213374U

I see what you did there. You can keep up military spending constantly no matter how ****ty your economy is going. But you cannot do so "more or less indefinitely", which is what both what I posted and your own examples illustrate.

But in all fairness, you can't - your impressions aren't simply pure isolated intellectual constructs, they are strongly affected by the environment. You would be comparing an unreal fantasy you have spent a full five seconds imagining with the real world upon which your moral compass is built. While you're at it, you may as well compare with Bizarro World... for an absolutely pointless waste of time. However you do subscribe the idea of "objective evil", which facilitates statements like this: So by engaging you in this line of debate, I have lost by default...

"Inaccuracies", eh? So, according to you, the inaccuracies present in a model of the solar system are comparable to the "inaccuracies" present in current climate models. Yeah, that's pretty rich. It's funny that you actually accused me of bad reading comprehension, and then immediately you demonstrate how to fail at understanding simple terms like glaciation. I think you actually built your response based on what you wanted me to have said, instead of what I actually did. Further, you focused on the circumstantial part of the argument (XYZ phenomena) and outright ignored the substance - the constant need for readjustment and placeholders in those models, which evidences what I've been attacking from the beginning: their incompleteness. Anyway, do you have proof that glaciers as a collective are losing mass? And how is a large glaciation event different from a global warming scenario in that it needs a different model? This discussion is getting more and more absurd with each subsequent reply. You keep posting (and subsequently redefining) doctrine, but you have yet to produce anything that actually shows that climate models work as you claim they do. Enough with the voodoo act already.

Why, the United States, of course. You know, the same US that finished the USSR off? Hmm, sorry you don't like historical facts. Seems to be a common occurrence among pseudo-intellectual ideologues and charlatans, for some reason, so I'm not completely surprised. However, your "rebuttal" is far more perplexing. I'm starting to believe that you actually, really think that money is a superfluous invention. Well, I suppose it's possible to imagine a 100% drafted army equipped with sticks and stones that walks their way to battles. But that just wasn't the case with the Soviet army. Massive motorized and tank armies are logistical nightmares, and that means $$$. An air force with thousands of aircraft between fighters, attack and support craft? An independent strategic missile arm? The Soviet Navy? The investment in research to try and keep up with the US? In Soviet Russia those things pay for you? Bah. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...a/mo-budget.htm

Boy, this feels like telling a child that Santa isn't real. That makes no sense. Of course post-war figures are going to be better than the same indicators during wartime, reflecting the natural reconstruction after a period of civil war. How does that prove that communism is good as anything but an excuse for establishing a mass-murdering kleptocracy? No, you do it by suppressing civil liberties and employing genocide and the secret state police liberally to quell any political dissent. And even so, the balance is pretty poor. 70 years? You're kidding, right? The Roman Empire alone lasted for five centuries. The British Empire, four centuries... and so forth. The Soviet Union sucked as a superpower, mate. The August Coup was simply the strand that broke the camel's back. Economic decline, widespread popular disillusion with the regime and the ever-present nationalisms meant that the fall was a matter of time. The coup evidenced the political infighting present in the system, and the weakness of the Soviet leadership. Man, for a supposed expert on the topic, you really know jack about this. Okay, pay attention now. History lesson, free of charge. One-time chance only. The truth is that good ol' USSR was facing economic woes even before the US actively pursued a policy of economic strangulation against it. The two main sources of hard currency for the Soviet Union during the 70's and 80's were weapons and oil sales. Owing to the falling oil prices after the 1973 crisis, Soviet revenues fell sharply - and given that its main customers in the weapons market were other countries with oil-based economies, this meant trouble. So they had to resort to borrowing from the rich capitalist West to get things rolling. Can you imagine it? Commies knee-deep in debt, getting extra-low interest rates for their loans. It's funny because it's true. Pretty picture, don't you think? But it gets better: enter Afghanistan. In 1980, Soviet gold exports amounted to 90 tons. But by 1981, they had increased to a whopping 250 tons... perhaps to counteract the oil debacle? Anyhow, the US were apparently sick of the Cold War, so they wanted it over. And to this end, they enacted economic sanctions of very much needed goods for the commies: first Carter instituted a fertilizer and cereal embargo. And later Reagan delivered the coup de grace by blocking the sale of American made parts and materials for the Europe-Siberia gasoduct, and extending the ban to materials built under American license in Europe. Needless to say, the vaunted Soviet technical expertise was called into action to deal with this emergency. The result was a catastrophic crash and burn. The consequences were that the European gas market was pretty much denied to the Soviets, to which they reacted by flooding the market with oil... which further drove prices down. But the game wasn't over yet. In 1985, Saudi oil production was 2M barrels per day. In 1986, about 10M. Oil prices had plummeted from about 33 dollars a barrel to 8-10 IN A SINGLE YEAR. By 1986, when Bush Sr. finally got his way to stabilize oil prices, Moscow was on its knees. Glasnost, Perestroika, etc. We all know how well that worked. And, in a nutshell, that's how the United States destroyed the Soviet Union. So no, they couldn't "maintain their military spending more or less indefinitely", at all. https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/han....pdf?sequence=1 http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issu...w-robinson.html

