Except for the fact that the post I originally said "had there been no ice 100 years ago, there would be no polar bears." So my question is in direct response to his claim.
Your example would only hold true if no Democrat had ever stated a goal of opening concentration camps for gun owners. I don't believe I have heard any say that. But the poster I responded to did indeed say polar bear would be dead if the water was warmer.
So where did the polar bears live, if warmer water is lethal to them?
How "old" is the species of polar bear? It could be a relatively recent off-shoot of brown bear, or one that lived closer to the glaciers and such in the warm times, then spread out when the ice spread. It's not water that's lethal, it's lack of food that's lethal.
Your misstatement indicates you either have no grasp on what's lethal, or you are lying for effect.
No, you have the wrong post. I'm not saying amaurea is a bad person, and I'm not saying Michael Mann is a bad person.
I'm saying Michael Mann was shown to be a bad scientist, and has damaged the AGW-believer side of this issue with remarkably poor science. I'm saying I don't trust anything he says, because of his prior bad science which not only is he not ashamed of, but which has his supporters twisting in logic knots to maintain. Name the people on the non-AGW side who have done such acts, and I will condemn them as well.
I don't dispute that global warming is happening. I don't dispute that man has played a part in it. I think both of those things are true, but I also think the degree of our impact is being inflated by people in power for their own ambitions. I think that Michael Mann assisted those "rich and powerful people" to be able to amass more wealth and power, at the expense of the rest of us. He was rewarded with money, power, and prestige.
So, no, my statement of not trusting Michael Mann is not an ad hominem. It is a statement of his past actions, and how he conducted himself.
I looked at the article, and unfortunately its main point is based on work by Michael Mann. I wouldn't accept evidence from him of a cow farting. He did more to damage the reputation of "your side" than anyone else in these debates.
So, thank you for your time, but I have nothing to add to a discussion that is based on Michael Mann.
It was only later that the climate cooled, and they were forced to change their lifestyle, and finally leave Greenland.
My favourite author, Jared Diamond, had an entire chapter on the Greenland Norse in his book Collapse. They are remarkable because many factors impacted them at the same time, and their demise was due to climate, international politics, and their own stupidity.
Climate did get colder, but the Norse also lost their most important export, walrus tusks, because the Muslims started trading elephant tusks again with the Christians after several centuries of embargo: no one wanted walrus tusks anymore. Also, the Norse had apparently a phobia for fish, which for some reason they were unwilling to eat (or were unable to catch). They were also horrible diplomats and could not have friendly relations with the Inuit (who arrived in Greenland after the Norse), who eventually displaced them. Also, they were a very religious and conservative society, using relatively enormous resources to build a cathedral that could rival that of Nidaros in Norway.
Yes, that was a problem, and is explained in the article I linked. It didn't mention the Muslims selling elephant tusks, so thanks for filling in that blank about why the Greenland Norse couldn't sell walrus tusks anymore.
When it was that warm in Greenland, it was certainly warm in Canada and Alaska.
That's a way too bold statement. Latitude is not the only predictor of temperature. I live at the same latitude as Anchorage, AK, but out temperature average is 5-10 degrees Celsius higher because we are exposed to the Gulf stream. Climate change does not have the same uniform effects in every spot.
I should have used a modifier there. When it was that warm in Greenland, before the Little Ice Age cooled everything down, it was certainly warmer in Canada and Alaska than it was during the Little Ice Age.
That I will stand on, because I don't accept the theory I've seen put forth by others that the Medieval Warm Period only warmed up part of the world, and then the Little Ice Age only cooled off that same region. Especially since we are seeing now that current warming is affecting the Arctic so dramatically.
But thank you for calling me on that line. It was, as you said, too bold.
I am going to assume then that you are one of those assholes who are so absolutely arrogant you feel you can do whatever you like and fuck the consequences for everyone else? Those people are usually labeled as criminals.
Only after they're caught, before they're caught they're usually called sociopaths, psychopaths, or CEOs...
Describes America's current CEO to a tee. And the last one. And the one before that. And the one....
