-1=e^ipi

Sorry, I meant to say that there are ways of estimating both benefits and costs.

Looks like 2015 is going to be very warm: http://berkeleyearth.org/berkeley-earth-temperature-update/ I guess the slowdown is over.

Revenue neutral is not the same thing as no economic impact. Different kinds of taxes have different economic impact. That's why Harper's decision to cut the GST was dumb. There are ways of estimating that social benefit.

According to SJWs, racism. Racism is the only possible explanation. There can be no other explanation for this outcome.

I disagree. I think maximization of expected social welfare is a methodology that can be used to obtain the best decision given all the uncertainty.

Oh I like this analogy. Maybe I should use it instead of my flying spaghetti monster analogy when trying to show to people why the strong precautionary principle is dumb.

CO2 isn't atmospheric pollution. This is irrelevant to the discussion of CO2 mitigation. None of these are due to CO2. So you are saying we should throw out the scientific method when it comes to developing new medicines? Why would I agree to such an absurd claim? The probability of a new drug being harmful has no implications about what makes sense when it comes to policy on climate change.

Of course there was an economic impact. The existence of no slowdown doesn't imply no economic impact. If economic growth is reduced from say 2.0% to 1.9%, there is no slowdown, but there is clearly an impact. Look, you can't just look at BC's economy before the tax, then look at it after the tax and ignore alternate explanations that explain what could have caused changes in BC's economic output over time.

I think I've figured out a way to determine the economic impact (in terms of change in productivity) of this effect and use it in an integrated assessment model. The first thing one needs is to obtain some sort of reasonable definition of how frequently the climate of a location on earth gets stuck (or alternatively how infrequently it changes). What one could do is look at average temperature by time of year of a particular location and then for each year take the observations of temperature by time, subtract the average and subtract what is expected based on the long term trend. This gives a sort of residual temperature by year. This residual will have an autocorrelation (which one can calculate based on the entire year of observations) and this autocorrelation will be a measure of how frequently the climate changes states. If the jetstream is more frequently getting stuck, then this should correspond to a higher autocorrelation factor. The rate at which the jetstream gets stuck is going to depend on both the topology of that particular latitude band (the northern mid latitudes will see a stronger effect than the southern mid latitudes due to have more mountain ranges and less ocean) as well as the temperature gradient. What one can do is for each latitude band, determine the zonal temperature gradient for each particular year. One can then empirically estimate (using time series data) how the autocorrelation factor relates to the zonal temperature gradient (using a functional form inspired by physics); one can then use this estimate to estimate the change in the autocorrelation factor due to climate change. Lastly, to estimate the productivity effects, just look at variation in the logarithm of real GDP compared to the variation in the autocorrelation factor while controlling for other relevant factors. Once one has productivity as a function of autocorrelation of temperature, one can combine this with autocorrelation of temperature as a function of zonal temperature gradient to obtain the economic impacts of this change in jet stream effect.

Yes. Are you suggesting I don't take these things into account? Good thing I don't advocate such a position. Based on what? I can give a basis for $15 (go see the other threads), can you give a basis for $30? I doubt it.

In the scientific method, preference is given to the null hypothesis. One cannot prove a negative and as scientific philosopher Karl Popper explains preference should be given to simpler models of reality because simpler models of reality have more explanatory power. With respect to CO2 having harmful effects, the null hypothesis is no harmful effects. The burden of proof should be on demonstrating these harmful effects. These tests don't actually demonstrate that the drug is safe. Rather, they show that they are safe up to a reasonable confidence level. With respect to drugs, based on passed experience we can infer that there is a non-trivial probability that untested drugs will have harmful effects. So it makes sense based on empirical evidence to assume that a new drug will have this probability of harmful effects until demonstrated otherwise. As a result, risk aversion suggests that some tests should be made with a new drug before allowing it on the market; this is expected social welfare maximizing. Just because the strong precautionary principle appears to result in roughly the same criteria for drugs as expected social welfare maximization, doesn't make the strong precautionary principle valid. That's like having a random number generator accurately predict winning lottery numbers and then conclude that a random number generator will always predict winning lottery numbers.

