No projection is needed. SJWs are defined by their actions, not their identities.
You've already projected the SJW identity onto them. I don't see how you can label a group and then claim it's not an identity.
Casually and inaccurately use "misogynist" and "racist" to browbeat people while pushing an agenda? SJW - and there's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.
This is your personal definition of SJW, it is not the same as the others I have been given, so it does appear that you are projecting your own personal beliefs about what is wrong onto this group and then dismissing their role in "civil society" based on what you think they have done. It seems like you're doing exactly what I said you would be doing.
Actually I'm pretty sure that SJW's are puritans in disguise at this point.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that comments like that make my point. SJW is just another de-humanized group for people to project their personal devils onto.
Every time something comes along, the first thing they start screaming about is "sexism" or "muhsoggyknees." Strange that it just keeps happening over and over again, you know like with Matt Taylors shirt(who was made by a women).
Most of us are made by a woman, but I'll assume you mean the shirt. The people who are upset about this, and it doesn't seem like there's that many of them (your mention of this was the first time, I'd heard of it), are more upset that he wore it to a major press event and that no one thought to say, "Hey, before going on international television, maybe you'd like to change into something more appropriate?" To them, at least, this is indicative of a casual sexism endemic to the sciences and science reporting, where female scientists are judged by the appearance and male scientists by their accomplishments. The fact the shirt was made by a woman wouldn't actually matter to them and would appear to be disingenuous deflection because it's not the shirt, it's the where and the why it was worn that matters to the critics.
I'm sure though that you'll also find that the majority of people in gamergate are left-libertarians. And the majority of anti-gg are left-authoritarians.
I would suspect that you're suffering from the false-consensus effect and projecting your beliefs onto other people in Gamergate, possibly also the halo effect with respect to the people who don't like Gamergate. Of course, if you are correct about Gamergate having a libertarian base, then everyone else would be relatively more authoritarian, virtually by definition since just about the only group less authoritarian than libertarians are anarchists.
Additionally, when I spent some time looking over the posts on the Gamergate hash tag, I noticed several references to culture war against the left, and in particular how offline conservatives should follow Gamergate's tactics (against Gawker and Kotaku) to deny left leaning publications advertisers, which is certainly not what I would expect from a mostly left leaning group that advocates against corruption in journalism. For that matter, why do some of these supposed libertarians think that censorship of views they dislike is a valid solution to "corruption"?
Beyond that, I wasn't actually talking about Gamergate itself, which is a somewhat random assortment of people who all happen to be outraged about vaguely similar things and have twitter accounts, but more specifically about the people who use SJW as a pejorative epithet (which may or may not significantly overlap the people in Gamergate). Of course, on the other hand, I'd never heard of the SJWs until a bunch raging Gamergaters start spewing it all over Slashdot, so there is that.
You must be new here, "SJW" is the new "liberal". As a straight white conservative male, everyone you hate is a obviously an "SJW", because it's just another synonym for evil, like liberal, progessive, gay or female.
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Nothing, but I found it interesting to look at the price competitiveness of coal for new builds, which actually isn't very good and getting worse.
We ALREADY have the coal plants, they work, and shutting them down means having to replace them. Hint: Don't shut 'em down 'til they wear out. Then try to find something cheaper than wind to replace 'em with.
Natural gas appears to be the clear winner right now on pure price, even with a CCS system, they cost 2/3rds ($2.095 per KW to build) of what the cheapest coal plant without a CCS costs with comparable operating costs. Without a CCS system, they can get as low as 1/5th ($676 per KW to build) of what a new coal plant would cost with dramatically lower operating costs too.
Position the wind machines where there's wind? Didn't we just calculate that there are going to ber 1,211,000 wind machines?
Well there's a California wind power farm that covers 36 square kilometers and currently contains 490 turbines and generates 1,320 MW, with a planned capacity of 3,000 MW. So it looks like you can squeeze about 100 MW into a square kilometer (rounding up) than can be used for other purposes (such as agriculture or pasturage), so you'd have to dedicate 32,300 square km of land to meet the minimum power demand in ideal circumstances and 96,900 even we divide that by three. With 9,629,091 square km of land, you'd need to dedicate about 1% of the continental U.S. to meet that demand entirely using wind.