They failed after being there for 500 years. The first 400 must have been warm enough to keep them there and in good health.
It was only later that the climate cooled, and they were forced to change their lifestyle, and finally leave Greenland.
So my point stands: When it was that warm in Greenland, it was certainly warm in Canada and Alaska. So where did the polar bears live, if warmer water is lethal to them?
So where were they when it was warm enough that the Vikings had two separate colonies on the southern shores of Greenland? Or was Canada still frozen while Greenland was basking in warmth?
Then you sir use your truck as a giant cat's toy, for simple amusement. Do you want to know what our truck (and all trucks) looked like where I grew up?
Our truck was covered in mud, or dust, or cowshit, or snow, or whatever, because we used the truck to do actual work. We didn't go seeking "challenging conditions", we lived in them. Whether hauling stuff to and from the field, or stacking it with firewood to heat our house all winter, or carrying animals to where they had to go, or carrying nurses into town to staff the hospital because their cars couldn't make it through the snow and the county didn't plow where we lived until days after the blizzards.
That is why our vehicles, cars and trucks alike, were not clean. We had too much to do with them, and they got to beaten up in the process anyhow, to want to wash them every week and put bows in their hair.
You call me out just because you have an expensive toy? You call me out because you keep your toy pretty? Get over yourself.
Let me put it this way: If your first language is any of { english, french, italian, spanish,... } - you should have an instinctive feel for the spelling of Latin. If not, well, sorry boy-o, but you're a rube.
Except for two points:
A) English is more Germanic based than Latin based. So we aren't particularly strong in old-time Latin. That's why we actually make up words that have one root in Latin and one in Greek, and can't see the problem.
B) Most of our Latin comes from French, and not the modern form of it at that, but Old French. Old French is itself a bastardized form of Latin, and the native Gaul tongue had some role in it.
So, with these aspects of English being what they are, it's hardly surprising if we see little relation from our modern words to their original form in ancient Rome.
He can't leave his house since he *may* be... eaten by a pack of wild poodles.
Can you imagine how long the hair on those things would be? Since they don't have traditional dog fur, but instead have regular hair that keeps growing year round.
You would be able to grab one by the hair, twirl it around and bowl it into the others, tangling them all up in a big snarling snarl.
The term just brought that piece to mind, and how outdated its basis is nowadays. But the woman use coined the term "rent-seeking" in the 1970s should have used a different phrase, because it isn't about rent.
They use the term to describe people’s lobbying of government to give them special privileges. A much better term is “privilege seeking.”
Anyhow, thanks for the lesson, and have a nice weekend. (For myself, the Magic Pre-Release is tomorrow night. That's where my rent money is going this month.;^) )
How about the spare tire in a truck? You know, the type that are bolted underneath the bed. Just leave them there until needed, still full of hot air of course.
On a whim, and not being an economist, I decided to see what the term 'rent seeking' means beyond the common sense parsing of the words.
Sure enough, a quick look at wikipedia shows it is used to mean "an attempt to obtain economic rent, (i.e., the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of that which is needed to keep it employed in its current use), by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth."
Just below that, is mentions the origin of the term, which is in line with what I posted in my response: "The term itself derives, however, from the far older practice of appropriating a portion of production by gaining ownership or control of land."
So, as far as I was ignorant of the meaning of the term, and assumed it referred more directly to the concepts of Marx and others before him, I was wrong to jump on h4rr4r about it. I apologize.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the fact that the post I originally said "had there been no ice 100 years ago, there would be no polar bears." So my question is in direct response to his claim.
Your example would only hold true if no Democrat had ever stated a goal of opening concentration camps for gun owners. I don't believe I have heard any say that. But the poster I responded to did indeed say polar bear would be dead if the water was warmer.
Thats an impressive clip. Two minutes of promises and I'm not sure a single one of them has been kept.
So are people who called him a liar when he made that speech still racists?
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltare
Yes, of course they/you/we are. What a silly question.
So where did the polar bears live, if warmer water is lethal to them?
