... that's more than a little pedantic. I use the term species instead of class and so you get to discount the rest of my position regardless of whether it was valid or not?
That type of rhetoric is interested not in honest evaluation but in political domination and censorship.
Your attitude has no credibility in a scientific discussion.
Adjust your stance to one that is not designed for politics and we can continue. If you refuse to alter your tack then you're simply admitting a lack of intellectual curiosity which undermines your position more than mine was using the wrong term.
Can you unpack that a bit... I'm not sure what you're specifically saying there. Make falsifiable statements please... things that can be right or wrong. You're so vague here that I don't know how to read it.
The only significant group that doesn't approve of it are evangelical creationists and they're not numerous enough make that claim.
What is more the survey is conflating POLITICAL positions with scientific positions. What someone will "say" on a survey to show political affliation is not the same thing as "what I ACTUALLY believe".
The accuracy of these surveys is undermined by a long list of issues.
Sample selection. Sample size. Question phrasing. Whether people LIE to pollers... look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?
Its very hard to get accurate polling on politically charged issues.
This is why amongst other things we have secret ballots. Why is that? Think about it. People would feel pressured to vote otherwise if they were being personally identified by anyone when they voted. And the pollster is doing that... even if only the person collecting the data sees it.
This is why people at the DMV ask people in person if they want to sign up for organ donations. The government has figured out that if you ask people at that moment they're more inclined to say yes. Where as if people just fill out a form and hand it in... they don't check that box as often.
Think about that.
This all biases the results.
On issues of climate change... there are so many different positions on that... whether you're generally pro or anti... there is a lot of nuance... in science and outside of it. To abstract it all to one question with a yes or no answer is an over simplification of what are complicated questions.
The questions being asked are also cherry picked to put progressives in the best possible light. There are quite a few issues progressives believe in that are not backed by science. We could shift the questions to those issues and they'd likely do poorly by the same standard.
The obvious intention of what is effectively an editorial poll is to put progressives in a good light.
I'd like to know who paid for this poll... it wouldn't surprise me if the poll were designed and paid for by a lobbying group. Pew conducted the poll... sure... but you can control the outcome if you control the methodology.
Not really. The US is friends with a lot of countries you couldn't say we control.
Do we control Europe? Friends with them. Do we control East Asia? The East Asians would say we don't... who knows better... you or the people living there?
The US has influence all over the world but conflating influence with control is not supportable.
As to the sort of control the US wants over Iran... nothing. All we want is for them not to develop a nuclear program that could trigger a nuclear response from everyone in the region. We want them to not indoctrinate their people to hate us or our allies. And we'd like them to stop sponsoring terrorists against either us or our allies.
That's the extent of US objectives on Iran. Nothing more.
Is that unreasonable?
As to your notions of what the US is... you're not thinking about the issue strategically. You're taking a very emotional perspective on it and it makes it impossible for you to really appreciate what you're talking about.
The big issue the US is trying to prevent in the middle east is a regional nuclear war.
If Iran goes nuclear then the rest of the middle east is going to go nuclear. We won't be able to stop it and even if we could... we won't.
Which means we'll pull back and eventually the insane politics of the region will cause a regional nuclear war. The Jews will probably get genocided which is something we've been trying to prevent. Iran will probably get genocided... and the whole region will be crippled for centuries.
This is a very likely outcome if Iran's nuclear program goes unchecked.
Do the strategic math. Be Kasparov for a second. Channel your inner chess master. Think 10 moves out.
Follow the chain of causal logic.
A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to E etc.
Sit down and war game it out. Just think about the regional consequences of the Iranians getting a nuke.
The Shia Sunni rivery is going to mean that the Saudis, Jordanians, and Egyptians... possibly the Turks are strongly encouraged to go nuclear. Pakistan will likely facilitate that.
And what can the US do to stop it at that point?
Once nuclear containment breaks down the ability of the US to stabilize the region and prevent all out war between the various nations becomes impractical. The US will have to pull back. We'll encourage Israel to hunker down and try to stay out of it. Be nice to the Palestinians. Say nothing. Do nothing.... remain ready. The likelyhood of the various factions to destroy each other is quite high. They're aggressive, short sighted, xenophobic of anyone that is not them, and generally unconcerned with their own survival so long as whatever is in the name of their religion.
This sort of attitude is a bad combination with nuclear weapons. And it will lead to a regional run away nuclear exchange.
Now that said... as Iran gets closer to having a bomb or even once they have one... the rival powers will basically not care what the US does so long as it ends with Iran either being destroyed or not having a bomb anymore. That means the US will increasingly have a blank check to deal with Iran.
The Iranians are checkmated here. They don't see it because they don't think strategically.
... are you ever uncomfortable with that dick in your ass? Just curious.
Exactly what relevance does your little statement have? I was citing myself as an american... and pointing out that Americans had some very intense battles with the Chinese... and despite killing a LOT of chinese soldiers... we're generally pretty friendly with each other today.
And that is to both our benefit.
The Chinese don't bow to the US and the US doesn't bow to the Chinese. Neither needs to submit to the other. We cooperate and mutually profit from trade, cultural exchange, and yes... the chinese profit from US hegemony because it is only through us that the trade networks they base their economy on even exist.
As to your pathetic little attack... suggesting that I am not an American because I wasn't in a given war is stupid. My family fought in all those wars.
I had a grand father in the battle of the bulge as well as on a destroyer in the pacific. I had a uncles in Korea and Vietnam. One of my uncles flew for the CIA's Air America and died in Vietnam. I have cousins to this day in Air Force and in various branches of intelligence.
So you can go fuck yourself with a rake, you little shit.
Saigon fell as a result of political turmoil in the US that caused the US to pull back. That led to the collapse of the south Vietnamese lines leading to the total collapse of the South Vietnam.
We were not driven back due to military pressure.
We consistently fucked the Vietcong up until the politics shifted in the US. Then we left.
In Georgia the Russians didn't use it... the Georgians had night vision and drones and it gave them an advantage when in equal numbers. Georgia lost because when the Russians started taking causalities they just rushed across the border with overwhelming force.
The US is paying attention to this and we're going to frustrate further invasions by Russia by seeing that weapons are in place or US forces can be mobilized such that Russian forces are stopped or frustrated long enough to permit attrition to either force them back or even give time for US reinforcements to intimidate them back across the line.