As a side note, it seems like the U.S. used 4.6 TW of power in 2013 (according to Wikipedia) so you've underestimated the amount of power the U.S. uses a bit. Also according to the Wikipedia, that's about 1/4 of the world's total electricity usage, used by less than 1/20th of the world's population. Apparently the average EU citizen uses electricity at about one half the per-capita rate of the average American. Anyway, using those higher figures, that would be about 1.5% of all of the contiguous United States land assuming you followed a wind-power only approach.
How much would it cost to replace America's current infrastructure with the exact same stuff?
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal plant costs between $2,934 and $6,599 per KW to build, while onshore wind costs $2,213 per kW to build. Even if you had to build three of them for each coal plant, the wind turbines are getting very close to the capital cost of coal plants that come with any carbon capture and storage system (CCS). Additionally, coal plant costs increasing and wind power costs decreased over the last 4 years.
Now if you can position the wind turbine in a location where it generates more than a third of the nominal capacity, the wind turbines start winning. If they were generating at 100% of the rated capacity they'd beat even the cheapest coal plant before you account for operations and maintenance and fuel costs.
Note that the fourth link indicates there's basically no consensus at all among scientists about how to respond to AGW. Should we adapt? Should we mitigate? No consensus at all there.
The link you provided indicates that there's consensus on everything rsilvergun said there was consensus on. Furthermore looking at the particular graph you cited, the question was "what is the best course of action?" with 1 and 7 representing mitigation only and adaption only respectively. It seems like there's a consensus that we should take a mixed approach with a little over 88% of the respondents taking one of the 2-6 options and the modal option being 4, right in the middle.
"Results" based politics brought us Soviet Union, the Holocaust, Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouges, witch hunts, Hiroshima, 9/11, every form of religious persecution ever, and in fact pretty much every atrocity in human history.
Really? It seems like the Soviet Union, the Holocaust, Maos' Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, and 9/11 were all "Values" based to me. The rise of Communism was a revolt against capitalist values, it was not a fact-based decision where communism was experimented with and found to be more efficient than capitalism and thus the conversion was rapidly and peaceably carried out. The Holocaust was a values-based decisions that Jews, gays, intellectuals, political opponents, and the Roma were evil and should be exterminated. The Great Leap Forward was ideologically based on the idea that collective farming must be better than individual farming, and the Cultural Revolution was ideological purge. The Khmer Rouge massacres were likewise based on the values of the leaders of the Khmer Rouge, not on any factual basis. Ditto with 9/11 the hijackers believed that the U.S.A was evil and were willing to sacrifice their lives to humble America.
I left the witch hunts and Hiroshima out, because they actually are different from the others. From what I've heard the witch hunts were a sham and most people knew it at the time, but they were a convenient excuse to get rid of inconvenient women. I'm not sure whether that falls into either category, it was more bad policy that allowed petty revenges. Hiroshima (and Nagasaki), on the other hand, were political decisions where for right or wrong, the U.S. president (under advisement from the U.S military) decided that the value of the bomb to force an unconditional surrender from the Japanese and to scare the Soviet Union out of turning on the rest of the Allies was worth the cost in (then-enemy) lives. So you may have one on your list that isn't values based.
Generally speaking religious persecution is always values based, as are most atrocities. Although, I suppose it has been argued that Muhammad's slaying of the Jewish Qurayza tribe in Medina was results-based. They had no sponsers or allies, were outnumbered and surrounded, and Muhammad had just lost a major battle. He had the men and boys who had reached puberty slaughtered because he could do so, because it would be a display of power that would cement his own grip on power, and he would take their wealth and enslave their women and children with which he could reward his army with after they were defeated by a superior force. So I guess there's another one you can chalk up to result-based policy.
Personally, I think probably need fact-based policy guided by a set of good values rather than one or the other in isolation. Values without facts can lead to ineffectual and dangerous policies like the Great Leap Forward, Lysenkoism and abstinence-only education. Facts and results without values leads to rational actions that can be horrible, like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and forced sterilization of undesirables.
The Bush military doctrine and incompetence is indeed partially to blame from the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq. Combining the weakened and divided Iraq that that doctrine produced with the dogged Russian support for Syria's Assad regime created a power vaccum where ISIS could propser. In this case I wouldn't specifically blame Christians for the Islamic State because those decisions are more accurately attributed to the neo-conservative movement in the United States which mostly pays lip-service to being Christian.
