-1=e^ipi

Have the conservations split back into 2 parties. If you have a right-of-centre party that keeps the crazies out then it would be possible for this right-of-centre party to appeal for centrist voters.

1 child policy would have lead to an insane population crash in a few decades. A 2 child policy is more sane, and I'm surprised they didn't change it sooner.

Speaking of Putin: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/10/29/world/europe/29reuters-climatechange-summit-russia-media.html?_r=1 "warmer temperatures would mean Russians spend less on fur coats while agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that"

It has to go bad to 1950, before the end of the last slowdown, to be able to get a similar rate (and I'm not going to get into the validity of this data set compared to say BEST or Cowtan & Way). And even then, at best it shows that there is ZERO ACCELERATION in warming, which is something that is definitely not expected if warming is entirely due to GHG forcing (which has been increasing roughly quadratically over this period).

Old white dudes can be SJWs. Good thing I never claimed that.

And who has the grip on power today? That's not how the conversation went. You dismissed the SJW beliefs of young people as something they will grow out of soon enough, I gave you a counter example, and now you are complaining about my counter example. You turned the conversation into this direction, not me.

Congrats on cherry picking data points.

Not all of them. Some thought it wasn't a big deal and dismissed the problem, some of them did the indoctrination, etc.

I'm sure that's what the older generations in Germany told themselves.

You never heard of Hitler's youth? Kids are being indoctrinated with a certain set of ideas. And the neoprogressives doing the indoctrination think it is justified. I saw it first hand because I'm a millennial that went to school in large urban areas, but from what I can tell it is getting worse.

Sometimes it causes a world war (example: WW2), sometimes it causes a revolution (Russia 1918). And if people live in their 'safe space' and ban all 'triggering microaggressive' speech that disagrees with them, and continue to propagate identity politics via the media and the education system, then they can keep their beliefs for decades or even till the grave.

That's true. But I will admit that despite that, the term 'social justice' has been used in academia for decades and has a different meaning than what tumblr people use.

Yes. But remember that Tumblr people are our young people; they are our future. So think about the implications of the beliefs that our young people have on the future of Canada and the world. It would help if the person wanting to discuss social justice issues were to define what they mean by social justice, because obviously due to the culture we live in it has a very diverse set of definitions.

From various regressions I have done, the effect of PDO is tiny compared to ENSO or AMO. AMO causes global temperature fluctuations of +/-0.1-0.2 C, ENSO causes fluctuations of like +/- 0.1 C. PDO is like +/- 0.04 C. Edit: Not sure which is more significant when it comes to Saskatchewan.

Yes. That is primarily the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. See graph 3: http://berkeleyearth.org/berkeley-earth-temperature-update/

The link is just an image, I don't know which blog post its from. From memory, the only relevant criticism for Cowtan & Way is that it is using primarily Arctic land measurements to estimate changes in the Arctic Ocean. Since oceans tend to have lower sensitivity than land, this arguably results in an overestimation of the change in Arctic Temperature. However, I'm pretty sure that BEST deals with this problem.

No, you really don't. Why do you think this? On what basis? You haven't distinguished between what is your dependent variable, what are your explanatory variables, and what are the parameters you wish to estimate.

Not trying to account for lack of instrumental coverage results in representation error, which biases the results. Krigging is the best way to overcome this and results obtained from Krigging have the property of being the best linear unbiased estimator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriging). Not krigging is insane, which means that the best temperature data sets are BEST and Cowtan & Way.

You can estimate that. You just have to be smart about what other variables you put in, or use akaike's information criterion to determine the best model, etc.

Regress the logarithm of productivity on temperature, temperature squared and other explanatory factors. Now you have an estimate of productivity as a function of temperature.

I see no reason to expect discontinuities. But you can estimate it from empirical data. Clearly 100 C temperature would be bad, and so would -100 C.

If you make bad arguments, I'll point out why they are bad. Don't blame me for your bad arguments.

Over most of the life of the planet, satellites were not being put into space and humans were not going to the moon. In fact, we are seeing an unprecedented rate of increase in the number of satellites being put into space, which is well outside what we have seen in the past. The number of people sent to the moon is infinity times greater than the number of people for the rest of the past 4.5 billion years! Drastic changes are associated with extinction events. All this stuff being sent into space is a drastic change! Therefore, we should ban sending stuff into space, be it communication satellites, telescopes to learn about the universe, etc. See the ridiculousness of your argument?

Are you familiar with a Taylor approximation? Productivity is likely a continuous function of temperature, and we know that if things get too hot or too cold people become less productive. Therefore, a quadratic approximation may be reasonable. Similar, arguments can be made for precipitation and other climate parameters. You might want an interaction term based on knowledge of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, etc. You can argue for properties that you think a functional form should have and then appeal to Occum's razor to justify using the simplest functional form that satisfies those properties. Pointing out that lack of a recession doesn't imply no economic costs is nonsense? How? Where have I done this? Then why are you trying to use it as proof that there are no negative economic consequences? Lies. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/19745/

Regression analysis. Example: http://www.nature.com/articles/nature15725.epdf?referrer_access_token=eDLT91mmHhpJa7qfX-yrJdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M9qnfWTywcc-SwmqGd2vK8XXcG_rpXmqhktyHqNDHHQB042l4oAIKPtdqUD_2xZxzW69Gv1Mq5NCF9s7sNPKXqjoXQgAnwxVOfsG0ndJjdKs3BO-F0GDCDzHr98uoOyezxzIzFOPdTEqv7BTcktq8v-9gaDjl3JW7QfW1Wy5GBsw%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.cbc.ca