Cause refusal to acknowledge someone's sexual orientation or gender identity, or dismissal of someone's experiences on the basis of their race or sex aren't microaggressions. *sarcasm*

That's very complicated to explain, I invite you to read the other threads in the science section. Essentially, I think that the issue of what to do about global warming is a prior indeterminate and that one cannot have a reasonable basis for policy without appealing to empirical evidence. Decisions should be made to maximize expected social welfare (I'll probably do a blog post for Judith Curry in the next week or two on this topic). Based on the evidence I have seen, I think a global pigouvian tax of about $15 per metric ton of CO2 (2015 US dollars), which increases by about 3% per year in real value would be reasonable; although my position changes as new evidence is presented.

There are ways. It's just that uncertainty is large enough that one cannot know with 100% certainty if warming is a net positive. However, it is still possible to make decisions under uncertainty.

This is fine. Generalizing people's experiences on the basis of race is what is problematic.

I don't see denial of your implications. Your tactic of making implications while not admitting to making these implications is tiresome.

Are you implying that I am 'privileged'? Well I doubt you will admit or deny it, nor will you admit or deny if you are implying I am cisgendered. I'm just going to assume you are, because I'm annoyed by your constant implications followed by refusal to admit or deny it. People are individuals, this is what you and the SJWs don't seem to understand. Instead you lump everyone together based on race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, etc., generalize people's experience based on the category they fall into, call it 'intersectionality' and think that you are being nuanced. That's not nuance, individualism is nuance. According to your ideology, I'm somehow privileged because Bill Gates is privileged, Justin Trudeau is privileged, they are white males and so am I; that doesn't make me privileged that just means that those 2 individuals are privileged. Stop generalizing people's experiences on the basis of race or sex; you don't know my life's experience so stop pretending you do. This tendency to categorize people and generalize their experiences is the cognitive trait that leads to racism and sexism. The idea that people are privileged/oppressed because other people that have the same superficial traits were privileged/oppressed makes about as much moral sense as original sin (the idea that we are guilty because some rib lady ate a magic fruit) or North Korea's concept of 3 generations of punishment. Which you and the SJWs do by generalizing people's experiences on the basis of sex and race. No one is doing that in this thread. It isn't wrong, it logically follows from the definition of racism. Replace enlightening and teach with indoctrinating and indoctrinate and your sentence makes more sense.

Actually, I was clarifying because Michael wanted me to. In any case, it's ironic that you are complaining about me taking the position valuing someone's position on the basis of their race is racist, when you have been one of the worst offenders when it comes to labeling me with derogatory labels.

I need to clarify what I mean by cognitively dissonant racist. Let's start with some definitions: Cognitive Dissonance - The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. There is also a second definition where cognitive dissonance is used to describe the discomfort of having inconsistent beliefs, but in the case of this thread I am referring to the state itself. Cognitive dissonance is very similar to the concept of Doublethink, which is defined as: Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct. Racist - Someone who supports discrimination or prejudice based upon race. Note that many SJW types are trying to redefine racism as Privilege + Power or whatever in order to make it impossible for racism against whites to count as racism and in order to help resolve their cognitive dissonance. What I mean by cognitively dissonant racist is someone who simultaneously thinks that they are not racist while advocating discrimination or prejudice based on race (thus they are being cognitively dissonant). Affirmative action is inherently discrimination based on race by its definition, so is racist. However, judging from my interactions with others, I think that the majority of supporters of affirmative action have done enough mental gymnastics to trick themselves into believing that affirmative action is not racist (cognitive dissonance). Thus most supporters of affirmative action classify as cognitively dissonant racists.

I never made such a claim.

Come on Waldo. Predictions made by the majority of climate models have been overestimates. CMIP5 predictions are on the verge of being falsified at the 95% level as I explained in the other thread. CMIP5 models have a median ECS of 3.2, where as most of the recent empirical estimates are much lower (closer to 2). It seems to me that climate models overestimating warming by a factor of 50% is fairly likely.

Yes. More accurately a cognitively dissonant racist. In SJW/neoprogressive land it is.

I just find these climate justice arguments ridiculous. Much like I find arguments that use the bible to justify climate change mitigation ridiculous. Decisions should be made on the best available empirical evidence.

I never made such a claim.

You didn't answer my question: Are you implying that I am cisgendered? No, because I'm not a racist like you who thinks the value of someone's opinion is dependent on their race. If a 'person of colour' defines racism as banana, I'll tell them they are wrong.