It's just not worth crippling economies for decades, perhaps centuries, to try to affect the problem.
British Columbia (one of 10 Canadian provinces) implemented a carbon tax 6 years ago, their provincial economy has consistenly out-performed most (if not all) of the rest of the provinces despite the conservative government focusing most of it's economic efforts on boosting Alberta's oil export-based economy.
The people who claim mitigating climate change would cripple the economy and bankrupt the world, are the true alarmists and they've been proven wrong at every turn. They claimed we would be bankrupted by anti-acid rain measures, by anti-ozone hole measures, by responsible forestry, by preventing companies from dumping toxic waste into water supplies and everything else that could possibly infringe on their profit margin. Why do you believe them without questions?
Why wouldn't it work in practice? It would be easy enough to shut down all mosques, ban the Koran, ban Muslim symbols, etc. It would be easy enough to hamper travel to Muslim countries, and in particular ban the Hajj.
Because laws like that so very successful in wiping out Judaism and Christianity, that only know of them through ancient historical texts, right?
Not true. It's okay to ban organizations in a democracy, which is why the Nazis have been banned in Germany for some time. The US made membership of the KKK illegal (note: membership, not engaging in crimes).
First, the Nazis are banned in Germany because it was a political movement that usurped the Nazis murdered 11 million people (and killed another 6 million through warfare), they assassinated their political opponents and allies they didn't trust. You could say that Germany considers it a criminal organization, but that would be an understatement.
Secondly, it was not illegal to be a member of the Klu Klux Klan in July. Although several Florida police officers were fired for being members.
Although the KKK is considered a hate group by the U.S. government, it is not illegal to be a member of the group, and most police departments do not screen for such membership
If something has changed since then, I have not hear anything about it.
France (a Western democracy) has gone down that path long ago, where they started placing restrictions on *display* of religion.
As far as I understand that restriction was on "display" of religious symbols and icons in public schools by teachers (and other staff) as part of their separation of church and state laws. If there is a broader law that you wish to cite, you may need to provide a link to the law.
That's not what the police said when it was being debated. I suspect they might have some authority on the subject of what is useful in criminal investigations.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertions?
That's bullshit. Words do nothing. And I don't care if a story sounds *plausible* to the believer, he would still be the moron to chase down.
So, it's perfectly ok for me to promise to pay money to the first person to murder your "child-raping" ass? Only the person who actually murders you should face any kind of criminal charges?
It's not the pen, it's the man's conscious that decides what happens with the sword.
I don't think anyone is saying that the person who commits the crime should be absolved of the blame because someone else told him to do it. They saying the guy who order other people murdered should not be allowed to walk free while his flunkies go to jail for the crimes he ordered. It's like you too ignorant to have ever heard of the mafia and organized crime.
You're only trying to pass blame, you are saying "the devil made me do it" is a valid excuse, and fuck that.
Actually it's opposite of that, they're saying we should lock up both the "pawn" and "the devil".
If you really care about journalistic ethics, you will want to distance yourself from #gamergate because the prominent people supporting it have none. They've published lies, been caught, and then refused to retract them after they were proven to be lies. Frankly, it seems like there are some very unethical people deliberately pouring gasoline on this fire to see how many people they can burn.
So those "AAA" titles (which cost the most to produce) actually don't appeal to the majority of players? It makes you wonder why they spend so much time and money pursuing an ever-shrinking fraction of the marketplace...
So we have: sea ice that might be just a little lower than normal in certain parts of Alaska, but pretty normal overall.
I suppose that depends on your definition of normal, for example it's about 2 million square kilometers below the average for 1980-2010, which hardly seems to qualify as normal. I can a reason see why you would choose an average of the lowest years on record for comparison, but it's not a very flattering reason.
Really? Nothing to do with the fact we're coming out of an ice age
Yes, because we are not "coming out a [glacial period]", we are headed into one. With out anthropogenic caarbon emissions, we would actually be on the long slow decline (-0.2 C per 1000y) into another glacial period. So, by definition, it can not have anything to do with "a fact" which is not true.
and that we're still lower than the interglacial temperatures prior to the last ice age?
