-1=e^ipi

Well you need to deal with the free rider problem, obviously. Although the Paris agreement, an agreement where everyone does whatever they feel like and there are no penalties of not doing anything, will not address this. The green party also has zero plan to deal with the free-rider problem. We need the main emitters & economic powers (USA, China, India, Europe) to agree to a pigouvian tax, and then threaten tariffs on any other country that doesn't agree to also imposing a pigouvian tax. Furthermore, to get the main emitters to agree to a pigouvian tax, countries (like Canada, Europe) shouldn't unilaterally decrease emissions too much, because that gets rid of our leverage over other countries to reduce their emissions. We should threaten not to reduce our emissions unless other countries agree to a global pigouvian tax, sort of like how we threaten to impose trade barriers on countries that impose trade barriers on us. This would increase the incentive for other countries to reduce their emissions and be a much better way to deal with the free-rider problem.

How much clearer do you need them to be? Elizabeth May specifically said runaway global warming and human extinction. The Extinction Rebellion has extinction in its name for a reason. Their claims not only do not align with mainstream climate science, but some of their claims, such as runaway global warming, are unphysical. The green party doesn't understand climate science, but they're not going to get called out on it because the other parties don't understand climate science as well. There are empirically based estimates of the impact of climate change on global GDP, and many of them are summarized by the IPCC's assessment reports. The magnitude of impact is a few % points of GDP, hardly the collapse of the economy. The strong precautionary principle is insane and self-contradictory. If you apply the strong precautionary principle to itself, then it says that you should not follow the strong precautionary principle since there is a risk of significant negative impacts by following it. What you should do instead, is have a pigouvian tax, where the pigouvian tax is estimated while taking risk aversion into account. As William Nordhaus, the winner of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his work in Climate Economics, has done.

My statement was that some people, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Extinction Rebellion people, misunderstand climate change. I gave the example of AOCs claims about the world ending in 12 years, after which Reefer Madness falsely accused me of lying about AOC. With respect to eyeball's question of what I believe AOC meant, I do not think that AOC meant the physical destruction of the planet. My guess is that AOC's claim was more on the lines of if emissions are not reduced drastically in the next 12 years, a climate tipping point will be passed, which will cause runaway global warming and the extinction of humans. I think that this view is shared by the Extinction Rebellion people and also Elizabeth May of the Green Party. For example, May recently said: "Somewhere below two degrees is the tipping point to where we run into something (that) scientists call runaway global warming," she said. "A self-accelerating irreversible global warming that could lead to temperatures that call into question the survival of this biosphere." May said the Greens are the "only party that have a plan that allows human civilization to survive." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/green-party-carbon-emissions-climate-change-1.5138676 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-oil-green-party-leader-elizabeth-may-1.5151214 For the sake of relevant information, runaway global warming is unphysical for Earth. The feedbacks on Earth are too small to cause runaway global warming. This is the mainstream scientific position, and this position is backed up by a large quantity of scientific evidence, including General Climate Models, paleoclimate data, and our understanding of physics. The mainstream scientific position, according to the IPCC, is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 increases the global average temperature by 1.5-4.5 degrees celcius, a position that has been around since Arrhenius first quantified the magnitude of warming due to increasing atmospheric CO2 in 1896. CO2 emissions are a problem, and the net negative externalities of CO2 emissions should be internalized with a pigouvian tax. However, that is very different from the claims of May, AOC, and Extinction Rebellion, that continued CO2 emissions will cause runaway global warming, which will cause an extinction.

See beginning of youtube video.

I'm no fan of Scheer, and his desire to use the CBC to push his values concerns me, but let's put things in perspective. The Trudeau party has just implemented a $600 million payoff to the supposedly independent private media, in addition to a payoff to the CBC by increasing their funding by $150 million every year on their over $1 billion annual budget. On their supposedly independent panel, which will allocate the funding, they have appointed unifor, which is actively campaigning against the CPC. Trudeau has decided to give every journalist a $14,000 after tax incentive per year for 'independent' journalists to ensure he gets re-elected. And he's implementing it in an election year. This is an affront to democracy. Separation of media and state is essential to a democracy! In addition, Trudeau's party is pushing through their internet 'charter' in which they will try to ban, or push social media companies to ban, anything they deem to be 'fake news'. This is very concerning, and arguably should be the #1 issue this election.

So to you, the value of the work of a scientist depends on the policy outcomes they support? Even if they are a well respected climate scientist who is director of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies? The value of the work of a scientist depends on the merits of their arguments and methodologies in their scientific work.

I've explained my various aspects of my position before, not my fault if its too nuanced for you. I support a global pigouvian tax to internalize the externalities of CO2, CH4 and N2O. I think that integrated assessment models, such as those by William Nordhaus, who won the Nobel memorial prize in economics last year, are the best methods we have to evaluate the optimum taxation level. It does not make sense to ignore the free rider problem while trying to get to a global pigouvian tax. I agree with mainstream climate science as it is very well supported if you look at the scientific papers.