Yeah, good idea! Let's compare figures from the worst of the Russian civil war and after the disastrous famine of 1921 to the same indicators a decade later. That way, figures might support your theories. Only they are based on unverifiable suppositions of alternate historical scenarios. Way to go, professor. Let's see the Soviet Union project forces or serious influence anywhere that it doesn't have a direct land border to. Oh, um... that's right. It doesn't exist anymore, as it failed both as a cohesive political entity and an economic alternative to the capitalist West. If the Soviet bloc ever held (the illusion of) true force projection, it was by means of a military spending that it could not sustain in the long run. So who lost the arms race? Anyway, don't ask me to do your homework for you. You asked for a comparison between the Russian Federation and the USSR... which is nuts. But there are also GDP per capita figures in the page I linked to (or adjacent), and they all show economic recovery past Soviet era levels. Thanks for the heads up. You never know when a useless piece of trivia might be just what you need.

Hmm, better off, you say? Well, it's strictly true; GDP per capita was ~$1500 in 1914, against ~$1600 (international 1990 dollars) in 1934. Economic genius, indeed. And such pitiful growth was paid for with copious amounts of blood... not that you care. But it still supports what I said: communism stifles progress. www.cefir.ru/download.php?id=2142 Apologies, tovarishch, but that seems to be incorrect. Russia reached its 1989 GDP level in 2006. Your figures seem to have been sabotaged! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP.gif I'd prefer neither, to be frank. But if I had to choose, I'd probably go with Deng since mad policies such as collectivisation and widespread cultural repression were not among his hobbies. The same can't be said for his predecessor, unfortunately. edit: oops

At this point the extrapolation is bordering on the absurd thanks to the effort being made to have model and data agree with the predictions. Again, read what I posted. I'm not against climate models - I'm simply against climate models that don't work, and those models then being used to push whatever agendas. Ah, I see. So glaciations are now "micro" events? Well then, we can conclude that models are useless for the purposes they are being used, as glaciations are in fact on the same scale as the global warming they predict, no? Are you being facetious, or just trying to give the impression that you know more than you actually do? edit: I could point to even more inconsistencies in your discourse by linking that point with the one you made about hurricane warnings (those come from models, too), but it's not really worth it as you keep redefining the terms constantly and then making arbitrary statements about what models can or cannot do, depending on what suits you at a given time... heh.

And by "eliminated", you mean literally. Why not drop the euphemisms altogether? So. What is your preferred method of execution for unrepentant capitalists and their counter-revolutionary lapdogs? Anyway. Entrepreneurialism is arguably the most valuable of human skills. Prosperity is a direct function of commerce, and historically progress has been closely linked to prosperity. So... you want to minimize progress? Shrewd.

In Soviet Russia... etc.

It's not just reasonable. It's advisable, as it simplifies calculations a lot.

IRL I usually lose patience long before I get to the point of going on long, boring rants. It's not exactly fruit that I get coming my way at that point, so I tend to avoid anything that isn't the most trivial of topics. I guess that for me, the stereotype is true.

I suppose it's possible that you don't realize the bias in your thinking, which is where this misunderstanding comes from. I'm going to try, one last time. I'm losing interest fast. Again, we have to extrapolate for what purpose? That reasoning is only valid if you have a goal in mind, or if you presuppose a problem that needs to be acted on. If, however, the only objective is understanding climate, there is no need for extrapolation (in the sense of inferring a series of consequences, which amounts to starting the house by the roof) - model building and refinement, data gathering and experimental testing, until a reasonable level of accuracy and reliability in the models is achieved, should be enough. But here, of course, it isn't enough because this isn't just science: it's politics. You keep falling back to the epistemological impossibility of obtaining empirical proof synthetically, but that is an absurd copout, and a semantic entanglement of the word "proof". Science does not work like that, and the model of gravity we have doesn't need to wait until an apple hits my head to predict it will do so. It can reliably predict what will happen in all circumstances, save for a few exotic cases in which everything seems to break down. How many hurricanes, (de)glaciations and droughts can current climate models predict without resorting to "parameters", ad-hoc adjustments and data selection? There are no shortcuts in science. In politics however...

Okay, who wants to dig up some data on the correlation (or lack thereof, rather) between term limits and democracy?

No. It's just that it became such a cult icon that its influence has been felt in sci-fi/horror works ever since. "In space no one can hear you scream" It's "genre-defining", rather than generic. Shame about the game.