The Russian tactics are poor. They don't have the US experience.
People say "america is always fighting a war"... but they don't understand that that also means we have more experience with modern warfare. Most of what the Russians did in the Georgian campaign they actually learned by watching us... the combined forces strikes with airpower and rapid advancement of troops is something we put on display every time we get serious.
Regardless... all the US has to do is make aggression both embarrassingly costly and financially costly for Russia. We do that and they'll look weak at home every time they try it.
Except for Verizon technically isn't violating the contract. The contract as written basically f'cks NYC in the ass. All NYC can do is bite down on a wooden spoon and hope its over quickly.
Which is why you don't deal with fucking monopolists in the first place because this is what they do to everyone.
You sit down and sign these contracts with these people and you're going to get fucked. The negotiator for Verizon might as well have been Ron Jeromy. All sweaty and greasy and ready to go.
By all means if that is what you want to happen... sign that contract. Ron will take real good care of you.
... you're implying that sub groups don't frequently have large variances?
Again, lets talk about investment bankers and compare their views on economics with the general public. Is that going to be the same?
Nope... big variances.
What about police officers versus the general public? Big variances.
what about this little community on slashdot versus the general public do you think we couldn't have lots of big variances on a lot of issues?
of course we will. Look at how many articles we say "oh this is dumb" about when the general public is lapping it up. Now why is that? because our views on those matters are different from the general public.
This all boils down to statistics and how it seems that most people don't know how to read them. The more I see these cited, the more I think the practice should be discouraged. Fewer statistics of any kind. The only people that should be dealing with the statistics are people that understand statistics. Very few people in the population seem to understand them.
Effectively no one in journalism which is pathetic... And the journalists get away with it because most readers don't understand them either.
Once you understand that the stats are only as good as the methodology... what becomes even more important than the results is a recitation of the methodology of the statistics.
Hmmm... not in science. What is more a gray scale image can be built up by having a very highly detailed black and white image.
Its just a matter of resolution. If you specify all the places where something is and all the places where something is not... and are very detailed about it then you can have a nuanced and detailed image of an issue that effectively has shades of gray in the abstract while in the details everything simply is or is not.
Absolute blacks and whites can be used to create a nuanced picture... if you're precise.
Thus weasel words are often used as a lazy short cut. Rather than specifying what is and is not... they'll just sort look at the general picture and eye ball it estimate the gray.
When you build an argument that way, it is very easy to misrepresent a position if you are so inclined by building maybes on top of probabiles on top of sometimes. Then you cite the whole thing as 'this thing happens"... when in the methodology it becomes clear that actually there were so many qualifiers that a conclusion is not actually possible.
That is by using so many qualifiers... the conclusion is not "conclusive". You don't have proof of anything. You have HINTS and suppositions and indications.
That's not science. You can cite it as being hypothesizing if you like but you can't base anything conclusive on it.
Habit... I'm from California and we pronounce nuclear very slightly differently than do people on the east coast. And if you say nuclear the way we do, then they turn their heads sideways and say "what did you say?"... with a superior smirk that makes me want to take an eye out with a spoon... they think they're clever because they basically think only their pronunciation of words are valid. So some guy from the Bronx with a thick fucking accent can say nuclear and they don't bat an eye. Because everything from New York is valid. But a guy from Los Angeles says it and they presume to snicker.
As a result, I just say atomic. I can't be bothered to explain to those morons why their position is asinine every time they do that. I've had New Yorkers presume to do that to me several times and I can either be livid with them or not give the little robots any ammunition to script on to over the issue.
Not really. Cite a survey you think I'd suddenly betray my intellectual integrity over. Try it.
Your argument largely boils down to "I don't have to have intellectual integrity, be honest, or make sense because no one else is doing it."
First off... actually there are lots of people trying to be all those things all the time. But the political elements are cheating lying shitheads and they tend to drowned out all opposition or conduct lots of things that make any kind of rational discussion impossible.
Listen to you for example right here... I point out something that is entirely valid and your response is little more than "because some people are shills we can all be shills."
Fine... if you do that then you can't cite science or really evidence at all then. Because that all requires a certain amount of intellectual integrity.
If you have ANY interest in a rational, constructive, and honest discussion... then you need to put that shit away.
If you cannot do that or refuse to do that... then that has a price. And it starts with surrendering any claim to intellectual integrity. You do that and all that is left is politics. Period.
Pretty much. What really kills it is that the questions are mostly political in nature and there is no context offered.
If you ask someone a question about global warming they're going to have nuanced answers.
They might say they're totally on board with the IPCC... they might say the IPCC is generally right but is exaggerating. They might say we have global warming and we're doing it but it isn't going to be bad for humanity. They might say the warming is all natural... They might say they completely agree with the global warming thing but they don't agree with the political solutions suggested to correct the issue.
It gets complicated. And the thing is that even the scientists are going to give nuanced answers. There is a lot of conflation to support what amount to confirmation biases.
As to my feelings on Iran, I have no problem with any nation that isn't plotting overtly or subtly to kill my people or my allies.
Iran comes by my enmity honestly. They've earned it through their actions and ambitions. That said, if they stop doing those things and sincerely give up the quest to destroy my people... then I can forgive them tomorrow.
I am quick to forgive and quick to anger. I respond.
As to fluff... not really, you're taking statements out of context and stripping out my supporting logic. This basically means you're attempting a strawman. It has not gone unnoticed.
As to the Saudis etc getting nukes... they could all buy them if the US didn't stop it. What do you think stops nuclear proliferation in the first place? What is more what can the US do in the end here? If Iran gets nukes then the arabs will have justification to arm themselves and they could acquire nukes from the Pakistanis at the very least.
You apparently don't know anything about geopolitical nuclear containment. Its a pillar of US foreign policy and the fact that you're aware of it means you have no credibility on this issue.
As to your point that there is bad history in the region... so what? There is bad history between the US and Germany... the US and Japan... The US and China... we all get along just fine. Rational players learn to let it go and move on.
States that can't do that fail to adapt and suffer for it.
As to the advantage you presume for being a nuclear power... its vastly overrated.
All being a nuclear power means is that you're not able to be invaded directly. Or that if you are... you could detonate a nuke... which might be something that could be managable.
A key point you have to keep in mind with a nuclear program is that the US and Russia long ago learned that land based nukes are actually not effective deterrants against a first strike.
