-1=e^ipi

No, I don't have a problem with people saying black lives matter. Nor do I have a problem with people saying all lives matter. What I do have a problem with is SJWs trying to censor people.

You are moving goal posts here. Maybe you should define 'raging righty'. Now you are purposely misinterpreting what I wrote.

Don't you understand? Everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out!

Yes, the raging right flamboyantly gay guy who is dating a muslim. Insults that use someone's sex count as sexist when used against women, but not when used against men.

If you don't know the words I use, look them up. It isn't hard. It's not like I'm purposely trying to make what I write difficult to understand.

Here is news for you: The world is not homogeneous. Your personal experience should not be generalized to the entire population. Experiences will be different depending on age, where one lives and many other factors.

SJWs are a disenfranchised group now? How? They are the ones that have the power in universities and are trying to silence those that disagree with them. They are the ones trying to make it illegal to disagree with certain people on twitter and are at the UN trying to get the UN to impose internet censorship. 1. I was referring to all the females that identify with #gamergate, which is far more than big enough for your living room as evidenced by #notyourshield. You are moving goal posts here by now referring to 'antifeminist female aggit-propagandists'. 2. When Galileo was around, the number of people in Italy that openly advocated the Earth revolves around then sun was probably small enough to fit in your living room. The value of an opinion is independent of the number of people that believe in it. In that case, don't label #gamergate as a right wing movement, or opposition to this microaggression nonsense as right wing.

http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/841842-gamergate https://imgur.com/Qvo6Ost http://gamepolitics.com/2014/12/29/editorial-gamergate-political-attitudes-part-1-movement-right-wing/ Gotta love the double standard of Black Dog logic. Yes, the horror of being inclusive and thinking all lives matter. Clearly it's a microaggression that is due to being racist against black people. Clearly we need to hijack Bernie Sanders rallies to fight racism. *sarcasm*

No you can't. You just think this because you have confirmation bias and want to believe it. It's very easy to convince yourself that solar/wind is just as cheap as fossil fuels or nuclear if you arbitrarily add costs to fossil fuels / nuclear and/or arbitrarily hide costs from solar/wind. Battery technology is not infinitely cheap, nor will it be any time soon. Pretending away the problem of energy storage and transportation isn't a good way to deal with this issue. And these numbers are based on... what? Pulled from thin air? Somehow I think the well being of 7 billion people, soon to be 10 billion, is worth more thought than someone coming up with arbitrary numbers from nowhere. I don't think everyone thinks like you. From experience, most people don't really care much about what happens outside their own bubble of experience.

No, but one can get a probability distribution of what will happen using empirical data and climate models. I have a better idea. Attain probability distributions for how the climate will evolve under different emission scenarios, for how economic output will change under different emission scenarios, etc. using empirical data. Use empirical data on risk averse behaviour in humans to define a social welfare function. Then perform Monte Carlo simulations and use Newton's method to determine the path of carbon dioxide emission taxation that maximizes expected social welfare.

Okay, upon more thought, putting CO2 emissions directly in a Cobb-Douglas production function is probably not the best idea, since mitigation costs approach infinity as CO2 emissions approach zero. But putting energy in a Cobb-Douglas production function, and then treating mitigation costs as a power function of percentage of energy from non-CO2 intensive sources, as Nordhaus does, is far more reasonable. Heck Nordhaus was doing this all the way back in 1992. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Optimal.science.1192.pdf Anyway, this suggests that Xiaobing Zhao's estimate of mitigation costs is likely an overestimate. So one could get an estimate of mitigation costs as follows: - First estimate the Cobb-Douglas production function, where energy is one of its parameters, using empirical data such as differences in output by country; this gives energy's share of national income. One could even treat the parameters in the model as functions over time and over level of economic development to take into account change in energy use due to economic development and technological progress. - Next, use energy's share of national income, GDP PPP by country and energy consumed by country to get an implicit price of energy by country. - Use implicit price of energy by country and CO2 emissions per unit energy by country to get an estimate of energy costs as a function of CO2 emissions per unit energy. The functional form can be a power form as suggested by Nordhaus, and one could even have it vary as a function of time and/or by level of economic development. - The last step would be to look at mitigation policies by country in recent years and use only the no-mitigation data to get an idea of CO2 emissions per unit energy under no-mitigation. One can then use this to convert implicit price of energy by country as a function CO2 emissions per unit energy to a function of percentage of mitigation performed (between 0% and 100%).

