-1=e^ipi

Yet the pope, who is against birth control, is adored by the climate alarmists.

Because then you have large segments of the population without representation. The point of a representative democracy is to represent the population. If you don't support the idea of a representative democracy, then we might as well get rid of the house of commons all together and just elect a dictator every few years using a ranked ballot system (since we would save on government costs). Who believes this? Seriously, name me 1 Canadian, preferably a politician or someone on these forums. I think the main criticism was that the idea of getting 25000 by the end of 2015 was dumb and it is concerning to have the leader of the country make dumb decisions without considering feasibility.

The more parties there are, the harder it is to come to a global agreement. By splitting Canada into effectively 13 parties, you are making it harder to get a global agreement (a proper one, not the phony agreement at Paris). It is less efficient. It has higher implementation costs and doesn't spread the mitigation burden broadly and evenly.

The existence of the LCBO is a bad idea.

It's not necessary. A national CO2 emission tax is very possible and Dion campaigned on it a few elections ago. Alberta and BC both have a $30 tax. People in other provinces such as Ontario and Quebec have pointed out that cap and trade is not the most efficient system. But keep telling yourself that lie if you want to.

Yeah, their less efficient systems. Why do you think that doing things less efficiently is good?

Nah, Trudeau is above targets and plans. Feelings and sunny ways will solve everything. Yep. Free rider problem. But acknowledging it gets in the way of warm fuzzy feelings.

Yes. The billion dollar party in Paris clearly confirms all that.

Maybe we shouldn't have a low intelligence person who makes promises that are not feasible in charge. Ya... Why go with the most economically efficient way to reduce CO2 emissions? That doesn't make any sense at all...

Nah, he'll keep borrowing for the next decade or so, and then leave it to future generations.

Well the climate change issue has been solved! A historic agreement has been signed that ensures that warming stays below 2 C. And Trudeau says it won't have any negative economic consequences. Guess that we can rest easy knowing everything has been solved!

The liberals will "will not prejudice the outcome of that consultation process by committing to a referendum". They think that a referendum is below them or something. My money is that they will do ranked ballot instead of proportional.

People support who the media tells them to support. Kim Jong Un has even higher popularity ratings that Justin Trudeau. And both are part of family dynasties.

Here is a good example of Swedish media bias: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM5zAEVXV1M

Argus, you keep referring to elites. But I think that the existence of a neoprogressive media bias doesn't require elites at all, and perhaps a better explanation doesn't involve them. I think the reason you see such bias is due to a combination of noble cause corruption and cronyism. Maybe call it noble cause cronyism? Neoprogressives will often view those who are not neoprogressive as evil. Where as non-neoprogressives often view neoprogressives as simply stupid. As a result of this, when it comes to hiring decisions, if a neoprogressive is making the hiring decisions they are likely to favour other neoprogressives 'for the greater good'. Where as non-neoprogressives would generally be more fair in hiring decisions and care more about merit. As a result of this, even if the people making the hiring decisions are a mix of neoprogressives and non-neoprogressives, the net result is a favouring of neoprogressives when it comes to hiring. And as neoprogressives are more likely to get hired, promoted, etc. they become more likely to get in positions where they make hiring/promoting decisions. And as the concentration of neoprogressives gets higher, the neoprogressive hiring preference increases. Which means that as one moves up in the hierarchy of certain organizations such as the media, the concentration of neoprogressives increases. In effect, the neoprogressive in-group preference that is due to noble cause croynism causes excessive concentrations of neoprogressives in positions of power. This is why we see strong concentrations of neoprogressives in the media (especially cbc as it is government owned), academia/universities and the public service (these areas don't have to worry about profit maximizing / meeting the bottom line and are more attractive to neoprogressives as they allow the neoprogressives to change the direction of society 'for the greater good'). Want to have your paper published? Well if it has a neoprogressive slant then it is more likely to get published. Are a journalist and want to move up in the organization? Well if you run some stories that support various neoprogressive narratives then your neoprogressive bosses might be impressed and will be more likely to hire you. Etc.

Here is a recent critique of RCP 8.5. http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/

See, now you are thinking like a sane person. You have to deal with the free rider problem and can't keep pretending it away like our politicians do. Unfortunately, the conference is more about some people wanting to feel warm and fuzzy inside and such nuance would get in the way of warm and fuzzy feelings.

Clearly worth sending more delegates than US, UK and Australia combined. *sarcasm*

Abolish the monarchy. It's 2015!

It's not fiction. There are PC police in our universities trying to censor everyone. We just had a new government elected. Our prime minister completely believes all the SJW stuff, has a quota based cabinet and wants to make a quota based senate. Other neoprogressive governments in other countries have punished companies that did not comply with 'diversity'. If I were a company in Canada, I would favour hiring more 'diverse' people to avoid any possible witch hunt.

I don't think you realize that the threat of such action alone is enough for companies to make decisions to deal with that potential threat. If it can happen in France, it can happen here, especially with our current federal and provincial governments (well most of the provincial; at least Quebec, Ontario and Alberta).

Anita Sarkeesian is/was Canadian... How is that another part of the world?

According to world expert Anita Sarkeesian, cyberviolence against women is as bad as real violence and we need the UN to censor our internet in order to prevent people from disagreeing with her. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/

Here is one quick example that took 10 seconds to find using google. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/23/french-firms-fine-gender-equality-laws