-1=e^ipi

Try using google. It isn't hard to find. http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/02/26/ontarios_big_industries_plead_for_lower_hydro_rates.html

It has a decay time of like 12 years. I wouldn't exactly call that short-lived. It's not like it's a giant mystery of which are the most relevant human emitted greenhouse gases when it comes to global warming. CO2 is by far the most important, followed by CH4 and N2O. These 3 contribute to the vast majority of the change in GHG radiative forcing. Then you have a small amount of radiative forcing from other gases such as CFC-12 and CFC-11. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

Way to purposely misinform people. During the Pliocene era, Panama wasn't fully formed and water could pass between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, which resulted in a more uniform global temperature distribution. In addition, the Antarctic circumpolar current wasn't as strong, which meant that there was increased heat transfer between Antarctica and the rest of the world. This lead to a higher global temperature due to albedo feedbacks and since the Stefan-Boltzman law causes a more uniform temperature distribution to have a higher mean temperature. So even with 400 ppm of CO2, sea levels won't rise by 50 feet because Panama will still be there and the Antarctic circumpolar current will still be stronger. For time scales of more than a million years, platetectonics starts to become relevant.

No, I'm saying don't confuse GHGs with smog. Only long-lived GHGs are relevant in the context of global warming. Don't purposely mislead people.

Many people in Canada think we are too good for free speech and protecting the public from dangerous ideas makes us morally superior to the states. At least that's what I infer from the claims of others.

Congrats, Ontario has doubled energy prices and only 3% of energy produced is wind or solar. Data is a bit outdated but http://www.ewi.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/Working_Paper/EWI_WP_08-04_Cointegration-of-Output.pdf suggests that economic output is roughly proportional to Energy^0.25. So doubling energy prices means ~16% reduction in GDP in the long run.

Nope. These politicians can't deal with trade-offs so they pretend that trade-offs don't exist. So obviously that means that cutting CO2 will save Canada money and generate all these green jobs.

A little? Ontario energy prices are twice as expensive as the rest of North America and rising. Compared to some regions, they are 3 times as expensive. Manufacturing is very energy intensive. A few years ago people were blaming Dutch disease and the high dollar. The dollar is low now, so what's the excuse? What Ontario is doing is committing economic suicide.

CO2 doesn't not cause smog. CH4 does not cause smog. N2O, as far as I am aware, does not cause smog (though NO and NO2 do). Those 3 gases account for over 99% of the change in GHG radiative forcing over the past 2 centuries. Tropospheric O3 is a short lived GHG and decays rapidly. So while it causes smog, it doesn't cause long run global warming.

You are confusing smog with CO2.

This is what happened with Matt Dillahunty, and now he's the host of the Atheist Experience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty

This is highly debatable. But let's suppose this claim is true for the sake of argument, at best you are indirectly helping the Islamist rebels because you are weakening the Assad regime, which is fighting the Islamists.

I wouldn't call that brainwashed. More like you were presenting with evidence that supported the hypothesis that discovery math was the best so you went with that evidence. But the thing is, university faculty can develop a confirmation bias and a culture which leads them to a false conclusion. Did they approach things objectively and skeptically? If you were trained by these experts, then could you point me to some scientific papers that show me that discovery math is superior to 'regular' math at the 95% confidence level?

I'm against brainwashing kids with propaganda and using time to do this rather than teach them useful skills or knowledge. I've tutored people in undergraduate mathematics for income and I see what comes through our wonderful primary and secondary education system. I get people that can't even multiply 2 and 3 in there head without a calculator. Not Quebec, which has the highest math scores in the country. Except countries like South Korea, which are doing very well in maths.

To be fair, feminists are already trying to get rid of hand clapping because it 'triggers anxiety', so trying to ban hand shaking might be the next step. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/566202/NUS-jazz-hands-clapping-anxiety-feminists

Is that why we have discovery math, are falling behind in science, and would rather teach social justice than math or science? Is that how you justify your large salary? I doubt it. Though I don't plan to stick around with this sinking ship.

I think having provincial governments interfering with federal elections is great. People act like what happens federally and what happens provincial should be treated in isolation, but they affect each other. One failure of our current system is that there isn't much coordination between provincial and federal governments. Economy, education, healthcare and energy are all related yet we have the provincial governments determining a lot of this policy completely independent of federal governments. Ontario has energy prices at twice the level of most of the rest of North America, has been getting recent credit downgrades and is on the path towards defaulting on it's debt, has been causing higher unemployment by raising the minimum wage, and unnecessarily duplicates education costs by having a Catholic school system. It would be silly to suggest that the stupidity of the Ontario government has had no influence in creating the recent recession.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/08/31/canada-sent-millions-to-syrian-rebels How does it equate? Because the vast majority of these rebels are Sunni Islamists that want to take over the world. But Obama, Harper, Cameron and others did not take the threat of fanatical Islamists seriously enough.

We funded the 'moderate' rebels in an effort to engage in a proxy war with Russia and overthrow Assad.

Best government? I don't know. I would have to compare all our terrible governments. Excellent? Doubt it. From funding ISIS to cutting the GST instead of other taxes, to not getting rid of supply management thereby reducing our ability to get trade deals with the EU or Asia, to taking a one-sided position on Ukraine thereby greatly polarizing the situation and contributing to civil war, to an inability to counter Obama's climate alarmist rhetoric and securing Keystone XL, I'm a bit skeptical about the conservatives being an 'excellent' option. It works just fine in New Zealand.

Too many parties? Why is it that there are no good options then? Again, you're comparing a FPTP minority government with a proportional representation government. They aren't the same. The incentives to negotiate are different and the culture of cooperation is not there with the FPTP system.

In proportional representation, you have to cater to other parties in order to get laws passed. Some of these other parties will be centrist parties. And they are still terrible options. If one party is making ridiculous demands, go to another party for a better deal. The more parties you have, the more competition you will have in negotiation. You are making a flawed argument here since there are multiple potential coalition partners. Sure they are. If you don't like them, vote for another party.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Parliament should try to represent the people, that includes extremists. I'd rather that the minority of Canadians that want to impose Sharia try to implement their policies through peaceful democratic means than through terrorism. 30% isn't enough to form a government under proportional representation. But it might be under a FPTP system.

You act like the people have no say. If the people don't want parties making absurd promises, then don't vote for parties making absurd promises. It's not hard. FPTP reduces competition between parties and reduces the number of viable parties to vote for. Under proportional representation, there would be far more choice, which increases the chances of a party having a differing opinion on say healthcare for example.

You are comparing FPTP minority governments with proportional representation minority governments. That's apples to oranges.