I don't know what source you're using for this claim, but you appear to be mixing up the terminology. An Ice Age is the period during which there are glaciers at the polls and it is made up of glacial and inter-glacial periods. If you're talking about the world being colder than before there were glaciars at the polls, then obviously, yes the world probably is colder than it was 2.58 million years ago, before the polar ice caps formed. Pretty much by definition any non-ice age period should be warmer than any ice-age period. If you mean temperatures "prior to the last [glacial period]" it also probably correct that the temperature is below the maximum from the previous interglacial which ice core records indicate was about +3 degrees above 1950. However, it should be noted that this interglacial has never been that warm. The normal trend is for a very warm beginning to an interglacial period and then a long term trend of declining temperatures, so, it doesn't make sense to say "still lower" unless you are counting on the anthropogenic forcing to exceed +3 degrees C.
We're seeing these things because of fossil fuels, not for any other reason?
To the best of your knowledge, yes. The combined effect of all of the natural forcings that we know about and can measure have had a combined negative impact on global temperatures over the last decade and a half, and the termperature has continued to rise, although at a slower pace than previously. There are a few other anthropogenic climate forcings that account for a small part of the warming (land use changes and albedo change effects, for example) but the biggest factor is the increase in greenhouse gases and the feedback effects that that increase triggers. It should be noted that not all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels. Concrete, for example, actually emits a fair amount of CO2 as well, but the grandparent is essentially correct.
Obviously, you don't understand how science works:
Record hot summer = Evidence of global warming
As part of a trend of record hot summers, for sure. Individually? Not unless the record heat is so extraordinary that it falls outside of what would be possible without global warming.
Record cold winter = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
A record cold winter would be evidence against global warming if it was part of trend, or it was so cold that it fell out of what should be possible with global warming. Having said that, globally this past winter had the 3rd warmest december, the 4th warmest January and the 21st warmest February, none of which exactly qualify as "record cold" on the global scale.
Extreme weather events = Evidence of global warming
Again it's the trends in extreme weather events more than the individual events that matter with certain exceptions where the events themselves fall out of what would be possible without global warming.
Lack of extreme weather events = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
Again, it the trends, not individual weather on any specific year that matters
Ice melting in Antarctica = Evidence of global warming
Record ice in arctic = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
I think you might have your north and south mixed up. We're near the record low for Arctic ice extent, and at record highs in Antarctic ice extent. Both of which are expected as part of global warming.
IT'S SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
It actually is, whether or not you resort to derision and mockery.
Once all the hospitals and other facilities are government, you have no place to turn except for the government.
Interesting note: There are countries that provide universal health care where the government owns all the hospitals and clinics and there are countries where it doesn't. Universal health care doesn't require that the government own the health care infrastructure. The government only needs to take over the primary health care insurance market.
Another interesting note: Many of the countries with universal health care still have for-profit supplemental health care coverage for the things that are not covered by the universal system.
It's not happening, though. This year is really, really close to last year so it's more like a 2 year rebound from a new record low. If we're really lucky, 2012's minimum extent record will stand for a decade or longer. That would be good news for us, but I don't expect it to.
When the climate change topic comes up, my brain automatically translates that the punitive corrective measures bandied about over the years...Carbon Tax, Environmental Regulation, and all the other proposed measures that wind up trading modest pollution levels for wideband economic austerity.
Why would you think that Carbon taxes or environmental regulation would actually trigger "wideband economic austerity"? We've been through similar measures at least twice before (CFCs and Acid Rain) and as non-intuitive as it may seem now, the interventions actually turned out to have a small positive effect on the economy. It turns out that when pollution is free, there is a certain inertia where companies often don't take steps that would actually be beneficial to their bottom line because the benefit is perceived to be small and potentially risky.
Furthermore, there are several countries (and areas withing individual countries) already have carbon taxes and regulation and they have not been driven out of business by their less-regulated competition. Norway, for example, has had a carbon tax for over 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
No projection is needed. SJWs are defined by their actions, not their identities.
You've already projected the SJW identity onto them. I don't see how you can label a group and then claim it's not an identity.
Casually and inaccurately use "misogynist" and "racist" to browbeat people while pushing an agenda? SJW - and there's no room in a civil society for such an uncivil actor.