How "old" is the species of polar bear? It could be a relatively recent off-shoot of brown bear, or one that lived closer to the glaciers and such in the warm times, then spread out when the ice spread. It's not water that's lethal, it's lack of food that's lethal.
Your misstatement indicates you either have no grasp on what's lethal, or you are lying for effect.
How is asking a question "lying for effect"?
No, you have the wrong post. I'm not saying amaurea is a bad person, and I'm not saying Michael Mann is a bad person.
I'm saying Michael Mann was shown to be a bad scientist, and has damaged the AGW-believer side of this issue with remarkably poor science. I'm saying I don't trust anything he says, because of his prior bad science which not only is he not ashamed of, but which has his supporters twisting in logic knots to maintain. Name the people on the non-AGW side who have done such acts, and I will condemn them as well.
I don't dispute that global warming is happening. I don't dispute that man has played a part in it. I think both of those things are true, but I also think the degree of our impact is being inflated by people in power for their own ambitions. I think that Michael Mann assisted those "rich and powerful people" to be able to amass more wealth and power, at the expense of the rest of us. He was rewarded with money, power, and prestige.
So, no, my statement of not trusting Michael Mann is not an ad hominem. It is a statement of his past actions, and how he conducted himself.
I looked at the article, and unfortunately its main point is based on work by Michael Mann. I wouldn't accept evidence from him of a cow farting. He did more to damage the reputation of "your side" than anyone else in these debates.
So, thank you for your time, but I have nothing to add to a discussion that is based on Michael Mann.
My favourite author, Jared Diamond, had an entire chapter on the Greenland Norse in his book Collapse. They are remarkable because many factors impacted them at the same time, and their demise was due to climate, international politics, and their own stupidity.
Climate did get colder, but the Norse also lost their most important export, walrus tusks, because the Muslims started trading elephant tusks again with the Christians after several centuries of embargo: no one wanted walrus tusks anymore. Also, the Norse had apparently a phobia for fish, which for some reason they were unwilling to eat (or were unable to catch). They were also horrible diplomats and could not have friendly relations with the Inuit (who arrived in Greenland after the Norse), who eventually displaced them. Also, they were a very religious and conservative society, using relatively enormous resources to build a cathedral that could rival that of Nidaros in Norway.
Yes, that was a problem, and is explained in the article I linked. It didn't mention the Muslims selling elephant tusks, so thanks for filling in that blank about why the Greenland Norse couldn't sell walrus tusks anymore.
That's a way too bold statement. Latitude is not the only predictor of temperature. I live at the same latitude as Anchorage, AK, but out temperature average is 5-10 degrees Celsius higher because we are exposed to the Gulf stream. Climate change does not have the same uniform effects in every spot.
I should have used a modifier there. When it was that warm in Greenland, before the Little Ice Age cooled everything down, it was certainly warmer in Canada and Alaska than it was during the Little Ice Age.
That I will stand on, because I don't accept the theory I've seen put forth by others that the Medieval Warm Period only warmed up part of the world, and then the Little Ice Age only cooled off that same region. Especially since we are seeing now that current warming is affecting the Arctic so dramatically.
But thank you for calling me on that line. It was, as you said, too bold.
I am going to assume then that you are one of those assholes who are so absolutely arrogant you feel you can do whatever you like and fuck the consequences for everyone else? Those people are usually labeled as criminals.
Only after they're caught, before they're caught they're usually called sociopaths, psychopaths, or CEOs...
Describes America's current CEO to a tee.
And the last one.
And the one before that.
And the one....
They failed after being there for 500 years. The first 400 must have been warm enough to keep them there and in good health.
It was only later that the climate cooled, and they were forced to change their lifestyle, and finally leave Greenland.
So my point stands: When it was that warm in Greenland, it was certainly warm in Canada and Alaska. So where did the polar bears live, if warmer water is lethal to them?
.
PS. This article says the Vikings actually adapted to the colder climate, and ate more seal meat as their livestock dwindled over the colder years. They only left in the end because they couldn't trade for needed materials anymore.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/archaeologists-uncover-clues-to-why-vikings-abandoned-greenland-a-876626.html
He sounds like someone who doesn't have to resort to high school debate team minutia to make a point. You should try that next time.