The US and Russia deal with that by having our primary ICBM punch on subs. So the first strike would not stop a full MAD response from the US even if you completely obliterated the US. The subs would just move into range and exact their revenge.
The Iranians will not be able to credibly do that. Which means if the US actually wanted to invade anyway... we could first strike their nuclear facility shutting down their bomb... or missile... and then they have nothing.
Nuclear weapons by all but perhaps 3 powers in the world are a false sense of security.
The European nukes can all be destroyed by first strike. Same with the Indians and Pakistanis and Israelis, etc. The Iranian nuclear program is not a direct threat to the US. The actual threat is the effect of having it or the presumption of having it on the middle east. We could see the middle eastern powers all nuclearly arm which would make a regional nuclear war very likely.
That is actually why the US cares about the Iranian nuclear program. Not because we're worried about the Iranians using it on us. They couldn't. And not because we're upset that we wouldn't be able to attack them because we could. The issue is that the Saudis etc will arm up as well and a full blow regional nuclear war becomes likely.
Now... there is a point where it becomes counter productive for the US to even try to stop that war. There is a point where our best move is to back off... and just let it happen. It would mean the deaths of millions but the resulting peace after that war would likely be more stable and sustainable. And of course... there would be no blood on our hands.
You're not thinking strategically. You need to back out and see the world... see time... see the forces... and then start extrapolating. What you'll find is that Iran is digging their own grave. As I said... best case is that they trigger a nasty response from their neighbors that leads to a stand off and no net gain of power while if anything increasing the risks and costs of conflict. They would have to tone down the hate speech or they'd likely destroy themselves.
As to zeta joules, I can't process that information. The issue is that we're trying to audit each other's information and you're citing something that can't be audited because the units are odd and there is nothing I can compare this against. That means I can't audit it. And I don't like evidence that can't be audited.
As to the corrections on my math, thank you. I think this back of the napkin calculation actually does a better job of finding consensus than a lot of the other things we could do.
I'd throw this out then: 200 cubic kilometers of water x 20 years
4000 cubic kilometers of water
So this is the amount of water that they say was added.
Lets compare that against sea level rise
The surface of the world's oceans is ~ 361,740,000 square kilometers
2.6mm x 20 years = 52mm
52mm = 0.000052km
0.000052km x ~ 361,740,000 square kilometers
18810.48 cubic km of water
Did I make another error here? Because these numbers are still no where near what they're talking about. That shows nearly five times the melting of that estimate. That's not even close.
Can they account for 18810 cubic kilometers of water in ice loss? If not... then where the hell did the water come from?
If we understand what is going on, then these numbers should be close. I could accept figures that were ~20% give or take. But these are off now by about 4.7 times.
As to your citation, it appears to start either in the 90s or around 1965. To blame this on the industrial revolution and our burning of fossil fuels, you're going to have to show a graph that predates the heavy emission of fossil fuels.
If the graph when you expand beyond that shows a similar trend line before fossil fuel burning then associating the trend line with fossil fuel burning is likely specious. If instead there is a change in the trend line roughly around where we start burning a lot of fossil fuels that will support your position.
Any trend that starts in the 90s or 60s will not be useful if we're talking about AGW.
As to debugging the sea ice... you didn't correct my math though. I'd like to actually see that corrected so I can see where I messed up. I don't learn anything if I don't see the correction.
As to peer review doing X or Y... I can cite a lot of things that made it through peer review where none of those things happened.
I mean... there was that guy that had gotten over 150 papers through peer review that were apparently all bogus.
Not really... you're just citing places that have the government do it and since you can't actually tell me what the government paid to have that done or what portions of that are paid for by taxes... so you can break down exactly what it cost... you don't really have anything.
What is more, we're not talking about the rest of the world.
We're talking about the US.
How is the government doing running the school system?
How are they doing managing those pot holes?
How about any of a million things they do and almost immediately make worse because what they really wanted was the money or the power but they didn't actually care about doing a good job?
We're talking about the US here. Maybe things are different in magical sweden. In the US... we get shit when the government takes these things over.
Vietnam we left because internal political problems not because we lost any battles... same thing in Afghanistan.
And regardless... who said anything about fighting the Russians head to head?
No no... we're going to bleed them. We're just going to sit there and do a million little things that cripple them a little more every day.
The life of Russia will be one of disappointment and hardship. The Russians should love it.
We can keep that up indefinitely. And all these countries they're dicking with... easy when they've got nothing to fight back with... right? What happens when we give their neighbors enough anti tank mines to make tank pushes suicidal... what happens when we give the locals man portable anti tank rockets?
And my personal favorite... what happens when we give them night vision goggles. You want to be a Russian tank battalion in Ukraine territory under a black new moon when the Ukrainians are out there and can see by starlight?
Actually we would pour money into them. Not literal cash possibly but trade opportunities, industrial assistance, etc.
Keep in mind that the US keeps peace in east asia... everyone hates the japanese and yet everyone gets along because everyone has abstracted their strategic defense to the US. So they don't saber rattle at each other. They just send each other mean letters or write op eds in their various newspapers.
We could do the same thing for the middle east. In fact, much of the peace in the middle east is our partial execution of that service. Without the peace we provide they've be at each other's throats.
And if we wanted to destroy Iran... the easiest thing to do would be to walk away and let the Shia and Sunni eat each other. The only thing they all agree on is that they hate israel. So whether israel would survive that is questionable. But possibly they could be Switzerland if they went out of their way to not cause problems with the Palestinians.
Remind me which country has crippling sanctions on its economy?
Remind me again which country has economy half the size of Italy?
Remind me which country makes on average 25 percent of what the other country makes PER PERSON.
Remind me which country has something the other ACTUALLY cares about?
You stalk about Crimean and Ukraine like the US actually needs that.
Wake up. It is RUSSIA that wants something from the US. Russia wants the US to recognize the Russians as having a dominant position in eastern europe. Russia wants the US to respect it.
What does Russia have that the US actually cares about?... Really?
Nothing.
We're going to keep pushing into Eastern europe. We're going to keep developing our missile defense technology. We're going to keep fucking with their economy and the Russians can't stop us.
Russia has no leverage. They're not a super power. They don't scare us. And all this crap Putin is doing is only hurting his country for nothing.
The USSR couldn't match the US and Putin thinks his country with half the GDP of Italy is going to take the US on? The man is a fucking clown. One of those annoying mimes perhaps. He's got the face for it.
