-1=e^ipi

I don't really like the term. I generally know what people mean by it, but the concept is basically completely unrelated to Marxism. I've seen some people claim that some of the beliefs of SJWism were advocated by marxists in universities in like the 60's or 70's and that is the origin of the term, but I think that the origins of SJWism are more complicated than that. Before it became a pejorative, SJWs were using Social Justice Warrior and other variants of Social Justice ______. Then it started to be used by critics of SJWs. I need a term to use when describing the group of people I identify as SJWs. If you want to give me a politically correct and accepted term, fine. But as no alternate term for SJWs exists, I'm stuck with using SJWs. There are plenty of women that disagree with SJWs and identify with #gamergate such as Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, Alison Tieman, Karen Straughan, Ashe Schow, etc. Heck, look at #notyourshield. Except, with respect to gamergate, most of the people that identify with the hashtag are left wing according to political compass results. Gamers as a group are generally younger and more left wing than the general population. Take for example Carl Benjamin, who identifies as left wing and is one of the more popular spokespersons for #gamergate. Not only that but the majority of his supporters are leftwing according to political compass results.

Integrated assessment models? With respect to TimG's claim of the existence of publication bias, I think this link is evidence: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988315002327

No we aren't. I can list lots of countries that have higher emissions per capita. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, USA, Australia.

You mean like past estimates of climate sensitivity that have been overestimates? Oh wait...

WIP, the argument in your post is roughly of the following form: - Some people have claimed that we should meet the 2C target or risks become too high. - Bad things happened in the past due to warming. - Now suppose that there is a 50% chance of bad things happening if we go past 2C warming. That's really bad, so we shouldn't go above 2C. So the first part of your argument is just an appeal to authority. Yes a lot of people repeat the 2C target over and over again, but that doesn't make it justified. With respect to events in the past such as the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event, you in no way relate this to 2C of warming. You need to take into account the quantities. Your argument is like pointing out that some people have died of alcohol poisoning and then claiming that no one should ever drink more than 2 bears at a time. Finally, you pull out a 50% chance from thin air. Is there any empirical evidence that suggests a 50% probability? No.

I skimmed this paper today when I was looking for empirical estimates of how CO2 emissions enter the production function. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/103412/2/Zhao-1-the%20impact%20of%20The%20cost%20of%20CO2%20emission%20cuts%20on%20income.pdf "To reduce emissions 50% below 1990 levels by 2050, the economic cost per year for developed countries is about 0.3% reduction in GDP per capita which represents a 15% slowdown in economic growth." Over a period of 60 years, 0.3% reduction in GDP per capita results in society being 16.5% poorer.

No, it was about ethics in journalism and later fighting SJWs trying to infiltrate journalism. But some of the females that disagree with gamergate dismiss all arguments gamergate puts forth because they view disagreement as due to sexism. And people like you blindly accept the mainstream/SJW narrative because it fights with various narratives that have existed for a while. Anyway, Anita Sarkeesian and others are now at the UN trying to convince the UN to censor everyone: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/ Dude get out of the 50's. As I said before, just because you have internalized misogyny doesn't mean everyone else does. Stop projecting.

Both. They are both idiots. Btw, the 2 C target has zero scientific or economic basis.

When your belief system is unfalsifiable, all evidence 'proves your point'. @ WIP - Men also experience online abuse when playing online games. And studies have shown that it is on average more than women. The problem is confirmation bias, if people are dogmatically trying to find evidence to fit a narrative they will find evidence for it. Interpreting all online abuse women face to be due to sexism is wrong. I've received death threats, rape threats and other online abuse all the time, but I don't go around saying 'oh it must be due to sexism'. A few minutes ago I was told to get cancer on an online game. Yeah, the fundamentalist christians certainly have their share of this behaviour. The problem is that right now it's the SJWs in positions of power in our society. A lot of it is about ethics in gaming journalism, but that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative. My examples weren't examples of state repression, but repression by mob violence/intimidation.

In other news, unfriending people on facebook can now be a crime in Australia. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11890275/Facebook-unfriending-can-constitute-workplace-bullying-Australian-tribunal-finds.html

Yeah, like how Milo Yiannopoulos was sent a dead animal with a razor blade in the mail or how SPJ Miami received 10 bomb threats and had to cancel an event where they had Gamergaters discussing Gamergate with journalists. Let alone the origins of Gamergate being related to SJWs trying to infiltrate the gaming media, colluding and declaring Gamers to be 'dead'.

Yeah, it's not like western universities have diversity officers that tweet #killallwhitemen or anything... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11633305/University-union-officer-who-wrote-kill-all-white-men-tweet-will-remain-in-post.html What a convenient way of avoiding falsifiability. Meanwhile, you think that those that are triggered by people with a differing opinion from them such as 'the most qualified person should get the job' need to be protected from opposing opinions rather than grow a thicker skin. Let's apply this mentality to other situations: Charlie Hebdo - well they shouldn't have drawn offensive things and shouldn't be free of the consequences. Political prisoners in Nazi Germany - well they should have known about the consequences of saying offensive things about the Nazis. It's amazing how SJW types are able to dismiss the positions of all those that disagree based on their race and gender. If the person is a white male - he disagrees because they want to maintain their privilege. If the person is a white female - she disagrees because she has internalized misogyny and white privilege. If the person is a non-white female - she disagrees because she has internalized misogyny and internalized racism. If the person is a non-white male - he disagrees because she has internalized racism and male privilege. Morzilla's CEO.

And cost... Don't forget about the cost difference.

Let's see... 1. Canada-Korea free trade agreement. 2. Canada-Peru free trade agreement. 3. Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. 4. Canada-Panama free trade agreement. 5. Canada-Jordan free trade agreement. 6. Canada-Columbia free trade agreement. 7. Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. 8. Attempts to get free trade with the EU. 9. Attempts to conclude the TPP. 10. Tax free savings accounts.

At least Duceppe brought up the issue of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is our enemy not our friend and we should impose sanctions on them for supporting genocide against apostates and gay people.

I can't guarantee a flying spaghetti monster wont appear out of thin air and turn you into a meat ball. It's a matter of probability and risk management. Also, some reactor types are very safe and even physically incapable of meltdowns. Yes. That's up for debate. Maybe it should be used to fund geoengineering. Maybe it should be used to lower taxes. Maybe it should be given back directly to people of Earth in the form of a transfer. It would have negative impacts on economic activity, but so would the effects of climate change. That's why you set the value of the tax to be the marginal external net cost to society. You can try to estimate the best value of a CO2 emission tax using integrated assessment models, such as those by Nordhaus. Everyone should pay it.

Or you could use pumped hydro storage...

1. Stop having insane anti-nuclear energy policies around the world and accept nuclear energy. 2. Global pigouvian tax (say $15 per metric ton and increase it in real value at a rate of about 3% per year).

Mulcair is clearly the most competent leader, but leads an unappealing party.

There's an empty skull.

I'd vote for people like Martha Hall Findley or Malcolm Turnbull. I'd probably vote for an economist party if they decided to run. There are some minor parties not running in my riding that I would be willing to vote for. But as it is, my options suck.

Marta Hall Findley would make a far superior PM than any of the current candidates, including May. But Justin Trudeau has nice hair and a fancy last name.

But by voting, you are giving one of them legitimacy. If the majority of people spoiled their ballots, neither candidate would have legitimacy.

If you had an election where the only two options were Hitler and Stalin, would you vote for one of them, or would you spoil your ballot? There comes a point where the options are so distasteful that spoiling one's ballot more accurately represents your views than voting for the 'least bad' candidate.

That would make sense. But none of the other parties would support such a sane policy.