-1=e^ipi

I would prefer we screen out the islamists to be honest. If someone thinks that apostasy, homosexuality or blasphemy should be criminalized, then they shouldn't be allowed in Canada, refugee or not.

Now how are you defining 'real scientist'? If you were to define real scientist as someone who follows the scientific method, then I could make a good case that James Hansen doesn't satisfy that definition. People are very capable of immense cognitive dissonance, so some are able to do good science while believing in nonsense. Roy Spencer is a good example.

Yes. They all suck. I'm glad other people agree. I will also probably spoil my ballot.

The position that the strength of positive feedbacks are not even close sufficiently strong to cause a 'tipping point' is the mainstream scientific position. I can also find people that claim to be scientists that don't believe in evolution.

There is no 'tipping point'.

Wow, that's not how physics works at all. Look, the Earth's weather events are primarily heat engines which transfer heat from the equatorial regions to the polar regions. The equatorial-polar heat gradient reduces as CO2 levels increase. This means that there is less temperature different to perform work and drive various weather phenomena. Please learn the basic physics of heat engines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle Shouldn't the people claiming its bad try to demonstrate that it is bad using empirical evidence and reason? Determining whether or not CO2 emissions are of net harm is not something that can be trivially demonstrated. You can keep repeating that it is bad, but that doesn't make it more or less true. Maybe demonstrating that it is bad would be a more productive use of time. And where is the proof for this bold claim? So if I understand this right, the best policy is for everyone to stop using all fossil fuels today? Again, please demonstrate this.

Pretty much. Judith Curry recently did a blog post on this. http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/15/heterodox-academy/ Even in fields where you can do tests to definitively falsify certain positions, bad ideas can still persist for decades. Look at the refusal of physicists to accept Einstein's theory of relativity. The following quote by Max Plank is very relevant: "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Those are also good examples.Many in the neoclassical school of economics are dogmatic in their beliefs and refuse to accept empirical evidence to the contrary. Look at the criticism of Card & Krueger. At least these fields are moving in the direction of being more empirical and following the scientific method. Though the same cannot be said for fields such as gender studies (where feminism and patriarchy theory remain unopposed, unchallenged and independent of empirical data). I would say that tribalism and the very existence of schools is problematic. People should be open minded, follow the scientific method, and test competing hypothesis. They shouldn't dogmatically try to support an ideology. In economists, these 'schools' have been of great detriment to the field because for the most part (at least historically) they have been unfalsifiable belief systems.

The nonsense continues: https://archive.is/3sJIl If the UCLA resolution goes through then it will prohibit: - Depicting or articulating a view of people with disabilities (both visible and invisible) as incapable. - Attempts to discuss cultural or biological differences between men and women, between gay and straight people, or between different ethnic groups will be condemned totally. So if I say that paraplegic people are less capable of walking than the general population, or that there are biological differences between gay and straight people which cause gay people to be gay, I am committing an act of 'Intolerance' and should face disciplinary action.

Justin Trudeau in response to Tom Mulcair in response to long term planning: "long term starts right now" Sounds a lot like Keynes.

There is no such thing as a 'living wage'. Only a living income. Guaranteed income makes more sense than minimum wage policies.

Provide evidence that Gregory Elliot was harassing people. Please provide me with a link to some comments he said or whatever. My position is not unfalsifiable. All you have to do is show me what Gregory Elliot said or wrote that constitutes harassment.

North Korea has courts which decide if a line has been crossed. Does that mean that we should believe that those courts always make correct decisions? A kangaroo court's ruling is not evidence. If you have evidence that Gregory Elliot harassed someone, then please provide it.

Not when the 'criminal harassment' is simply disagreeing with feminists on twitter.

Fair enough. You know legal jargon better than I do.

If you don't know who Jack Thompson is, you don't understand the context needed to understand the decision next month as to whether it will be illegal or not to disagree with feminists on twitter in Canada.

The guy did the exact same thing with Jack Thompson. Where is the outrage over Jack Thompson? But I guess old christian white male says video games cause violence = not taken seriously. But young white female says video games cause violence = we must automatically agree with her and all those who disagree are misogynists that must be silenced. I would argue that this double standard stems from male disposability and the empathy gap. Not only that but the game creator explained the motivation for making the game in the game itself: "There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting equality for women. The problem is, people like Anita are only selfishly looking out for their own benefits. They want all the perks that everyone else earns without any of the work or risk involved. She has refused to address any form of criticism whatsoever, and hides behind the fact that she has a vagina, claiming that it's sexist to criticize her in any way. She claims to want equality. Well here it is. There's been a disgusting large imbalance of men who get beaten up in games. Let's add a lady to help balance things." I don't agree with making punching games, but there is a very clear double standard here with respect to Anita Sarkeesian and Jack Thompson.

Ironically, it was the two feminists that were stalking, harassing, and launching a campaign of cyberbullying against an individual from Northern Ontario. But in progressiveland, disagreeing with cyberbulling counts as 'harassing' if you disagree with the wrong people.

Wait, it isn't? This is new to me. I thought all the eating flesh, drinking blood and worshiping a zombie made it pretty cannibalistic.

I've posted links to studies earlier in this thread. But no one wants to address that.

Good thing I'm not a conservative. Yes, Canada is behind when it comes to freedom of speech. Unfortunately, our lack of free speech is propped up by people who think that our country is too good for freedom of speech. This is why we have a trial next month that will determine if it's legal to disagree with feminists on twitter.

Yep. Progressives don't support the liberal principle of freedom of speech.

Also, remember that I'm using the Clausius-Clapeyron relation without taking the increase in pressure into account. Once you take into account the pressure increase, from memory you need a temperature of over 600 K to boil all the oceans away. So even a 100 C temperature increase won't eliminate the Earth's oceans. I'll see if I can find the link to the calculations I saw someone do on their blog. Water vapour concentrations increases roughly exponentially with temperature, but radiative forcing is a roughly logarithmic function of water vapour concentrations. So the water vapour feedback is roughly constant with temperature. Anyway, I was referring to 50 C being the final equilibrium temperature. Also, if you do the calculations, the sun simply isn't strong enough for runaway global warming to occur on Earth for the next billion years.

Maybe. Maybe not. Fortunately there are ways to empirically test if this is the case or not.