This is your personal definition of SJW, it is not the same as the others I have been given, so it does appear that you are projecting your own personal beliefs about what is wrong onto this group and then dismissing their role in "civil society" based on what you think they have done. It seems like you're doing exactly what I said you would be doing.
Actually I'm pretty sure that SJW's are puritans in disguise at this point.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that comments like that make my point. SJW is just another de-humanized group for people to project their personal devils onto.
Every time something comes along, the first thing they start screaming about is "sexism" or "muhsoggyknees." Strange that it just keeps happening over and over again, you know like with Matt Taylors shirt(who was made by a women).
Most of us are made by a woman, but I'll assume you mean the shirt. The people who are upset about this, and it doesn't seem like there's that many of them (your mention of this was the first time, I'd heard of it), are more upset that he wore it to a major press event and that no one thought to say, "Hey, before going on international television, maybe you'd like to change into something more appropriate?" To them, at least, this is indicative of a casual sexism endemic to the sciences and science reporting, where female scientists are judged by the appearance and male scientists by their accomplishments. The fact the shirt was made by a woman wouldn't actually matter to them and would appear to be disingenuous deflection because it's not the shirt, it's the where and the why it was worn that matters to the critics.
I'm sure though that you'll also find that the majority of people in gamergate are left-libertarians. And the majority of anti-gg are left-authoritarians.
I would suspect that you're suffering from the false-consensus effect and projecting your beliefs onto other people in Gamergate, possibly also the halo effect with respect to the people who don't like Gamergate. Of course, if you are correct about Gamergate having a libertarian base, then everyone else would be relatively more authoritarian, virtually by definition since just about the only group less authoritarian than libertarians are anarchists.
Additionally, when I spent some time looking over the posts on the Gamergate hash tag, I noticed several references to culture war against the left, and in particular how offline conservatives should follow Gamergate's tactics (against Gawker and Kotaku) to deny left leaning publications advertisers, which is certainly not what I would expect from a mostly left leaning group that advocates against corruption in journalism. For that matter, why do some of these supposed libertarians think that censorship of views they dislike is a valid solution to "corruption"?
Beyond that, I wasn't actually talking about Gamergate itself, which is a somewhat random assortment of people who all happen to be outraged about vaguely similar things and have twitter accounts, but more specifically about the people who use SJW as a pejorative epithet (which may or may not significantly overlap the people in Gamergate). Of course, on the other hand, I'd never heard of the SJWs until a bunch raging Gamergaters start spewing it all over Slashdot, so there is that.
You must be new here, "SJW" is the new "liberal". As a straight white conservative male, everyone you hate is a obviously an "SJW", because it's just another synonym for evil, like liberal, progessive, gay or female.
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Nothing, but I found it interesting to look at the price competitiveness of coal for new builds, which actually isn't very good and getting worse.
We ALREADY have the coal plants, they work, and shutting them down means having to replace them. Hint: Don't shut 'em down 'til they wear out. Then try to find something cheaper than wind to replace 'em with.
Natural gas appears to be the clear winner right now on pure price, even with a CCS system, they cost 2/3rds ($2.095 per KW to build) of what the cheapest coal plant without a CCS costs with comparable operating costs. Without a CCS system, they can get as low as 1/5th ($676 per KW to build) of what a new coal plant would cost with dramatically lower operating costs too.
Position the wind machines where there's wind? Didn't we just calculate that there are going to ber 1,211,000 wind machines?
Well there's a California wind power farm that covers 36 square kilometers and currently contains 490 turbines and generates 1,320 MW, with a planned capacity of 3,000 MW. So it looks like you can squeeze about 100 MW into a square kilometer (rounding up) than can be used for other purposes (such as agriculture or pasturage), so you'd have to dedicate 32,300 square km of land to meet the minimum power demand in ideal circumstances and 96,900 even we divide that by three. With 9,629,091 square km of land, you'd need to dedicate about 1% of the continental U.S. to meet that demand entirely using wind.
As a side note, it seems like the U.S. used 4.6 TW of power in 2013 (according to Wikipedia) so you've underestimated the amount of power the U.S. uses a bit. Also according to the Wikipedia, that's about 1/4 of the world's total electricity usage, used by less than 1/20th of the world's population. Apparently the average EU citizen uses electricity at about one half the per-capita rate of the average American. Anyway, using those higher figures, that would be about 1.5% of all of the contiguous United States land assuming you followed a wind-power only approach.
