Wrath of Dagon

And therein lies the problem. You say "show me the evidence for runaway feedback", you're shown- albeit with some snark- and it doesn't count because the situation ain't exactly equivalent. The situation can never be exactly equivalent, all we know is that Venus is roughly earth sized, in a 'temperate' planetary zone where it ought to be theoretically of habitable temperature yet the temperature there is enough to melt lead, and that is excellent evidence for runaway feedback. It's not any kind of evidence, because no one knows what happened on Venus. Are the sulfuric acid clouds it's covered with also result of global warming? For that matter, if the CO2/warming feedback is positive, how come earth never run away, we've had a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and it's been a whole lot warmer as well, yet earth is nothing like Venus.

Venus has 98% CO2 atmosphere, not .04%, and it's closer to the sun. roofles! Does water vapour fluctuate a lot? If not, then the comparison isn't entirely relevant. It's more of a belief of how delicate our thermal balance is, and whether or not small changes are enough to throw things out of equilibrium. It'd also depend on whether or not water vapor is as effective of a greenhouse gas too. I know cloud coverage can increase the albedo of the planet, and I don't know if CO2 has the same effects (water vapor will, at the very least, prevent the visible spectrum from reaching the surface, as clouds are white). Yes, a lot of stuff isn't known, foremost being the effects on and of cloud formation and water vapor, that's why saying "the science is settled" is a bunch of BS

There is some evidence of correlation, though it may be that higher temperatures cause higher CO2, but there's no evidence of run away positive feedback.

Disregarding your other assessment of data and evidence the greenhouse gases increase is by no means 'tiny'. That CO2 levels are highest since millions of years should clue people in to that. In millions of years? I doubt that. In any case, it's currently .04% of the atmosphere, compared to 1% for water vapor, another greenhouse gas. No way, all the UN conferences keep falling apart, because they're so ridiculous.

But it is part of climate change. Referring to the whole phenomenon as "global warming" is just so some deniers can say "HA, it's cold out side, global warming doesn't exist". Thinning of the ozone layer has been blamed of Chlorofluorocarbons, some have postulated global warming has something to do with it as well, but the connection is tenuous at best. The main tenet of global warming, which is that a tiny increase in atmospheric green house gasses will have a huge positive feedback effect on global temperatures with catastrophic results has no evidence to back it up. Since there hasn't been any warming observed for over a decade now the theory has been retconned to "climate change", as if climate change hasn't always occurred for natural reasons. Of course this doesn't preclude that human activity has "some" effect on the climate, it is quite plausible that it does, the question is how far we're willing to go in destroying our prosperity because of an unproven, theoretical threat.

Yeah, it isn't like scientists have predicted the polar ice caps melting, thinning of the ozone layer, or increasingly erratic weather patterns. They've obviously been faking it for the past 20 years to force Americans into evil socialist habits like recycling and energy conservation. Maybe if we pretend poverty isn't a problem it will go away too. Thinning of the ozone layer isn't even part of global warming, get your scare mongering right. I was recently at a local history museum and it had a cross-section of a tree with extremely thin rings from 1950-1957. They claimed it was because Texas had an extremely severe drought for 7 years. Of course I knew the cross-section was faked because no natural disaster like that happened until recently, no doubt just a bunch of deniers.

Unlimited supply doesn't mean it's cheap and easy to get to. Ok, you're right, IEA and every other energy agency in the world is wrong. A lot of US population growth is due to immigration, and is expected to become even more so in the near future. As the undeveloped countries develop, their birth rates also drop dramatically. In fact I recently read that in the countries supplying the bulk of immigrants to the US the birth rate is becoming similar to the US. Well, the poverty rate in the world has dropped dramatically, far more than was predicted by UN agencies and such. Except that unlike QM, GW hasn't actually predicted anything and is constantly being retconned to try to make it agree with observations. The whole thing is nothing but a bunch of garbage in, garbage out computer models.

You don't seem to understand what shale oil and gas mean. Shale is the source rock for oil. Before we could only get oil that seeped out of shale over millions of years and then got trapped in some other structure. Now we can actually go to the source and get it directly from there. There are vast, almost unlimited amounts of shale oil and gas all over the world. That is why the outdated curve you linked turned in the other direction, and US is now expected to be energy independent in just a few years, something I never thought would happen. As far as nuclear power I'm for it too, but unfortunately I just read an article I can't find anymore that says that nuclear energy is just way too expensive compared to the cheap natural gas, so the prospects for it are once again grim. Whatever happened to all those modular designs that were supposed to revolutionize it? As far as population growth, industrialized countries actually have a problem with shrinking population, not overpopulation. If anything Westerners should have more children, not fewer. More generally, you simply can not project in a straight line like that professor was doing. There are technological breakthroughs and cultural paradigm shifts which completely change the equations every few decades.