Look, I don't want to be confrontational with Russia. I'd much rather they were our buddies. But Russia is trying to intimidate the US.
The US reads this much the way a man would read a snake hissing at him. Sure... you don't want to get bit by the snake. But that doesn't mean you don't get a shovel and knock its head off either.
If Russia made peace with the US, the trade sanctions would go away, foreign investment would return to Russia, and the Russian people would have some kind of future. But with putin challenging the US... they've got nothing. The Russian economy is collapsing. The military hardware that Russia has isn't sustainable. Its mostly cold war era rusting garbage and what isn't that old is still mostly garbage... and the Russians can't even maintain that. its all falling apart. And for nothing.
For Crimea? How long do you think Putin can keep fighting? Its costing him a lot more than it is costing us. And we haven't even started to send the Ukrainians heavy weapons.
What happens to Putins tanks that he can't replace if they get destroyed... when we start giving the Ukrainians TOW missiles and night vision goggles?
The Russians don't use night vision.
I don't know why so many internationals underestimate the US. You all think we're soft or aren't willing to get bloody.
How do you think we got to where we are? Think the US could face down Imperial Japan, Hilter, and then after the war face down Stalin without having some steel in our spines?
You people are hilarious. Who educates you jokers? We're quite capable of dealing with Putin. The Russians think they're spooky because they've all ODed on the mythos of the great soviet empire they don't have anymore. But unlike the little countries they like to bully, we actually faced off against their old empire. We're not even remotely afraid of the Russian Federation.
The Russians aren't even a shadow of what they were. And we were quite happy to dance with the Russians at their peak. Today? Pfft.
If Iran gets nukes it won't make them safe though. It will just mean the US has to balance them.
And the tool we'll use is the Saudis, the Jordanians, and the Egyptians... all of which could go nuclear if the US just permitted it.
And then all the US has to do to destroy or simply neutralize Iran... is walk away.
Iran has no leverage. Absent the US in that region they'd all be at each other's throats... and whatever you think of Iran... they're out numbered, out spent, and out crazied by their rivals. And if their rivals have our passive support... What does Iran have to counter that?
Think it through. iran is already checkmated. The only people that don't notice it are those that can't see enough moves ahead. They have no future if they continue this course.
Its more complicated than that. And really citing what happened way back when is not infinitely relevant. The US was at war with the British Empire for a time. They burned our white house to the ground in the war of 1812 for example...
Wise nations reassess every so often. We were once enemies of the Chinese. During the Korean war we slaughtered chinese soldiers like ants. I forget the name of the battle but we retreated into some mountains dragging our artillery up the mountain with us... and the chinese swarmed across the valley below... We made the valley BOIL with our artillery shells. Think of a pot of boiling water... BOIL.
Now we get along just fine. There is some tension over this south china sea thing. But we generally do quite well.
And as contrast look at the Russians. This property the Chinese have gone through could have been the Russians. Imagine the USSR if rather than declaring itself an enemy of the west and saying it was going to spread communism across the world by FORCE... if they had simply been our buddies. We probably would have given them Marshal plan money. They wouldn't have been able to keep their western conquests of course but they weren't able to keep them in the end anyway.
Stalin retarded the economic development of his country by decades... lowered the standard of living of his people... narrowed the horizons of hundreds of millions of people. For what? Nothing.
Look at the Japanese and Germans. Are they still mad at the US? We f'ing nuked the Japanese and we flattened the German cities with constant carpet bombing. We get along just fine.
All I'm saying... is reassess at intervals. The US does this all the time. We make peace with people we had problems with all the time. And we don't need to crush them to do it.
If Iran turned around tomorrow and said "never mind about all that death to America stuff... lets be buddies"... if we believed them... forgive us for being cautious... but if we believed them, then we'd be thrilled to accept.
There are certain cultures however that can't let anything go. The Russians can't let anything go. The Iranians can't let anything go. And so you can't make peace with them. Because they're still holding grudges and they're just going to bide their time until they can stab you in the back.
F' that. If that's how they're going to be then I'm not going to be the credulous American that drinks from the poisoned cup.
Be my friend and I'll be your friend. Be my enemy and don't be surprised when fuck you up. I refuse to apologize or feel bad about that. If these countries ACTUALLY want peace with the US... nothing would make us happier. Our only price for any of that is to not be raging assholes. Russia shouldn't be invading an annexing eastern european countries and Iran shouldn't be making state sponsored children's programs where they talk about how the US drinks baby blood, they work on a nuclear program with the express purpose starting a nuclear pissing contest in the WORST part of the world to do that, and of course the whole sponsoring terrorists thing which has escaped no one's notice in the region ever.
Its just another mastrabatory progressive poll where some collection of halfwits want to claim intellectual superiority by asking a set of cherry picked questions under controlled circomstances and then strip out all context.
Its part of the reason statistics in general need to be read with great skepticism because they're all very easily manipulated.
If you think about it, they're often weasel words masquerading as math.
Its all "sometimes" "maybe" "probably" "mostly"... And the problem with that is that if you treat your maybes like "is"... then you can build very specious arguments on a foundation of pseudo logic that APPEARS reasonable.
I'm so tired of the statistics articles. Everyone of them I've seen in the last few years has been deceitful bullshit. Its not about facts. Its about what whomever paid the statistician wanted the stats to say.
If that were worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass on then we wouldn't have a problem then would we?
The article we're commenting on points out that NYC had an agreement with Verizon where they understood Verizon was going to hook every building up and Verizon interpreted that as simply meaning the cable was going to go through every neighborhood... roughly. And apparently the way the contract is written... Verizon has a strong case.
So there is your fucking contract.
We're done. You're too credulous to be worth talking to...
Final spoiler... There is no Santa Clause and fairies aren't real either.
Wake up. If you like getting fucked... keep doing the same thing. That's how the monopolies like it.
Slashdot Mirror
... that's more than a little pedantic. I use the term species instead of class and so you get to discount the rest of my position regardless of whether it was valid or not?
That type of rhetoric is interested not in honest evaluation but in political domination and censorship.
Your attitude has no credibility in a scientific discussion.
Adjust your stance to one that is not designed for politics and we can continue. If you refuse to alter your tack then you're simply admitting a lack of intellectual curiosity which undermines your position more than mine was using the wrong term.
