-1=e^ipi

A combination. The best satire has elements of truth in it.

So if I don't mention everything that is in the study in a post, I somehow don't know what I don't mention? Well according to that logic, you didn't mention that the Earth is round in your last post. Therefore, you are a flat-Earther. With respect to the second comment, I still am unclear what you are trying to say with "Notwithstanding it's effectively an economics model 'on top of' a climate model - no uncertainty there!". Could you please translate from Waldospeak to English? So you are a slowdown denier? You can empirically estimate the impulse response function from the instrumental record. If you want to know the warming rate if natural variability were held constant, that is certainly possible to estimate. But I get the impression that you think the fact that not everyone can quantify everything off the top of their head somehow discredits their argument.

I think the future might look something like this:

The Swedish democrats are closer to classic liberals than conservatives. Yet they are portrayed as evil nazis by the swedish media due to media bias.

You say that yet there are many cases where conservative parties have become irrelevant. What happened to the conservative party in BC or Australia? They died out. How about Sweden? Conservatism is dead there.

1. I said to an extent. The media bias is relatively week compared to bias in education. 2. I'm not sure what you are referring to. Could you please elaborate?

And why wouldn't I know that? You don't think I can read? Are you saying that the paper doesn't try to quantify uncertainty?

Demographic trends do not favour conservatives. Our schools, universities and to an extent our media are indoctrinating kids into SJWism ideology. The conservatives will eventually become irrelevant and the NDP will eventually form government. It's only a matter of time.

I'm never sure. Perhaps the flying spaghetti monster mind controlled large segments of the population.

I'm really confused about the relevance of Ted Cruz in this conversation.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between pause and slowdown. And also lol at referencing Gavin Schmidt and his cherry picking nonsense.

I think the conflict between the SJWs and the non-authoritarians that fight them will be quite relevant on the national political arena.

Yeah it does. And there are other methods to estimate energy's share of income, such as cross sectional regression analysis of energy prices and ln GDP per capita. These estimates put energy's share between 0.05-0.10. Although I've seen some indications that the assumption of Cobb-Douglas functional form isn't accurate and results in a slight underestimation of the impact of energy prices.

Doubt it. Gerald Butts is his close friend/advisor and look what he did to Ontario. Trudeau will probably reduce emissions in the least cost effective way following the advice of Butts, rather than do what BC has done.

That's silly. If the cobb-douglas approximation is roughly true (and it's used in a lot of IAMs because it is reasonable), then that is taking into the full account of all the costs, direct and indirect. Anyway, how energy enters the production function is something which can be empirically tested, but I do like Nordhaus' model of abatement costs.

This doesn't refute what I wrote. This might. The Cobb-Douglas approximation probably doesn't hold exactly. But it isn't that bad. Energy's share of income in developing countries is like 10% or so. So at worst you can just double the earlier numbers.

Coalitions work fine in many countries.

Suppose the production is roughly Cobb-Douglas and energy's share of income is roughly 5%. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=18471 This means that doubling energy prices would reduce GDP per capita by 1 - (1/2)^0.05 = 3.4%. Tripling of energy prices would reduce GDP per capita by 1 - (1/3)^0.05 = 5.3%.

@ Michael - That's the paper I was referencing a few posts ago... But yeah, it's looking like Canada has to justify mitigation policy on the basis of charity, not on self interest. Which is fine, but I doubt politicians will be honest. No, the paper accounts for development. Though it probably underestimates adaptation since it's a partial equilibrium analysis as I said earlier.

The slow down still occurred. 2015 won't change that.

I think you missed the word 'heard'. Or do you like the fact that we've funded Islamists in Syria? A bit of doubt and skepticism can go a long way, especially when politicians surround themselves with sycophants and live in a bubble of confirmation bias. It's more than just left-of-centre people that think our system is unfair. If the majority of the population are not conservatives, why should the conservatives ever have a majority? How about instead conservatives either try to convince the population of the superiority of their position and convert people to conservatism, or work with other groups to form government, such as libertarians and classical liberals? In Australia and BC the conservatives work with Liberals to obtain power.

1. Allows dissenting opinion to be heard which may influence those in power by creating doubt, skepticism and re-evaluation of policy. Perhaps if we had more dissenting opinion heard, we wouldn't have funding all those wonderful Islamists in Syria. 2. Allows the non-governing parties to be heard between elections by the public, which may help the public better inform their choices in the next election. 3. Has psychological benefits for the public and reduces the number of people that feel alienated. If you look at the mass shootings that have occurred over the past few years, they are often by people that feel alienated. Also, if people feel that their views are being heard, this increases their happiness, which makes them more productive, which results in more goods and services for Canada. Just like Abbot and Harper never got the nomination, eh?

Way to not understand the difference with power and representation. The point of a representative democracy is to REPRESENT people. In our current government, the liberals have all the power, but the conservatives and NDP are still there to represent the people that did not vote liberal. If you don't think representation is a desirable goal, then why not just get rid of parliament completely? Way to purposely misunderstand what I wrote. Getting what you want isn't the same thing as representation. No, something does change; the green party gets representation. Because.... You want the libs-cons to have an eternal duopoly on power, view giving others representation a threat to your desired eternal duopoly and don't realize that systems like FPTP encourage radicals to infiltrate mainstream parties which is why you have people like Trump and Sanders doing well?

This is 1, irrelevant, and 2 false. It is irrelevant because as long as the voter's views represent a sufficient portion of the population (say 0.3% + for a 300+ seat parliament) then it would make sense for that voter's views to be represented in parliament. Isn't that the whole point of representational democracy? To represent people, including minorities? And it's false. I'll just give 1 counter example. The majority of Ontarians want the Catholic system abolished. Yet 0 of the parties in the legislature support this view (green party has 0 seats). The Libertarian party obtained over 0.2% of the vote and they only have seats in about half the ridings. It is extremely likely under a proportional system where voters in all ridings can vote for them and there will be not strategic voting that their support level would justify seats in parliament. But you want examples of policies/positions that none of the parties in parliament support? Which parties want to get rid of supply management? Which parties support dealing or even mentioning men's issues such as the life expectancy gap, the suicide gap, the violent crime victim gap, the university attendance gap, or the fact that millions of infant males have their genitals mutilated without consent? Which parties dare to even acknowledge the existence of tradeoffs, such as the tradeoff between CO2 mitigation and economic output? Which parties make decisions based on empirical evidence rather than dogma or whatever is popular? None.