What's your source on this?, doesn't sound right, you are talking about hydraulic fracturing? Actually gas prices are quite low right now, mostly because of fracking. Edit: Btw, the peak oil theory in your video has long been discredited, because it doesn't take shale oil into account. Also US is using less oil, not more, there's no doubling like that guy is saying.

Nonsense, we can print our own money just fine. Btw, this has been the coldest spring on record. I know, I know, it's weather when it's unusually cold, it's only climate when it's unusually hot or a natural disaster happens.

A bit OT, but interesting. WW2's strangest battle: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/12/world-war-ii-s-strangest-battle-when-americans-and-germans-fought-together.html

To me, creativity is a more important aspect of quality than polish. OK, so Kotick is more honest than EA, but that's the attitude of most publishing executives, who don't play games or understand games, as a recent article linked on the forum pointed out, it's a dry goods business to them.

Of course Obsidian cares about profits, any business does. But I don't think profit is their be all and end all.

EA doesn't care about the kind of games Obsidian makes. Their bottom line is profit only, they don't care about creativity or quality.

The video in this article has some more info on Wolfenstein: http://www.vg247.com/2013/05/09/wolfenstein-the-new-order-does-not-have-multiplayer/#more-365139 No cover mechanic

I don't think there was anything unexpected about the outcome of WW2, except some surprisingly dumb decisions by the Germans. And the problem with asymmetric warfare isn't the warfare, it's the political calculations that go into it. Like we try to nation build a country whose culture we know almost nothing about, let alone understand.

I've been predicting Riccitielo's firing for so long I don't know if I even get credit anymore.

This is amazing and if true will change the world, Lockheed-Martin claims they can filter salt out of water : http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-usa-desalination-idUSBRE92C05720130313

It's funny how your information is always more reliable than the UN's. Also the article does present plenty of evidence. And why would Hamas apologize for something that's a huge propaganda coup for them and they're blaming on Israel? Really your logic needs some work.

Hamas got huge mileage out of this, few people will read the retraction: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/un-report-errant-palestinian-rocket-most-likely-killed-gaza-baby-in-november-clash/2013/03/11/b9ecd652-8a58-11e2-a88e-461ffa2e34e4_story.html

I demand New York be returned to its rightful owners, the Dutch!

The problem with healthcare is there is no free market because someone else pays, so the consumer doesn't care about cost. Half the problem could be solved if people were made to pay for their own routine care, but the consumer is now too used to someone else paying, so politically it would never fly. And it still leaves the issue of catastrophic care, because almost no one is able to pay for that on their own. Btw, I never understood this business about not being able to buy across state lines. When I bought my own insurance I got it from some company in Wisconsin, so you can definitely do that. Are they talking about the state not being able to regulate the insurance policies then? Doesn't seem like a great idea to me. Edit: Also we already have a single payer system, it's called Medicare, and it's going broke. So may be the government should fix that problem first before expanding their reach.

I definitely know that. Let me make a clarification: AIPAC's views on the Israeli-Palestine reflect those of the Israeli Right (Likud, mainly). So, I didn't mean to connect them to a Left-Right scale in American politics. I'm sorry if that bit was a little unclear. Nonetheless, in recent history Republicans seem to have been the ones in American politics who are closest to Likud - but you're right, it might have only appeared that way during the recent election due to Netanyahu's support for Romney. So what do you think, WoD? It's my impression that AIPAC's views are held my most Republicans, but incidents like this show that Democrats have another take on the issue. Do you think it's possible to change? I think centrist Democrats are mostly pro-Israel, and certainly most Democrat members of Congress are. But the further to the left you get in the Democratic party, the more anti-Israel they become. The party activists in both parties are more extreme than the party itself, and that's who tends to go to the conventions, so that's what you saw at the Democratic convention (plus they're Obama delegates, another indicator of their left wing tendencies). I don't think most Democrats would've booed God either.

It's ridiculous to call AIPAC right wing. You do know that 2/3 of American Jews vote Democrat, right?

Because you can commit treason without being an enemy combatant. Like being a Confederate spy, to give a historical example. Also there's always a chance you're captured, then they can't just kill you since you're no longer a threat, they'd have to try you first. You are entitled to due process if you're captured, that's what that whole law that Congress passed to try terrorists in military tribunals is all about.