-1=e^ipi

So apparently SJWs are so radical that they are being trolled by 4Chan. 4Chan started the hashtag #pissforequality and the SJWs have been quite supportive of it... http://www.infowars.com/pissforequality-feminists-fall-for-4chan-troll-campaign-by-peeing-themselves/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

I predict that separatism in Alberta and Saskatchewan will be somewhat significant.

You are mixing up democracy with liberal democracy.

And temperature is not atmospheric CO2. Just like how temperature is not precipitation and you were complaining a few posts ago that the study doesn't take into account changes in precipitation patterns.

Most people agree, but that doesn't mean most people care that much. There are far more important issues. Maybe if the conservatives focused more on the TPP or national security during the last weeks they would have done better. Focusing on the niqab and using fear tactics about legalization of marijuana was a terrible strategy.

A study that doesn't take into account the CO2 fertilization effect 'puts boots to' the CO2 fertilization effect... That doesn't make sense. I have never said anything along those lines. You wish I did though, which is why you keep strawmaning me.

Suggesting that there is bias does not mean that the bias is uniform.

That's the conservatives main weakness. They think there is some silent majority that agree with them, when that isn't the case.

What are you talking about? There's no media bias. The Canadian mainstream media is totally fair and balanced...

Good, conservatives suck. Not necessarily. PR allows for a greater number of relevant parties to exist. How are they shut out? Why have such a dumb threshold? If the libertarians, communists or other groups get enough votes, shouldn't they be represented fairly in parliament?

Yes. It gives me less reason to hate him. Which sort of pisses me off because I like to hate on Trudeau.

Don't be so sure. Harper's out, Abbott is out, Obama is in, alarmism remains strong, and developed countries want money. There is a good change that significant CO2 emission reduction pledges and wealth transfers will be made. If the only way you can obtain international influence is by losing foreign policy by following what other countries do, then what is the point?

You can if you construct the model to be overly simplistic. The Burke et al 2015 paper does this for temperature. Of course you probably want to to depend on multiple factors, but that isn't very difficult since the methodology is a simple regression. And you can estimate this effect by including time in the regression.

Because he commented on the paper and I respect him as an economist. He probably has some decent criticisms of the Burke et al 2015 result. It's a function of both, as well as rainfall and other things. I think an empirical fit, where the logarithm of productivity is a roughly quadratic function of temperature, a quadratic function of precipitation, and a linear function of time might be reasonable (or maybe you need more interaction terms). In any case, it seems like productivity losses due to temperature changes are the strongest justification for mitigation policy. What I wrote follows from performing a parabolic fit that is fixed 0 warming and is fixed at 2.5 C - 3 C of warming. If the estimates around 1 C were overestimates, then this suggests that the linear term is smaller in magnitude while the quadratic term is larger in magnitude. That's a very simple concept and is far too trivial for any publisher to have any incentive to public.

You can easily repeat the methodology to estimate impacts of precipitation and other things. The authors chose not to, maybe because they wanted to focus on temperature or maybe because they had limited journal space. You are deluded if you think China is on the mitigation bandwagon. China is just pledging to do BAU while trying to appear as if they are performing mitigations. It's all posturing to obtain political leverage over the US and EU. Either the slowdown exists or it doesn't. It's not hard to figure out. Both BEST and Cowtan & Way show a slowdown. Yeah and it's a joke. It shows how invested some people are in the alarmist narrative. Acknowledging the existence of the slowdown doesn't somehow mean that mitigation policy isn't justified. And a decade + ago, alarmists were downplaying natural variability and claiming that basically all the warming from like 1970 to 2000 was anthropogenic. Point is that natural variability matters, and the implication is that climate sensitivity is likely lower than what the alarmists were claiming a decade + ago. Yet the alarmists are still clinging to the upper half of the IPCC's ECS range even as empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

Also, there is a bit of irony here. If the next 1.1C has a negative impact rather than a positive impact then this suggests that the second derivative of the function is smaller in magnitude (assuming that the 2.5 C - 3C estimates are still decent), which suggests that the marginal impact of additional warming after about 2C is larger, which suggests that less mitigation is desirable, not more.

Not sure about that. Nordhaus' work is certainly very good. That was only for the first 1.1 C of warming. Apparently it's bad to bring up studies now? I never even put that much weight on the Tol result since I don't think a meta-study is the best approach. I favour the Richardian-approach such as the recent paper that finds productivity is maximized around 13 C.

So many sinful posters in this thread. Atone for your sins!

Maybe you should stop contributing to the eventual climate Armageddon that will cause the Earth the Boil over, turn the oceans into battery acid, cause oceans to rise 1 km and make the air toxic to breath. There is a consensus among 297% of scientists that this will occur. I suggest that you purchase a bike, give 90% of your money to 3rd world dictators to help them deal with all the climate change they will face due to the evil developed world, and that you join the Church of Climate Change Alarmism to atone for your climate sins.

So the '97%' don't know 'that'. Okay, thank you for your retraction.

This is a joke, right? Please find me evidence that 97% of leading climatologists 'know' that these mass migrations will occur. You realize the 97% number thrown around is not about migration patterns, right?

Could you please present your immigration model to the IPCC or the scientific community so they can better quantify how climate change will cause all this mass migration?

Here's an aspect of climate change I think hasn't been discussed much. Even if human productivity is maximized around 12 or 13 C, temperature may have a more direct effect on human well being beyond changing productivity and environmental impacts. Humans have a preference for moderate temperatures and are obviously willing to pay money to change their local climate (heating, air conditioning, going on vacation, etc.). Here's a paper that suggests human happiness is maximized around 13.9 C. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-11-00052.1 Edit: Here is a ppt of a study done by some European economists that I found with a quick google search. It's not very conclusive and I don't like the model specification.

Yep. Look at what happened recently to Phillip Verdier, one of France's top meteorologists. Lost his job.