DICE 2013 model uses a Cobb-Douglas production function of physical capital, labour and energy, where energy can either be CO2 based or non-CO2 based. The price of CO2 emitting sources of energy is modeled as a function of total consumption of fossil fuels (resources get more scarce) plus a possible tax on CO2 emissions. So that's a bit more complicated than putting CO2 emissions directly in a Cobb-Douglas production function. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/DICE_Manual_103113r2.pdf Edit: Well more accurately, it has abatement costs in the production function and determines abatement costs depend on substitution costs to non-CO2 forms of energy.

Libs, Cons, NDP, Greens, Bloc. That's 5. Anyway, I disagree with FPTP too. What are we even disagreeing over? All I am saying is that FPTP was an issue pre-Harper and is an issue in other countries such as the UK.

And Harper won a majority with 37.65%. Not a big difference.

1. Wasn't Jean Chretien getting majority governments with 37% of the vote? This isn't a problem that started with Harper. 2. This may be surprising to some people, but not everyone views the Liberals and NDP as interchangeable. Some dislike either the Liberals or the NDP more than the Conservatives. 3. I live in a safe NDP riding, so my vote won't matter; although I will probably spoil it anyway.

You are right, it might be different from 1. I don't think the assumption is that bad given the application though. Similar analysis could be performed without the restriction. Disagreements about economies of scale can be resolved using empirical data. Yes and no. For some applications a Cobb-Douglas production function yields okay results and in other cases it doesn't. For example, generally such functions predict that physical capital's share of national income will be relatively constant over economies of varying levels of GDP per capita; this is observed to be roughly true where physical capital's share of national income is roughly 1/3. On the other hand, I have seen a paper recently that suggests that entering energy in the production function as Cobb-Douglas yield predictions inconsistent with empirical data (I'll see if I can find this paper). However, a Cobb-Douglas does have falsifiable predictions so can be tested against empirical data. It is a decent place to start; think of it as a first order approximation. If a Cobb-Douglas production function is found to be inconsistent with empirical data, then the next step would be to try to use a generalization of a Cobb-Douglas function, such as a CES function or a translog function. And if those are inconsistent with observations, then one can try a more complicated model. Anyway, I think you will agree that trying to determine an optimal level of CO2 emission taxation is difficult, although I'm getting the impression that you think it's not possible. So it makes sense to try to keep things as simple as possible while being consistent with empirical observations. Can the gravitational constant be derived in some fundamental way? I don't know how one can derive the value of the constants in a fundamental way. Or is this a typo and are you asking if the functional form can be derived in a fundamental way? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobb%E2%80%93Douglas_production_function "Crucially, there are no microfoundations for it. In the modern era, economists try to build models up from individual agents acting, rather than imposing a functional form on an entire economy. However, many modern authors have developed models which give Cobb–Douglas production function from the micro level; many New Keynesian models, for example." Well it would be super nice if measurement error was super low like it is for physics in most applications and if all humans were identical like how all electrons are identical. But realistically, that isn't the case, so models have to be made given what is available otherwise decisions can't be made. You mean like they do in climate modelling? Joking aside, what is wrong with selecting the best model using things like Akaike's information criterion?

I'm not equating the methodologies, though they do give ECS estimates. Instrumental data suggests ECS < 3 C. Pleistocene data suggests ECS < 3 C once you take into account Milankovitch cycles and distribution of radiative forcing. Paleoclimate data older than Pleistocene have much higher uncertainty on CO2 levels or global temperature, have the added problem of taking into account the different positions of the Earth's continents (and subsequent albedo changes) and frequently neglect CH4 and N2O. The only thing that is inconsistent are the climate models, which are subject to unknown model error due to all of the parameters that need to be chosen, are vulnerable to confirmation bias, and have large grid sizes which makes it impossible to simulate cloud microphysics so large numeric errors which can result in systematic bias are present. Although recent results this year suggest that most climate models have been overestimating the effect of human aerosols and not taking into account the iris effect, which means that over time the climate model results should move downward to be more in line with the empirical estimates.

I care about the quality of the research, not so much if it is peer-reviewed. As shown by Christopher Monckton, nonsense can get peer-reviewed.