Funny like me laughing while I hack your fucking premises to pieces and then feed them one by one into a wood chipper.
Sure. I find that to be pretty funny.
But come now, if you want to challenge my intellectual integrity, why don't you make a falsifiable statement rather than an unsupported insult?
Your statement is as supported as my statement that you're a literal baboon... blue ass and all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You people are too easy.
Can you unpack that a bit... I'm not sure what you're specifically saying there. Make falsifiable statements please... things that can be right or wrong. You're so vague here that I don't know how to read it.
The only significant group that doesn't approve of it are evangelical creationists and they're not numerous enough make that claim.
What is more the survey is conflating POLITICAL positions with scientific positions. What someone will "say" on a survey to show political affliation is not the same thing as "what I ACTUALLY believe".
The accuracy of these surveys is undermined by a long list of issues.
Sample selection. Sample size. Question phrasing. Whether people LIE to pollers... look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?
Its very hard to get accurate polling on politically charged issues.
This is why amongst other things we have secret ballots. Why is that? Think about it. People would feel pressured to vote otherwise if they were being personally identified by anyone when they voted. And the pollster is doing that... even if only the person collecting the data sees it.
This is why people at the DMV ask people in person if they want to sign up for organ donations. The government has figured out that if you ask people at that moment they're more inclined to say yes. Where as if people just fill out a form and hand it in... they don't check that box as often.
Think about that.
This all biases the results.
On issues of climate change... there are so many different positions on that... whether you're generally pro or anti... there is a lot of nuance... in science and outside of it. To abstract it all to one question with a yes or no answer is an over simplification of what are complicated questions.
The questions being asked are also cherry picked to put progressives in the best possible light. There are quite a few issues progressives believe in that are not backed by science. We could shift the questions to those issues and they'd likely do poorly by the same standard.
The obvious intention of what is effectively an editorial poll is to put progressives in a good light.
I'd like to know who paid for this poll... it wouldn't surprise me if the poll were designed and paid for by a lobbying group. Pew conducted the poll... sure... but you can control the outcome if you control the methodology.
Not really. The US is friends with a lot of countries you couldn't say we control.
Do we control Europe? Friends with them. Do we control East Asia? The East Asians would say we don't... who knows better... you or the people living there?
The US has influence all over the world but conflating influence with control is not supportable.
As to the sort of control the US wants over Iran... nothing. All we want is for them not to develop a nuclear program that could trigger a nuclear response from everyone in the region. We want them to not indoctrinate their people to hate us or our allies. And we'd like them to stop sponsoring terrorists against either us or our allies.
That's the extent of US objectives on Iran. Nothing more.
Is that unreasonable?
As to your notions of what the US is... you're not thinking about the issue strategically. You're taking a very emotional perspective on it and it makes it impossible for you to really appreciate what you're talking about.
The big issue the US is trying to prevent in the middle east is a regional nuclear war.
If Iran goes nuclear then the rest of the middle east is going to go nuclear. We won't be able to stop it and even if we could... we won't.
Which means we'll pull back and eventually the insane politics of the region will cause a regional nuclear war. The Jews will probably get genocided which is something we've been trying to prevent. Iran will probably get genocided... and the whole region will be crippled for centuries.
This is a very likely outcome if Iran's nuclear program goes unchecked.
Do the strategic math. Be Kasparov for a second. Channel your inner chess master. Think 10 moves out.
Follow the chain of causal logic.
A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to E etc.
Sit down and war game it out. Just think about the regional consequences of the Iranians getting a nuke.
The Shia Sunni rivery is going to mean that the Saudis, Jordanians, and Egyptians... possibly the Turks are strongly encouraged to go nuclear. Pakistan will likely facilitate that.
And what can the US do to stop it at that point?
Once nuclear containment breaks down the ability of the US to stabilize the region and prevent all out war between the various nations becomes impractical. The US will have to pull back. We'll encourage Israel to hunker down and try to stay out of it. Be nice to the Palestinians. Say nothing. Do nothing.... remain ready. The likelyhood of the various factions to destroy each other is quite high. They're aggressive, short sighted, xenophobic of anyone that is not them, and generally unconcerned with their own survival so long as whatever is in the name of their religion.
This sort of attitude is a bad combination with nuclear weapons. And it will lead to a regional run away nuclear exchange.
Now that said... as Iran gets closer to having a bomb or even once they have one... the rival powers will basically not care what the US does so long as it ends with Iran either being destroyed or not having a bomb anymore. That means the US will increasingly have a blank check to deal with Iran.
The Iranians are checkmated here. They don't see it because they don't think strategically.
... are you ever uncomfortable with that dick in your ass? Just curious.
Exactly what relevance does your little statement have? I was citing myself as an american... and pointing out that Americans had some very intense battles with the Chinese... and despite killing a LOT of chinese soldiers... we're generally pretty friendly with each other today.
And that is to both our benefit.
The Chinese don't bow to the US and the US doesn't bow to the Chinese. Neither needs to submit to the other. We cooperate and mutually profit from trade, cultural exchange, and yes... the chinese profit from US hegemony because it is only through us that the trade networks they base their economy on even exist.
As to your pathetic little attack... suggesting that I am not an American because I wasn't in a given war is stupid. My family fought in all those wars.
I had a grand father in the battle of the bulge as well as on a destroyer in the pacific. I had a uncles in Korea and Vietnam. One of my uncles flew for the CIA's Air America and died in Vietnam. I have cousins to this day in Air Force and in various branches of intelligence.
So you can go fuck yourself with a rake, you little shit.
I'm fully aware... we left.
Fyi, ignorance and arrogance are a bad combo. You might want to look at that.
As to evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Saigon fell as a result of political turmoil in the US that caused the US to pull back. That led to the collapse of the south Vietnamese lines leading to the total collapse of the South Vietnam.
We were not driven back due to military pressure.
We consistently fucked the Vietcong up until the politics shifted in the US. Then we left.
In Georgia the Russians didn't use it... the Georgians had night vision and drones and it gave them an advantage when in equal numbers. Georgia lost because when the Russians started taking causalities they just rushed across the border with overwhelming force.
The US is paying attention to this and we're going to frustrate further invasions by Russia by seeing that weapons are in place or US forces can be mobilized such that Russian forces are stopped or frustrated long enough to permit attrition to either force them back or even give time for US reinforcements to intimidate them back across the line.
