213374U

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

Yes, nevermind them. Because, as far as science is concerned, consensus is irrelevant. Much like "belief". But apparently, many people can't seem to distinguish between science, politics and faith either. So preach on, brother.

Doubtful. You'd probably get shot and thrown to the sharks after you drove some poor bastard mad with a lecture on the moral basis of democratic socialism or some such.

My link can beat up your link.

Can't speak for Monte, but do I think properly equipping the armed forces is more important than the absurd comfort of BBC fat-cats? Hell yes. You can't be serious. It's the sports department we're talking about, for God's sake!

No, I think it's because you don't make a thread out of it. I only found about it by pure luck - I'm not even interested in COD or MOH! As if I didn't already have enough excuses for not getting any work done, the other day I find about Arsenal of Democracy, and now this. Thanks a lot, Llyranor. Thanks a lot.

Shh. In a world where guilt manipulation makes and breaks governments (which de facto establishes that emotion > reason in the field of management and problem solving), that's a no-no. It's not exactly a new idea by any means, either. http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articl...a_lifeboat.html

Actually Spanish vessels (learning from past mistakes, it seems) are sailing with embarked private security personnel armed with large-caliber MGs since last week.

Yeah, this "free for all" mentality is the way to go - even if it gets the pirates blown out of the water by the guys with the 50. cals. That's fine, right? Somalis go "improve their living standards" by seizing ships, and business interests "protect their investments" by deploying heavily armed PMCs on the ships. Everybody wins, and Somalia remains a corruption-ridden failed state. And as with everything ranging from bovine farting-induced global environmental failure to the woes of former colonial areas, it's "our" fault, so they are "justified" in what they do. Oh, the arrogance. And by the way, as Wals suggested, the pirates themselves are getting the breadcrumbs from these multi-million ransom deals. But what they do get, they aren't investing in schools, basic agriculture, or anything that would eventually allow them to mount a sustainable economy. It's just booze and hookers for them. An "improvement" on Sharia and starvation, to be sure. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1864300,00.html edit: typos

It does, if true, conflict with general relativity. Special relativity is a different matter.

No? I thought you took pride in your knowledge of the Soviet Union. Look up Operation Lentil, or any other of the many forced mass relocations, expulsions or deportations implemented by the USSR. Labeling a group of people "counter-revolutionaries" or whatever doesn't change the fact that it's genocide or excuses responsibility from it, and neither does the circumstance that many of the genocides perpetrated by the Soviet Union took place during wartime. edit: In fact, your defense of Soviet oppression has been proving my point. Sorry for not noticing before, blame my lack of sleep.

You're not even trying. It's cute how you justify as "understandable", the mass deportations, purges, summary executions, show trials, russification etc, that constitute as a whole the largest centrally organized genocide effort in history, but dismiss out of hand other authoritarian regimes on grounds that they are "right wing". I already gave you Miguel Primo de Rivera's dictatorship as an example of a practically bloodless regime that worked well. Your rhetoric (for a lack of tangible arguments) is destroyed with a simple counterexample. Can you put down the hammer and sickle for a second and look at things from a factual perspective? The whole "no war but class war" schtick may be cool, but you can only do so much with it.

I'm thinking... if you were a TV producer, you'd be out of a job faster than you can say "Lenin". And, as usual, you are cherrypicking. Saddam was unequivocally a mass murderer, but that was the point. Is Iraq better off now? If so, it's time you gave American imperialism the credit it's due. At any rate, I wasn't specifically advocating military juntas - Soviet leaders weren't military men, but they knew a thing or two about repression and keeping order. So why don't you explain in detail how democracy and more "freedom" are under all circumstances, always, better? I was asking for opinions.