-1=e^ipi

I don't believe he classifies as a misogynist. I'm just saying he could be interpreted to be a misogynist based on some things he has said.

This. To show that he's a misogynist that thinks women should make him sandwiches.

1. Sex without consent is rape. In most places in North America a 17 year old cannot legally consent. Therefore, having sex with a 17 year old is rape. Not only that but it is also pedophilia. Cenk Uygur thinks this teacher shouldn't get any jail time for raping 3 of her students. If that isn't 'rape culture' then what is? 2. This isn't the first time Cenk has expressed such absurd views. He clearly has a double standard with respect to rape/pedophilia depending on the sex of the offender. Here is him trying to argue that female pedophilia is 'emotional' where as male pedophilia is 'physical and sexual' so the two should be treated differently: No but it is funny and ironic.

How about Bahar Mustafa, her usage of the hashtag #killallwhitemen, and her exclusionary racist/sexist policies at Goldsmith college against men, whites or cisgendered people? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bahar-mustafa-goldsmiths-university-diversity-officer-keeps-her-job-after-vote-of-no-confidence-petition-fails-10277562.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11633305/University-union-officer-who-wrote-kill-all-white-men-tweet-will-remain-in-post.html

That increase was primarily due to anthropogenic emissions. The methane-temperature feedback played a very small role. To be fair, the rate of increase of methane emissions has been slowing down and my understanding is the increase is more to do with land-use changes as opposed to fossil fuel emissions. I doubt methane levels will increase over the coming century as much as they did in the past century. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and there is far less methane than CO2. That's why CH4 is generally measured in ppb and CO2 is generally measured in ppm. 2000 ppb of methane is 2 ppm. So the increase in CO2 levels due to conversion from methane is tiny. But they aren't increasing exponentially. See above graph. That just indicates that there is a temperature-methane feedback. That doesn't mean the feedback is so strong as to make the greenhouse effect 'out of control'. The temperature-methane feedback isn't strong enough for that according to empirical data.

Unless you build a bunch of nuclear power plants.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. For example, I could stab myself with a fork.

But funding research like this doesn't help us feel all warm and fuzzy inside by funding inefficient renewable energy.

Read more about German stupidity here: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/germanys-solar-failure

^ you are confusing capacity with energy production. Sure solar panels can have a lot of capacity. But if the sun isn't shining in the sky, they won't be producing any energy.

You haven't heard of the Young Turks? They are like the largest online news show and some have dubbed them the left's version of fox news. Cenk Uygur saying that women shouldn't get jail time for raping teenage boys: Cenk Uygur telling Karen to make him a sandwich:

So apparently Bernie Sanders saying 'black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter' is a microaggression against black people and now according to SJWs this presidential candidate who has been fighting for civil rights for decades is a racist. Bill Maher has called microaggressions ridiculous. I guess he must be a racist as well:

The amount of waste produced is tiny and it's not really waste. Just nuclear fuel we can't use economically yet.

Well maybe we should make it politically possible.

Doesn't seem as cost effective as simply having stationary charging lanes. Please provide evidence for this claim. Why not just build a bunch of nuclear fission plants? Cheap, reliable and clean. One thing that doesn't help the adoption of electric cars is having insanely high energy prices such as in Ontario.

Anyway, for those advocating against free speech in this thread, I ask you the following: Should Cenk Uygur be banned from Canada as well? Cenk Uygur has said that: - Women should face no jail time for raping males, even if the women is a pedophile raping underage males. The males probably want and enjoy the sex anyway. - He told Karen Straughan to make him a sandwich.

Some bigots identify as MRAs. But this guy doesn't even identify as MRA. So it doesn't make sense to call him an MRA. These are different groups that overlap, but there are distinct subgroups within these groups. Christina Hoff-Sommers and Anita Sarkeesian both identify as feminists, but they are very different from one another. Or let's take another group, muslims. Some muslims are ISIS, but other muslims are liberal such as Raif Badawi.

That was classical liberalism. Today's liberalism, i.e. progressivism, is all about throwing classical liberalism out the window and in some cases trying to ban classical liberalism (example: microaggressions).

Yeah so demand elasticity might be quite different. Supply elasticity is probably about the same. Anyway, if we go with the above numbers, 60% of the tax burden will affect consumers, 40% will affect producers.

http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.441773.de/dp1372.pdf Elasticity of supply is 0.76 for the united states. Probably about the same in Canada.

http://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/49070/Shooshtari-Milad-MA-ECON-April-2014.pdf?sequence=1 -0.5 in the long run... maybe. Might be less though.

To be fair, both the polluter and the consumer will pay. The distribution of the burden depends on the elasticities of demand and supply of the market.

You are confusing the decay time of tropospheric methane with the temperature-methane feedback. We have a good idea of what the temperature-methane feedback was during the Pleistocene from ice core data (it's about 75 ppb/C) and we also know that the methane-temperature feedback is much smaller today since there is less permafrost to melt at the margin as we are in an interglacial period. The precautionary principle is a dumb principle in all cases, it is basically the position of infinite risk aversion. It leads to decisions that ignore all empirical evidence, and the precautionary principle is the same logical form as Pascal's Wager. The precautionary principle leads to absurd policy recommendations such as we should put snowshoes on all cattle:

Exactly. Let this idiot speak, and then explain why he is wrong. Our of curiousity, does this guy count as a men's rights activist? Has he claimed to be a men's rights activist? Because I don't see him making such a claim and his wikipedia page does not support this claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosh_V

Cities != States/Provinces, but nice try. A tax and 100% dividend approach when applied at the international level would have low bureaucratic costs and it would be basically impossible for countries to cheat by redirecting CO2 emission tax revenues to subsidies for CO2 emitting industries.