Top of google search engine results. And the methodology was roughly what I was looking for, since having CO2 directly in the production function makes it easier to predict economic impacts of CO2 mitigation policies and determine an optimal level of CO2 emission taxation. The fact that the production function is Cobb-Douglas makes the empirical analysis easy to follow / reproduce and, if combined with a social welfare function where consumption utility is logarithmic, it can make it relatively easy to determine an optimal level of CO2 emission taxation. So that was an added bonus.

As I explained in other threads, from what I can tell, proper time-series estimations of ECS using the instrumental record consistently exclude ECS values greater than 3 C at the 95% level. Ice core data from the pleistocene excludes ECS values above 3 C at the 95% confidence level provided you don't neglect Milankovitch cycles in your calculations like James Hansen likes to do and provided you take into consideration the global distribution of forcing changes since, as we know from the Stefan-Boltzman law, a more even distribution of radiative forcing leads to a higher global average temperature even if average radiative forcing is the same.

Uncertainty isn't zero, but certainly evidence suggests that climate models like CMIP5 with median ECS of 3.2 C are overestimating ECS.

That's a Cobb-Douglas production function. It's pretty standard/common. The assumption of alpha + beta + gamma = 1 is one of constant returns to scale (so if you have twice as much labour, physical capital and energy then you will have twice as much economic output). Constant returns to scale is not an unreasonable assumption. Obviously there are some limited factors of production such as land, which means that alpha + beta + gamma < 1, although there are also some benefits to having more population density. I could go into detail of why people tend to use Cobb-Douglas production functions, but basically it is easy to use and has desirable properties. Obviously, the functional form is likely incorrect (and I've seen a fair amount of evidence that it is incorrect, particularly how energy enters the production function), but it isn't that bad. You have to remember that there is a tradeoff when making a model more complicated since you would make it harder to estimate, use and share results with other people, but you might be able to better explain observations with a more complicated model. That's why people like Karl Popper argue that various theories have predictive power and it makes sense to give preference to the null hypothesis / simpler beliefs until proven otherwise and not to accept unfalsifiable beliefs. That's why things like Occam's razor and Akaike's information criterion exist. It's why in physics, people will often use Newtonian physics or neglect air resistance when making calculations. I don't think the paper claims super high amounts of precision. Anyway, you can still make predictions using empirical data which have high levels of uncertainty. And you can use those predictions to determine a unique social welfare maximizing CO2 emission tax assuming you define the social welfare function to have a reasonable level of risk aversion (say a coefficient of relative risk aversion somewhere between 0.5 and 2; I would suggest a value of 1 for reasons I have given in other threads and also because logarithmic consumption utility combined with a Cobb-Douglas production function makes maximization of the social welfare function relatively easy to perform).

Yeah, like if an employer wants to hire someone that the employer categorizes as a member of an 'oppressed group' in order to given themselves a false sense of moral superiority, then they can come up with lots of reasons to not hire a more qualified individual who the employer categorizes as a member of an 'oppressor group'.

The belief that 'the best person should get the job' is not the same as the belief that 'the best person always gets the job'.

No I wouldn't. If microaggressions were only what you imply they are according to what you have written in this thread, I would have no problem with universities giving advice to staff and students on how to avoid them. But it is more complicated than that, especially when some people are offended by egalitarian beliefs such as 'the most qualified person should get the job' and want to silence those that don't share their beliefs. It depends on how you quantify it. Generally people that want to insult or troll others will use whatever they think will hurt their feelings the most. If someone says 'go make me a sandwich', that' isn't a gendered statement, yet it is used primarily to insult women. Alternatively, if someone says 'you are a loser virgin that can't get laid and should kill yourself', that is a non-gendered statement that is used primarily to insult men (since virginity has a negative connotation for men, where as being a slut has a negative connotation to women; this all relates to reproductive utility theory but that is a bit off topic). I have gotten insults similar to the later since I am male. Although ironically, it doesn't bother me since I am asexual and don't care about getting laid. Though it does bother me that people assume I am heterosexual. Another thing you should take into consideration is that years of social conditioning due to chivalry, concepts like 'men shouldn't hit women but not vica-versa', 'men are oppressors, women are victims', 'women and children first', etc. result in it being more socially acceptable to abuse men. So I would view all differences in abuse that men and women face as due to sexism. Yes, and it also had individuals acting independent of the state following the ideology of Nazism. Nazi Germany had both state and non-state repression. And I've read in literature that 'all men want sex all the time' and 'all men are pigs'. Yet I don't fit in this category at all. You need to stop generalizing half of the population and realize that not everyone is like you, so please stop projecting onto everyone else.