How much would it cost to replace America's current infrastructure with the exact same stuff?
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal plant costs between $2,934 and $6,599 per KW to build, while onshore wind costs $2,213 per kW to build. Even if you had to build three of them for each coal plant, the wind turbines are getting very close to the capital cost of coal plants that come with any carbon capture and storage system (CCS). Additionally, coal plant costs increasing and wind power costs decreased over the last 4 years.
Now if you can position the wind turbine in a location where it generates more than a third of the nominal capacity, the wind turbines start winning. If they were generating at 100% of the rated capacity they'd beat even the cheapest coal plant before you account for operations and maintenance and fuel costs.
Note that the fourth link indicates there's basically no consensus at all among scientists about how to respond to AGW. Should we adapt? Should we mitigate? No consensus at all there.
The link you provided indicates that there's consensus on everything rsilvergun said there was consensus on. Furthermore looking at the particular graph you cited, the question was "what is the best course of action?" with 1 and 7 representing mitigation only and adaption only respectively. It seems like there's a consensus that we should take a mixed approach with a little over 88% of the respondents taking one of the 2-6 options and the modal option being 4, right in the middle.
"Results" based politics brought us Soviet Union, the Holocaust, Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouges, witch hunts, Hiroshima, 9/11, every form of religious persecution ever, and in fact pretty much every atrocity in human history.
Really? It seems like the Soviet Union, the Holocaust, Maos' Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, and 9/11 were all "Values" based to me. The rise of Communism was a revolt against capitalist values, it was not a fact-based decision where communism was experimented with and found to be more efficient than capitalism and thus the conversion was rapidly and peaceably carried out. The Holocaust was a values-based decisions that Jews, gays, intellectuals, political opponents, and the Roma were evil and should be exterminated. The Great Leap Forward was ideologically based on the idea that collective farming must be better than individual farming, and the Cultural Revolution was ideological purge. The Khmer Rouge massacres were likewise based on the values of the leaders of the Khmer Rouge, not on any factual basis. Ditto with 9/11 the hijackers believed that the U.S.A was evil and were willing to sacrifice their lives to humble America.
I left the witch hunts and Hiroshima out, because they actually are different from the others. From what I've heard the witch hunts were a sham and most people knew it at the time, but they were a convenient excuse to get rid of inconvenient women. I'm not sure whether that falls into either category, it was more bad policy that allowed petty revenges. Hiroshima (and Nagasaki), on the other hand, were political decisions where for right or wrong, the U.S. president (under advisement from the U.S military) decided that the value of the bomb to force an unconditional surrender from the Japanese and to scare the Soviet Union out of turning on the rest of the Allies was worth the cost in (then-enemy) lives. So you may have one on your list that isn't values based.
Generally speaking religious persecution is always values based, as are most atrocities. Although, I suppose it has been argued that Muhammad's slaying of the Jewish Qurayza tribe in Medina was results-based. They had no sponsers or allies, were outnumbered and surrounded, and Muhammad had just lost a major battle. He had the men and boys who had reached puberty slaughtered because he could do so, because it would be a display of power that would cement his own grip on power, and he would take their wealth and enslave their women and children with which he could reward his army with after they were defeated by a superior force. So I guess there's another one you can chalk up to result-based policy.
Personally, I think probably need fact-based policy guided by a set of good values rather than one or the other in isolation. Values without facts can lead to ineffectual and dangerous policies like the Great Leap Forward, Lysenkoism and abstinence-only education. Facts and results without values leads to rational actions that can be horrible, like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and forced sterilization of undesirables.
I looked through your examples and they're seriously underwhelming.
Have you got any real examples?
The Bush military doctrine and incompetence is indeed partially to blame from the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq. Combining the weakened and divided Iraq that that doctrine produced with the dogged Russian support for Syria's Assad regime created a power vaccum where ISIS could propser. In this case I wouldn't specifically blame Christians for the Islamic State because those decisions are more accurately attributed to the neo-conservative movement in the United States which mostly pays lip-service to being Christian.
It's just not worth crippling economies for decades, perhaps centuries, to try to affect the problem.