On this topic, here is a statement by Gavin Schmidt, a lead climate scientist in NASA: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/the-best-case-for-worst-case-scenarios/ "But some things can be examined and ruled out. Imminent massive methane releases that are large enough to seriously affect global climate are not going to happen (there isn’t that much methane around, the Arctic was warmer than present both in the early Holocene and last interglacial and nothing similar has occurred). Neither will a massive oxygen depletion event in the ocean release clouds of hydrogen sulfide poisoning all life on land. Insta-freeze conditions driven by a collapse in the North Atlantic circulation (cf. “The Day After Tomorrow”) can be equally easily discounted. " Eyeball, in your opinion, is Gavin Schmidt a naysayer or troll?

This is an interesting misrepresentation tactic that you are employing. We were discussing mainstream estimates of climate changes by mainstream climate economists (such as Nordhaus) who use mainstream climate science to create their mainstream estimates. But then you try to associate my position to that of "a handful of naysayers and trolls"? Please, don't misrepresent me.

I invite you to look at the empirical estimates of the damages of climate change, by economists such as William Nordhaus, who won the noble memorial prize last year. I fail to see how the magnitude of damages are anywhere close enough to lead to mass global conflict. If you disagree then please publish your empirically-based extinction or conflict model in a peer reviewed scientific model. I look forward to reading your peer reviewed paper.

I don't think I've used that terminology in the past. However, the Sahel region of Africa getting wetter due to increased atmospheric CO2 is supported by general climate models. As the Earth warms, its jet streams are pushed poleward, which will make some places, such as the Sahel region, wetter, and other places, such as California, drier. With respect to people misunderstanding the magnitude of climate change, good examples include the Extinction Rebellion in the UK and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claiming that the word will end in 12 years. The magnitude of climate change simply isn't large enough to be an extinction risk to humans. We should still internalize externalities with a pigouvian tax on CO2, CH4 and N2O, but that's quite a different policy than what some of the ban-everything people in the green movement want to do.

I don't understand what you are trying to convey? You disagree with climate change?

I don't think that underscore is the correct verb to use in this sentence. As a result, it is unclear to me what meaning you are trying to convey. With respect to the green narrative's relationship with reality. There are many groups that misunderstand the magnitude of the problem. You have many denier groups that misunderstand the problem, but also various eco-groups that think that the problem is orders of magnitude larger than it is. The correct and mainstream scientific position is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 increases the global mean surface temperature by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees celcius. Until you have a political group that points out divergences between mainstream climate science and claims by eco-justice people, the greens will continue to gain power.

All of the parties have weak, and often inconsistent, arguments on climate change. Given the arguments available, the greens arguably have the most convincing/best arguments. They will continue to gain power as long as their narrative is not adequately challenged; this will not happen any time in the near future.

Arguably Bernier has clarified his position in this tweet: So he's not against condemning white supremacy, he's pointing out hypocrisy. That could have been made much clearer a few weeks ago...

Why would I vote for Scheer, when I dislike both Scheer and Trudeau? Scheer is a freedom hating conservative, who doesn't want gays to marry, doesn't want marijuana legal, and wants to sell our country to the dairy cartel. If you and Scheer want my vote so badly, you need to make concessions! Maybe start with abolishing the socialist supply management system, which makes food unnecessarily expensive for poor people and harms our trading relationship with other countries.

There are no good options to vote for. Maybe consider voting for the Libertarian Party as a protest vote.

I agree... but a comment by Trudeau doesn't justify the comment by Bernier.

Boss? I don't support Trudeau. I was supportive of the PPC up until this comment by Bernier. If your interpretation of what Mr. Bernier said is what Mr. Bernier meant, then Mr. Bernier could clarify things. Yet he chooses not to.

Here is a recent article related to this topic: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/04/25/berniers-party-encouraged-organizers-to-court-radical-fringe-group-votes_a_23717471/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

Ordinary people don't claim that warning against white supremacy is an attack on an entire ethnicity.

Btw, the comment isn't a result of any linguistic barrier. He said the same thing in French.

Bernier has had a long time to clarify his position, if that was what he meant. Instead, he hasn't and has just doubled down. He could have responded to criticism or concern over his comments by clarifying what he meant, but refuses to do so.

See below tweet. This is crazy? How does Bernier think that condemning white supremacy = associating an entire ethnicity with terrorism? And is he implying that white supremacy is a religion? He has had plenty of time to retract his claim, clarify what he meant, or apologize. But we see none of that. Instead Bernier has doubled down on twitter with similar claims. I don't think we should vote for someone who is against condemning white supremacy. If you want to vote against crony capitalism or supply management, please vote for the Libertarian Party instead.

Wikipedia lists the below paper as its first reference to polar amplification, and its from 1969. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3402/tellusa.v21i5.10109 The paper references even earlier papers. It would be a fun exercise to try to track down the earliest reference of polar regions of the Earth warming faster than equatorial regions. The underlying physical mechanisms as to why polar regions warm faster (melting snow reduces albedo and warmer air holds more water, which increases heat capacity and thus heat transport) has been known for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if the earliest references go back as far as Svante Arrhenius (who first quantified the magnitude of the warming of CO2 back in 1896), or even earlier. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation goes back to the mid 1800s.