you will need global warming of about 7 C above preindustrial temperatures (because equatorial regions warm slower). With an ECS of about 2 C, you would need about 3168 ppm eq of CO2. Even if we take into account that only about 75% of GHG radiative forcing change is due to CO2, you would still need about 1727 ppm of CO2. Even then, you could still live in Persian Gulf areas, you would just need air conditioning, or be nocturnal. And there are parts of the Earth that are already uninhabitable. They are called the poles. Well if a study was trying to prove something, that would be dogmatic. What studies should do is test hypotheses and see where the evidence leads them. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm Cold weather kills 20 times more people than hot weather. Seasonal mortality rates don't lie: But the obvious fact that humans are tropical species that are relatively hairless, covered in sweat glands, like room temperature to be 20-25 C, and evolved in East Africa is lost on you.

Dutch disease is primarily a problem due to wage inflexibility. The reason wage inflexibility is so high in places like Ontario and Quebec is due to unions. If you just introduced right to work legislation and reduce union power, wage flexibility increases, and you can have a decent manufacturing sector and a resource sector. Not to mention that even with high union power, dutch disease is not a very long term problem. Also, having energy prices at double-triple most other places in North America, which Ontario has done, is not good for manufacturing. Magna will not invest in Ontario because of excessive energy prices.

Of course it isn't. We are constraint by environmentalists and racists that believe in race-based 'rights'.

Obama can't veto American pipelines. Only pipelines with other countries such as Keystone XL.