British Columbia (one of 10 Canadian provinces) implemented a carbon tax 6 years ago, their provincial economy has consistenly out-performed most (if not all) of the rest of the provinces despite the conservative government focusing most of it's economic efforts on boosting Alberta's oil export-based economy.
The people who claim mitigating climate change would cripple the economy and bankrupt the world, are the true alarmists and they've been proven wrong at every turn. They claimed we would be bankrupted by anti-acid rain measures, by anti-ozone hole measures, by responsible forestry, by preventing companies from dumping toxic waste into water supplies and everything else that could possibly infringe on their profit margin. Why do you believe them without questions?
let me start wearing v neck pants to work so my balls can get some fresh air.
It's called a kilt...
As I remember one of the guys lost his job, the other was reprimanded but not fired, and the complainer also lost her job.
There's a lesson there, I think.
Why wouldn't it work in practice? It would be easy enough to shut down all mosques, ban the Koran, ban Muslim symbols, etc. It would be easy enough to hamper travel to Muslim countries, and in particular ban the Hajj.
Because laws like that so very successful in wiping out Judaism and Christianity, that only know of them through ancient historical texts, right?
Not true. It's okay to ban organizations in a democracy, which is why the Nazis have been banned in Germany for some time. The US made membership of the KKK illegal (note: membership, not engaging in crimes).
First, the Nazis are banned in Germany because it was a political movement that usurped the Nazis murdered 11 million people (and killed another 6 million through warfare), they assassinated their political opponents and allies they didn't trust. You could say that Germany considers it a criminal organization, but that would be an understatement.
Secondly, it was not illegal to be a member of the Klu Klux Klan in July. Although several Florida police officers were fired for being members.
If something has changed since then, I have not hear anything about it.
France (a Western democracy) has gone down that path long ago, where they started placing restrictions on *display* of religion.
As far as I understand that restriction was on "display" of religious symbols and icons in public schools by teachers (and other staff) as part of their separation of church and state laws. If there is a broader law that you wish to cite, you may need to provide a link to the law.
That's not what the police said when it was being debated. I suspect they might have some authority on the subject of what is useful in criminal investigations.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertions?
That's bullshit. Words do nothing. And I don't care if a story sounds *plausible* to the believer, he would still be the moron to chase down.
So, it's perfectly ok for me to promise to pay money to the first person to murder your "child-raping" ass? Only the person who actually murders you should face any kind of criminal charges?
It's not the pen, it's the man's conscious that decides what happens with the sword.
I don't think anyone is saying that the person who commits the crime should be absolved of the blame because someone else told him to do it. They saying the guy who order other people murdered should not be allowed to walk free while his flunkies go to jail for the crimes he ordered. It's like you too ignorant to have ever heard of the mafia and organized crime.
You're only trying to pass blame, you are saying "the devil made me do it" is a valid excuse, and fuck that.
Actually it's opposite of that, they're saying we should lock up both the "pawn" and "the devil".
If you really care about journalistic ethics, you will want to distance yourself from #gamergate because the prominent people supporting it have none. They've published lies, been caught, and then refused to retract them after they were proven to be lies. Frankly, it seems like there are some very unethical people deliberately pouring gasoline on this fire to see how many people they can burn.
So those "AAA" titles (which cost the most to produce) actually don't appeal to the majority of players? It makes you wonder why they spend so much time and money pursuing an ever-shrinking fraction of the marketplace...
So we have: sea ice that might be just a little lower than normal in certain parts of Alaska, but pretty normal overall.
I suppose that depends on your definition of normal, for example it's about 2 million square kilometers below the average for 1980-2010, which hardly seems to qualify as normal. I can a reason see why you would choose an average of the lowest years on record for comparison, but it's not a very flattering reason.
Really? Nothing to do with the fact we're coming out of an ice age
Yes, because we are not "coming out a [glacial period]", we are headed into one. With out anthropogenic caarbon emissions, we would actually be on the long slow decline (-0.2 C per 1000y) into another glacial period. So, by definition, it can not have anything to do with "a fact" which is not true.
and that we're still lower than the interglacial temperatures prior to the last ice age?