The Russian tactics are poor. They don't have the US experience.
People say "america is always fighting a war"... but they don't understand that that also means we have more experience with modern warfare. Most of what the Russians did in the Georgian campaign they actually learned by watching us... the combined forces strikes with airpower and rapid advancement of troops is something we put on display every time we get serious.
Regardless... all the US has to do is make aggression both embarrassingly costly and financially costly for Russia. We do that and they'll look weak at home every time they try it.
A direct confrontation is not required.
Except for Verizon technically isn't violating the contract. The contract as written basically f'cks NYC in the ass. All NYC can do is bite down on a wooden spoon and hope its over quickly.
Which is why you don't deal with fucking monopolists in the first place because this is what they do to everyone.
You sit down and sign these contracts with these people and you're going to get fucked. The negotiator for Verizon might as well have been Ron Jeromy. All sweaty and greasy and ready to go.
By all means if that is what you want to happen... sign that contract. Ron will take real good care of you.
... you're implying that sub groups don't frequently have large variances?
Again, lets talk about investment bankers and compare their views on economics with the general public. Is that going to be the same?
Nope... big variances.
What about police officers versus the general public? Big variances.
what about this little community on slashdot versus the general public do you think we couldn't have lots of big variances on a lot of issues?
of course we will. Look at how many articles we say "oh this is dumb" about when the general public is lapping it up. Now why is that? because our views on those matters are different from the general public.
This all boils down to statistics and how it seems that most people don't know how to read them. The more I see these cited, the more I think the practice should be discouraged. Fewer statistics of any kind. The only people that should be dealing with the statistics are people that understand statistics. Very few people in the population seem to understand them.
Effectively no one in journalism which is pathetic... And the journalists get away with it because most readers don't understand them either.
Once you understand that the stats are only as good as the methodology... what becomes even more important than the results is a recitation of the methodology of the statistics.
Absent that... meaningless.
Hmmm... not in science. What is more a gray scale image can be built up by having a very highly detailed black and white image.
Its just a matter of resolution. If you specify all the places where something is and all the places where something is not... and are very detailed about it then you can have a nuanced and detailed image of an issue that effectively has shades of gray in the abstract while in the details everything simply is or is not.
Absolute blacks and whites can be used to create a nuanced picture... if you're precise.
Thus weasel words are often used as a lazy short cut. Rather than specifying what is and is not... they'll just sort look at the general picture and eye ball it estimate the gray.
When you build an argument that way, it is very easy to misrepresent a position if you are so inclined by building maybes on top of probabiles on top of sometimes. Then you cite the whole thing as 'this thing happens"... when in the methodology it becomes clear that actually there were so many qualifiers that a conclusion is not actually possible.
That is by using so many qualifiers... the conclusion is not "conclusive". You don't have proof of anything. You have HINTS and suppositions and indications.
That's not science. You can cite it as being hypothesizing if you like but you can't base anything conclusive on it.
Habit... I'm from California and we pronounce nuclear very slightly differently than do people on the east coast. And if you say nuclear the way we do, then they turn their heads sideways and say "what did you say?"... with a superior smirk that makes me want to take an eye out with a spoon... they think they're clever because they basically think only their pronunciation of words are valid. So some guy from the Bronx with a thick fucking accent can say nuclear and they don't bat an eye. Because everything from New York is valid. But a guy from Los Angeles says it and they presume to snicker.
As a result, I just say atomic. I can't be bothered to explain to those morons why their position is asinine every time they do that. I've had New Yorkers presume to do that to me several times and I can either be livid with them or not give the little robots any ammunition to script on to over the issue.
You asked.
Not really. Cite a survey you think I'd suddenly betray my intellectual integrity over. Try it.
Your argument largely boils down to "I don't have to have intellectual integrity, be honest, or make sense because no one else is doing it."
First off... actually there are lots of people trying to be all those things all the time. But the political elements are cheating lying shitheads and they tend to drowned out all opposition or conduct lots of things that make any kind of rational discussion impossible.
Listen to you for example right here... I point out something that is entirely valid and your response is little more than "because some people are shills we can all be shills."
Fine... if you do that then you can't cite science or really evidence at all then. Because that all requires a certain amount of intellectual integrity.
If you have ANY interest in a rational, constructive, and honest discussion... then you need to put that shit away.
If you cannot do that or refuse to do that... then that has a price. And it starts with surrendering any claim to intellectual integrity. You do that and all that is left is politics. Period.
Pretty much. What really kills it is that the questions are mostly political in nature and there is no context offered.
If you ask someone a question about global warming they're going to have nuanced answers.
They might say they're totally on board with the IPCC... they might say the IPCC is generally right but is exaggerating. They might say we have global warming and we're doing it but it isn't going to be bad for humanity. They might say the warming is all natural... They might say they completely agree with the global warming thing but they don't agree with the political solutions suggested to correct the issue.
It gets complicated. And the thing is that even the scientists are going to give nuanced answers. There is a lot of conflation to support what amount to confirmation biases.
As to my feelings on Iran, I have no problem with any nation that isn't plotting overtly or subtly to kill my people or my allies.
Iran comes by my enmity honestly. They've earned it through their actions and ambitions. That said, if they stop doing those things and sincerely give up the quest to destroy my people... then I can forgive them tomorrow.
I am quick to forgive and quick to anger. I respond.
As to fluff... not really, you're taking statements out of context and stripping out my supporting logic. This basically means you're attempting a strawman. It has not gone unnoticed.
As to the Saudis etc getting nukes... they could all buy them if the US didn't stop it. What do you think stops nuclear proliferation in the first place? What is more what can the US do in the end here? If Iran gets nukes then the arabs will have justification to arm themselves and they could acquire nukes from the Pakistanis at the very least.
You apparently don't know anything about geopolitical nuclear containment. Its a pillar of US foreign policy and the fact that you're aware of it means you have no credibility on this issue.
As to your point that there is bad history in the region... so what? There is bad history between the US and Germany... the US and Japan... The US and China... we all get along just fine. Rational players learn to let it go and move on.
States that can't do that fail to adapt and suffer for it.
As to the advantage you presume for being a nuclear power... its vastly overrated.
All being a nuclear power means is that you're not able to be invaded directly. Or that if you are... you could detonate a nuke... which might be something that could be managable.