So where were they when it was warm enough that the Vikings had two separate colonies on the southern shores of Greenland? Or was Canada still frozen while Greenland was basking in warmth?
Yeah, and the "meh" meme is so unique and thought-provoking.
I'm pretty sure he meant 'find oil on Mars', which while also unlikely, would guarantee them funding if they managed to do so.
Then you sir use your truck as a giant cat's toy, for simple amusement. Do you want to know what our truck (and all trucks) looked like where I grew up?
Our truck was covered in mud, or dust, or cowshit, or snow, or whatever, because we used the truck to do actual work. We didn't go seeking "challenging conditions", we lived in them. Whether hauling stuff to and from the field, or stacking it with firewood to heat our house all winter, or carrying animals to where they had to go, or carrying nurses into town to staff the hospital because their cars couldn't make it through the snow and the county didn't plow where we lived until days after the blizzards.
That is why our vehicles, cars and trucks alike, were not clean. We had too much to do with them, and they got to beaten up in the process anyhow, to want to wash them every week and put bows in their hair.
You call me out just because you have an expensive toy? You call me out because you keep your toy pretty? Get over yourself.
Let me put it this way: If your first language is any of { english, french, italian, spanish, ... } - you should have an instinctive feel for the spelling of Latin. If not, well, sorry boy-o, but you're a rube.
Except for two points:
A) English is more Germanic based than Latin based. So we aren't particularly strong in old-time Latin. That's why we actually make up words that have one root in Latin and one in Greek, and can't see the problem.
B) Most of our Latin comes from French, and not the modern form of it at that, but Old French. Old French is itself a bastardized form of Latin, and the native Gaul tongue had some role in it.
So, with these aspects of English being what they are, it's hardly surprising if we see little relation from our modern words to their original form in ancient Rome.
You too? I thought I was the only one. Yeah, Go Akhbar, whoever you are!
Every time I see a nice shiny SUV, I look for mud. Usually there is none, and I judge the driver/owner to be an idiot.
It might not be right, but I haven't been proven wrong yet.
He can't leave his house since he *may* be ... eaten by a pack of wild poodles.
Can you imagine how long the hair on those things would be? Since they don't have traditional dog fur, but instead have regular hair that keeps growing year round.
You would be able to grab one by the hair, twirl it around and bowl it into the others, tangling them all up in a big snarling snarl.
The term just brought that piece to mind, and how outdated its basis is nowadays. But the woman use coined the term "rent-seeking" in the 1970s should have used a different phrase, because it isn't about rent.
This article has a rebuttal I can agree with. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html
They use the term to describe people’s lobbying of government to give them special privileges. A much better term is “privilege seeking.”
Anyhow, thanks for the lesson, and have a nice weekend. (For myself, the Magic Pre-Release is tomorrow night. That's where my rent money is going this month. ;^) )
That's my problem with Kelvin. Why not make it its own scale, tied to something other than the phase-change of water?
How about the spare tire in a truck? You know, the type that are bolted underneath the bed. Just leave them there until needed, still full of hot air of course.
Finally, someone with a sense of humor.
Just for your information, I'm Belgian :-)
Oh no! Everyone, quick, look for a dead body. There must be one around here somewhere.
On a whim, and not being an economist, I decided to see what the term 'rent seeking' means beyond the common sense parsing of the words.
Sure enough, a quick look at wikipedia shows it is used to mean "an attempt to obtain economic rent, (i.e., the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of that which is needed to keep it employed in its current use), by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth."
Just below that, is mentions the origin of the term, which is in line with what I posted in my response: "The term itself derives, however, from the far older practice of appropriating a portion of production by gaining ownership or control of land."
So, as far as I was ignorant of the meaning of the term, and assumed it referred more directly to the concepts of Marx and others before him, I was wrong to jump on h4rr4r about it. I apologize.
Which is a major reason I specified a "physical device" in my original post to him.
But I didn't mention owning a patent. I requested what device you invented without a patent.