-1=e^ipi

Your nationalism disgusts me. Hasn't kept me safe, nor allowed me to thrive. Didn't protect me from getting assaulted by thugs and suffering brain damage, didn't protect me from abuse from my parents, and it didn't protect the city I live from being attacked by ISIS sympathizers such as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. Let's see... - We are 8th place in terms of HDI and falling. Norway is way out ahead at #1 and even the USA beats us. - We are 20th place in terms of GDP per capita (PPP). Behind Taiwan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. - We are 12th place in life expectancy rankings. - We don't have freedom of speech and as of this year it may become illegal to disagree with feminists on Twitter. - Energy prices are skyrocketing, especially in Ontario. We can't build pipelines and we can't build nuclear plants. - We are basically the only developed country that has a pure public health care system and we criminalize most private health care. As a result, we put people on ridiculously long waiting lists and they don't get the care they need. We refuse to have a sane health care system like most of Europe. - There are few job opportunities for millennials. - We are not a republic. Instead we have this disgusting concept of birth-right via the monarchy. Not only that, but we further the concept of birth-right via the reserve system & the Indian Act. - We have supply management on eggs, milk and poultry for no good reason. This especially harms poor people due to higher prices on basic food and prevents us from obtaining trade agreements with the TPP and the EU. - Our anthem and our charter of rights and freedoms contains religious references, which isn't consistent with being a secular country. Not to mention we have 'in all thy son's command', which is sexist. - Our government discriminates against people based on their sex and race in hiring practices, which violates the concept of egalitarianism. - Our culture glorifies violence against males via the NHL. It's possible to play hockey without ramming each other into boards and punching each other's teeth out, but apparently most Canadians don't understand this. Need I go on?

Consider spoiling your ballot instead. If you despise all the parties, that may be a better way to express your dislike of your options.

Ad Hominem Fallacy. Also, you don't know my life. You have no idea what may or may not be stopping me.

Look, I've read many of Hansen's papers, and they all have significant flaws and he always puts policy recommendations and conclusions that are unsupported by the rest of the paper in his conclusion. I don't care how many authors they are. Poor science is poor science, and people concluding things that are not justified by the evidence is not ideal.

Because his conclusions are not based on what is in his paper. He goes off on tangents about policy recommendations that are not justified by the results of his paper. It's unscientific.

And it was published before peer-review. Why? In order to try to influence COP21 in Paris.

Yes, but he publishes them in his scientific papers.

This study is nonsense and skipped the peer-review process. There is ZERO physical basis for exponentially rising sea levels. Radiative forcing is rising quadratically not exponentially. Not only that but Hansen doesn't even fit his unphysical exponentially rising sea level model to the empirical data, he just picks arbitrary values from nowhere.

James Hansen. 'We need to keep temperatures below 1.5 C above pre-industrial temperatures, atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm, etc.'

They certainty care enough to comment, but not care enough to pick an option from a poll. The latter takes less effort.

I doubt it.

Well you guys have convinced me that most people are too stupid to answer this question when asked directly. At least there are a lot of empirical estimates on this.

Yes, but in terms of determining a pigouvian tax, only external effects matter. So you mean to say 'some externalities are sunk costs'?

Well, that depends on the type of regression. You can get an estimate of the effect of pollution on health outcomes is my point. I agree. But that still doesn't make the effect of fossil fuels on ambulances an externality. That's a difficult question to answer, but irrelevant in the context of this discussion. This doesn't explain how 'externalities are sunk costs'.

So? Perform a statistical regression. Problem solved. Most of the benefits you have mentioned aren't external and are already internalized in the market. Yes, but that's already internalized in the market for ambulances. ........... What?

May makes the debates more interesting. Anyway, I think there is a bigger underlying issue here. Why do we only have debates during election time? Why can't party leaders debate important issues outside of elections and do so relatively frequently? Then there wouldn't be such a rush to cram everything in such a small time period and you could have all sorts of debates that have different combinations of party leaders and discuss different issues. And no I don't consider question period or parliament to be a proper debate.

Too lazy. I don't have infinite time. I have no idea if the methodology is correct or not.

That's just share of energy subsidies. That doesn't mean those subsidies are for fossil fuels. For example, advanced economies may have large subsidies for renewable energy such as Germany.

Of course not. It would be 'proof' of patriarchy and white supremacy and any university student caught using that hashtag would be expelled.

Cenk Uygur, like many SJWs and 3rd wave feminists, contains lots of cognitive dissonance. So he believes that he takes the position of equality while simultaneously taking positions that are inconsistent with sex-gender egalitarianism. It's not consensual since the children aren't old enough to consent. Therefore it is rape. I'm not equating, I'm asking for consistency. Roosh V's views are stupid and it's easy to explain why they are wrong. But should we ban people for having opinions that don't make sense?

Waldo, let's just say I take that study at face value and ignore the possibility that there may be large confirmation bias in the study. Nuclear does not have these emissions so is still a far better option than wind or solar in most cases.

I'm asking for consistency for the people who are saying this Roosh V idiot should be banned from Canada. Cenk Uygur thinks that female pedophiles that rape boys should get no jail time. Should he be banned from Canada for his repulsive views? I bet you if someone was well known to say that male pedophiles that rape girls should get no jail time, all the SJWs and 3rd-wave feminists would be complaining that this person should not be allowed into Canada and various politicians such as the mayors of Toronto and Montreal would be saying this person is not welcome. But society has immense sexist double standards.

Sounds more like a 'microaggression'.