I don't know what source you're using for this claim, but you appear to be mixing up the terminology. An Ice Age is the period during which there are glaciers at the polls and it is made up of glacial and inter-glacial periods. If you're talking about the world being colder than before there were glaciars at the polls, then obviously, yes the world probably is colder than it was 2.58 million years ago, before the polar ice caps formed. Pretty much by definition any non-ice age period should be warmer than any ice-age period. If you mean temperatures "prior to the last [glacial period]" it also probably correct that the temperature is below the maximum from the previous interglacial which ice core records indicate was about +3 degrees above 1950. However, it should be noted that this interglacial has never been that warm. The normal trend is for a very warm beginning to an interglacial period and then a long term trend of declining temperatures, so, it doesn't make sense to say "still lower" unless you are counting on the anthropogenic forcing to exceed +3 degrees C.
We're seeing these things because of fossil fuels, not for any other reason?
To the best of your knowledge, yes. The combined effect of all of the natural forcings that we know about and can measure have had a combined negative impact on global temperatures over the last decade and a half, and the termperature has continued to rise, although at a slower pace than previously. There are a few other anthropogenic climate forcings that account for a small part of the warming (land use changes and albedo change effects, for example) but the biggest factor is the increase in greenhouse gases and the feedback effects that that increase triggers. It should be noted that not all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels. Concrete, for example, actually emits a fair amount of CO2 as well, but the grandparent is essentially correct.
Funny, I always thought "experiment" was in there somewhere.
Apparently, you should be at your most scientific (and smug) when you don't do experiments.
Sigh. Experiments would be part of "observation", as in you conduct an experiment and observe the results.
If you weren't so busy being a cynical jackass, you might actually have time to learn things.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, however, ...
Obviously, you don't understand how science works:
Record hot summer = Evidence of global warming
As part of a trend of record hot summers, for sure. Individually? Not unless the record heat is so extraordinary that it falls outside of what would be possible without global warming.
Record cold winter = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
A record cold winter would be evidence against global warming if it was part of trend, or it was so cold that it fell out of what should be possible with global warming. Having said that, globally this past winter had the 3rd warmest december, the 4th warmest January and the 21st warmest February, none of which exactly qualify as "record cold" on the global scale.
Extreme weather events = Evidence of global warming
Again it's the trends in extreme weather events more than the individual events that matter with certain exceptions where the events themselves fall out of what would be possible without global warming.
Lack of extreme weather events = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
Again, it the trends, not individual weather on any specific year that matters
Ice melting in Antarctica = Evidence of global warming
Record ice in arctic = Well, that's just weather, pay it no mind.
I think you might have your north and south mixed up. We're near the record low for Arctic ice extent, and at record highs in Antarctic ice extent. Both of which are expected as part of global warming.
IT'S SCIENCE, PEOPLE!
It actually is, whether or not you resort to derision and mockery.
I don't think you understand the difference between global warming and climate change.
Once all the hospitals and other facilities are government, you have no place to turn except for the government.
Interesting note: There are countries that provide universal health care where the government owns all the hospitals and clinics and there are countries where it doesn't. Universal health care doesn't require that the government own the health care infrastructure. The government only needs to take over the primary health care insurance market.
Another interesting note: Many of the countries with universal health care still have for-profit supplemental health care coverage for the things that are not covered by the universal system.
But 3 consecutive years of expansion would be....
Good news?
It's not happening, though. This year is really, really close to last year so it's more like a 2 year rebound from a new record low. If we're really lucky, 2012's minimum extent record will stand for a decade or longer. That would be good news for us, but I don't expect it to.
When the climate change topic comes up, my brain automatically translates that the punitive corrective measures bandied about over the years...Carbon Tax, Environmental Regulation, and all the other proposed measures that wind up trading modest pollution levels for wideband economic austerity.
Why would you think that Carbon taxes or environmental regulation would actually trigger "wideband economic austerity"? We've been through similar measures at least twice before (CFCs and Acid Rain) and as non-intuitive as it may seem now, the interventions actually turned out to have a small positive effect on the economy. It turns out that when pollution is free, there is a certain inertia where companies often don't take steps that would actually be beneficial to their bottom line because the benefit is perceived to be small and potentially risky.
Furthermore, there are several countries (and areas withing individual countries) already have carbon taxes and regulation and they have not been driven out of business by their less-regulated competition. Norway, for example, has had a carbon tax for over 20 years.