A key point you have to keep in mind with a nuclear program is that the US and Russia long ago learned that land based nukes are actually not effective deterrants against a first strike.
The US and Russia deal with that by having our primary ICBM punch on subs. So the first strike would not stop a full MAD response from the US even if you completely obliterated the US. The subs would just move into range and exact their revenge.
The Iranians will not be able to credibly do that. Which means if the US actually wanted to invade anyway... we could first strike their nuclear facility shutting down their bomb... or missile... and then they have nothing.
Nuclear weapons by all but perhaps 3 powers in the world are a false sense of security.
The European nukes can all be destroyed by first strike. Same with the Indians and Pakistanis and Israelis, etc. The Iranian nuclear program is not a direct threat to the US. The actual threat is the effect of having it or the presumption of having it on the middle east. We could see the middle eastern powers all nuclearly arm which would make a regional nuclear war very likely.
That is actually why the US cares about the Iranian nuclear program. Not because we're worried about the Iranians using it on us. They couldn't. And not because we're upset that we wouldn't be able to attack them because we could. The issue is that the Saudis etc will arm up as well and a full blow regional nuclear war becomes likely.
Now... there is a point where it becomes counter productive for the US to even try to stop that war. There is a point where our best move is to back off... and just let it happen. It would mean the deaths of millions but the resulting peace after that war would likely be more stable and sustainable. And of course... there would be no blood on our hands.
You're not thinking strategically. You need to back out and see the world... see time... see the forces... and then start extrapolating. What you'll find is that Iran is digging their own grave. As I said... best case is that they trigger a nasty response from their neighbors that leads to a stand off and no net gain of power while if anything increasing the risks and costs of conflict. They would have to tone down the hate speech or they'd likely destroy themselves.
Othe
As to the link, I think I cited the wrong link...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As to zeta joules, I can't process that information. The issue is that we're trying to audit each other's information and you're citing something that can't be audited because the units are odd and there is nothing I can compare this against. That means I can't audit it. And I don't like evidence that can't be audited.
As to the corrections on my math, thank you. I think this back of the napkin calculation actually does a better job of finding consensus than a lot of the other things we could do.
I'd throw this out then:
200 cubic kilometers of water
x 20 years
4000 cubic kilometers of water
So this is the amount of water that they say was added.
Lets compare that against sea level rise
The surface of the world's oceans is
~ 361,740,000 square kilometers
2.6mm x 20 years = 52mm
52mm = 0.000052km
0.000052km x ~ 361,740,000 square kilometers
18810.48 cubic km of water
Did I make another error here? Because these numbers are still no where near what they're talking about. That shows nearly five times the melting of that estimate. That's not even close.
Can they account for 18810 cubic kilometers of water in ice loss? If not... then where the hell did the water come from?
If we understand what is going on, then these numbers should be close. I could accept figures that were ~20% give or take. But these are off now by about 4.7 times.
As to your citation, it appears to start either in the 90s or around 1965. To blame this on the industrial revolution and our burning of fossil fuels, you're going to have to show a graph that predates the heavy emission of fossil fuels.
If the graph when you expand beyond that shows a similar trend line before fossil fuel burning then associating the trend line with fossil fuel burning is likely specious. If instead there is a change in the trend line roughly around where we start burning a lot of fossil fuels that will support your position.
Any trend that starts in the 90s or 60s will not be useful if we're talking about AGW.
As to shepard, apparently there was a problem with the system used to measure the ice:
http://www.gps.gov/governance/...
JPL admits the issue there and suggests a better satellite.
As to church,
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/c...
That shows a much lower rate of rise... I think they're saying inches per century.
As to debugging the sea ice... you didn't correct my math though. I'd like to actually see that corrected so I can see where I messed up. I don't learn anything if I don't see the correction.
As to peer review doing X or Y... I can cite a lot of things that made it through peer review where none of those things happened.
I mean... there was that guy that had gotten over 150 papers through peer review that were apparently all bogus.
Not really... you're just citing places that have the government do it and since you can't actually tell me what the government paid to have that done or what portions of that are paid for by taxes... so you can break down exactly what it cost... you don't really have anything.
What is more, we're not talking about the rest of the world.
We're talking about the US.
How is the government doing running the school system?
How are they doing managing those pot holes?
How about any of a million things they do and almost immediately make worse because what they really wanted was the money or the power but they didn't actually care about doing a good job?
We're talking about the US here. Maybe things are different in magical sweden. In the US... we get shit when the government takes these things over.
Vietnam we left because internal political problems not because we lost any battles... same thing in Afghanistan.
And regardless... who said anything about fighting the Russians head to head?
No no... we're going to bleed them. We're just going to sit there and do a million little things that cripple them a little more every day.
The life of Russia will be one of disappointment and hardship. The Russians should love it.
We can keep that up indefinitely. And all these countries they're dicking with... easy when they've got nothing to fight back with... right? What happens when we give their neighbors enough anti tank mines to make tank pushes suicidal... what happens when we give the locals man portable anti tank rockets?
And my personal favorite... what happens when we give them night vision goggles. You want to be a Russian tank battalion in Ukraine territory under a black new moon when the Ukrainians are out there and can see by starlight?
Have fun with that.
Actually we would pour money into them. Not literal cash possibly but trade opportunities, industrial assistance, etc.
Keep in mind that the US keeps peace in east asia... everyone hates the japanese and yet everyone gets along because everyone has abstracted their strategic defense to the US. So they don't saber rattle at each other. They just send each other mean letters or write op eds in their various newspapers.
We could do the same thing for the middle east. In fact, much of the peace in the middle east is our partial execution of that service. Without the peace we provide they've be at each other's throats.
And if we wanted to destroy Iran... the easiest thing to do would be to walk away and let the Shia and Sunni eat each other. The only thing they all agree on is that they hate israel. So whether israel would survive that is questionable. But possibly they could be Switzerland if they went out of their way to not cause problems with the Palestinians.
Remind me which country has crippling sanctions on its economy?
Remind me again which country has economy half the size of Italy?
Remind me which country makes on average 25 percent of what the other country makes PER PERSON.
Remind me which country has something the other ACTUALLY cares about?
You stalk about Crimean and Ukraine like the US actually needs that.
Wake up. It is RUSSIA that wants something from the US. Russia wants the US to recognize the Russians as having a dominant position in eastern europe. Russia wants the US to respect it.