You don't seem to be reading. The drought is NOT HISTORIC at all. Only its effects are, because of overpopulation. At any rate, that is not what is understood by climate change. It is not global, it is not systemic, and it is not supposed to be above the capacity of the environment to rectify on its own. If it were that easy, they would simply enact a moratorium on farming around Kilimanjaro - end of climate change! Sorry, but it's obvious you are just squirming after I provided evidence that shows you were plain wrong. I see no point in continuing to spin the argument. Maybe you could use that philosophy degree, after all. Wait, a solution to what? This is a perfect example of the loaded language used left and right in this debate. You are taking it as a given that there is a problem, but the burden of proof lies with you to actually substantiate your claims that a problem exists which requires a "solution". You get all riled up when this inability to provide definitive proof is mentioned, but that's how things work, since we no longer accept Revelation as a source of truth. "But there is no time!" just doesn't cut it.

Yes, I had a feeling you were endorsing unruly mobs, pogroms (because, you know, the revolution does that too) and general anarchy. But after that is done, how do you figure the government will assume control again? Indeed. Problem is, man seems to be ready to become a mass murder in a pinch. Be it to support revolution #53462343 or to suppress it. Anyway, you certainly have a peculiar view of "non-violence". I may have to check out that game you suggested, yet.

Most likely, a combination of spontaneous revolutionary seizures followed by tacit or explicit governmental support, and massive governmental intervention once it is properly established. Of course, not all property will be seized, just that of the rich.Okay, explain this to me, in detail. Does this mean that the goods will somehow confiscate themselves and walk into huge warehouses on their own while government officials "nod sagely"? You do realize that this thing you posted makes no sense, right? China is communist in name, but not IN FACT. The chinese are known for their propensity for cheating, and unsurprisingly, they are cheating at communism, too.

That is not climate change at all. It is the action and effect of man destroying a glacier, locally, and by very specific actions. It has nothing to do with manmade carbon emissions causing runaway effects or all that crap. Please. No, I think it's a barrier of intellectual dishonesty, rather. Those aren't climate changes but weather changes. Again, to establish that they are abnormal climate variations, we would need extensive data, which for the most part, isn't available. Hmm. That's interesting... considering that ice streams aren't really that well modelled. You are assuming a constant, linear progression, as with a pile of salt. Seeing how things are now and how they were during the last ice ages, it stands to reason that the process doesn't work quite like that. Antarctica sheds peripheral ice at a rate of a few kilometers... PER YEAR. To put things in perspective, the Antarctic ice sheet is 30 M cubic kilometers. That is the point, in fact. Again, the thermodynamics are well understood, but not the factor they play in the (per your words) chaotic system that is climate. Yes, but even sea level rise is difficult to predict. The ground going up? Oh, ****, more weird **** ****ing up my model!

Just because: http://www.peacemakergame.com/

Sea levels rising are a result of thermal expansion more than an increase in the water masses, believe it or not. And that seems to be slowing down, as well... http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/download/C...al_GPC_2009.pdf

There seems to be nothing wrong with the NASA article, even if it's from 2006. But again, the Greenland ice sheet is just ~9% of the total. So based on that and the Arctic observations, I'd say it's a bit risky to venture predictions based on what's happening to 1/10 of all ice, in a 30 year lapse. The other link I'm not even touching. Haha, if such evidence existed, I could go to Copenhagen and leave everyone looking like complete idiots, don't you think? That's why we have a debate, to begin with. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which is what I've been saying all along. We have nothing like a complete picture, and what we do have has been carefully selected to support a set of views. Um, thermal radiation is a well established phenomenon... I thought I had already addressed that one? Peripheral ice may be melting at an accelerated rate, but that's irrelevant if the total mass remains constant. It's the same as with the whole "warming" trend and local/absolute extremum. Heh. "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt" Climate is a complex system - and it's also affected by the biosphere and changes in solar activity, to make things worse. An increase in variable X (increase in carbon dioxide, in this case), needn't result in what would otherwise be expected.

Irrelevant. The claim that glaciers are melting is used as a basis for climate change theories. If the validity of the the basis is contested (by pointing out how reduced the observed sample is), you don't need to make a counter-claim. Back to the previous point. Post some data that hasn't been carefully selected to push one theory or another. Again, it's difficult (if not impossible), because of the reduced amount of data available. Except when they aren't, as I showed. Arctic ice masses are seaborne. Floating ice amounts to ~2% of all ice, pretty insignificant.

Sounds interesting. Does it actually work?

(1) Historic drought is not evidence of climate change? (2) How do changes in land use at the bottom effect snow/ice at the top? (3) Kenya has warmed. Droughts in Kenya are linked to "El Ni