What does Russia have that the US actually cares about?... Really?
Nothing.
We're going to keep pushing into Eastern europe. We're going to keep developing our missile defense technology. We're going to keep fucking with their economy and the Russians can't stop us.
Russia has no leverage. They're not a super power. They don't scare us. And all this crap Putin is doing is only hurting his country for nothing.
The USSR couldn't match the US and Putin thinks his country with half the GDP of Italy is going to take the US on? The man is a fucking clown. One of those annoying mimes perhaps. He's got the face for it.
Look, I don't want to be confrontational with Russia. I'd much rather they were our buddies. But Russia is trying to intimidate the US.
The US reads this much the way a man would read a snake hissing at him. Sure... you don't want to get bit by the snake. But that doesn't mean you don't get a shovel and knock its head off either.
If Russia made peace with the US, the trade sanctions would go away, foreign investment would return to Russia, and the Russian people would have some kind of future. But with putin challenging the US... they've got nothing. The Russian economy is collapsing. The military hardware that Russia has isn't sustainable. Its mostly cold war era rusting garbage and what isn't that old is still mostly garbage... and the Russians can't even maintain that. its all falling apart. And for nothing.
For Crimea? How long do you think Putin can keep fighting? Its costing him a lot more than it is costing us. And we haven't even started to send the Ukrainians heavy weapons.
What happens to Putins tanks that he can't replace if they get destroyed... when we start giving the Ukrainians TOW missiles and night vision goggles?
The Russians don't use night vision.
I don't know why so many internationals underestimate the US. You all think we're soft or aren't willing to get bloody.
How do you think we got to where we are? Think the US could face down Imperial Japan, Hilter, and then after the war face down Stalin without having some steel in our spines?
You people are hilarious. Who educates you jokers? We're quite capable of dealing with Putin. The Russians think they're spooky because they've all ODed on the mythos of the great soviet empire they don't have anymore. But unlike the little countries they like to bully, we actually faced off against their old empire. We're not even remotely afraid of the Russian Federation.
The Russians aren't even a shadow of what they were. And we were quite happy to dance with the Russians at their peak. Today? Pfft.
If Iran gets nukes it won't make them safe though. It will just mean the US has to balance them.
And the tool we'll use is the Saudis, the Jordanians, and the Egyptians... all of which could go nuclear if the US just permitted it.
And then all the US has to do to destroy or simply neutralize Iran... is walk away.
Iran has no leverage. Absent the US in that region they'd all be at each other's throats... and whatever you think of Iran... they're out numbered, out spent, and out crazied by their rivals. And if their rivals have our passive support... What does Iran have to counter that?
Think it through. iran is already checkmated. The only people that don't notice it are those that can't see enough moves ahead. They have no future if they continue this course.
Its more complicated than that. And really citing what happened way back when is not infinitely relevant. The US was at war with the British Empire for a time. They burned our white house to the ground in the war of 1812 for example...
Wise nations reassess every so often. We were once enemies of the Chinese. During the Korean war we slaughtered chinese soldiers like ants. I forget the name of the battle but we retreated into some mountains dragging our artillery up the mountain with us... and the chinese swarmed across the valley below... We made the valley BOIL with our artillery shells. Think of a pot of boiling water... BOIL.
Now we get along just fine. There is some tension over this south china sea thing. But we generally do quite well.
And as contrast look at the Russians. This property the Chinese have gone through could have been the Russians. Imagine the USSR if rather than declaring itself an enemy of the west and saying it was going to spread communism across the world by FORCE... if they had simply been our buddies. We probably would have given them Marshal plan money. They wouldn't have been able to keep their western conquests of course but they weren't able to keep them in the end anyway.
Stalin retarded the economic development of his country by decades... lowered the standard of living of his people... narrowed the horizons of hundreds of millions of people. For what? Nothing.
Look at the Japanese and Germans. Are they still mad at the US? We f'ing nuked the Japanese and we flattened the German cities with constant carpet bombing. We get along just fine.
All I'm saying... is reassess at intervals. The US does this all the time. We make peace with people we had problems with all the time. And we don't need to crush them to do it.
If Iran turned around tomorrow and said "never mind about all that death to America stuff... lets be buddies"... if we believed them... forgive us for being cautious... but if we believed them, then we'd be thrilled to accept.
There are certain cultures however that can't let anything go. The Russians can't let anything go. The Iranians can't let anything go. And so you can't make peace with them. Because they're still holding grudges and they're just going to bide their time until they can stab you in the back.
F' that. If that's how they're going to be then I'm not going to be the credulous American that drinks from the poisoned cup.
Be my friend and I'll be your friend. Be my enemy and don't be surprised when fuck you up. I refuse to apologize or feel bad about that. If these countries ACTUALLY want peace with the US... nothing would make us happier. Our only price for any of that is to not be raging assholes. Russia shouldn't be invading an annexing eastern european countries and Iran shouldn't be making state sponsored children's programs where they talk about how the US drinks baby blood, they work on a nuclear program with the express purpose starting a nuclear pissing contest in the WORST part of the world to do that, and of course the whole sponsoring terrorists thing which has escaped no one's notice in the region ever.
Its just another mastrabatory progressive poll where some collection of halfwits want to claim intellectual superiority by asking a set of cherry picked questions under controlled circomstances and then strip out all context.
Its part of the reason statistics in general need to be read with great skepticism because they're all very easily manipulated.
If you think about it, they're often weasel words masquerading as math.
Its all "sometimes" "maybe" "probably" "mostly"... And the problem with that is that if you treat your maybes like "is"... then you can build very specious arguments on a foundation of pseudo logic that APPEARS reasonable.
I'm so tired of the statistics articles. Everyone of them I've seen in the last few years has been deceitful bullshit. Its not about facts. Its about what whomever paid the statistician wanted the stats to say.
If that were worth the toilet paper I wipe my ass on then we wouldn't have a problem then would we?
The article we're commenting on points out that NYC had an agreement with Verizon where they understood Verizon was going to hook every building up and Verizon interpreted that as simply meaning the cable was going to go through every neighborhood... roughly. And apparently the way the contract is written... Verizon has a strong case.
So there is your fucking contract.
We're done. You're too credulous to be worth talking to...
Final spoiler... There is no Santa Clause and fairies aren't real either.
Wake up. If you like getting fucked... keep doing the same thing. That's how the monopolies like it.