Secondly the main concern is wildlife, like ice bears, seals etc, not melting,
This discussion thread is about statements like: "The net result is that the Earth's ice cover is shrinking". Obviously, "total ice cover" isn't relevant to polar bears or seals. Neither is it relevant to sea level rise. My point is that "total ice cover" isn't relevant to much of anything, other than possibly albedo, because "arctic" and "antarctic" ice are so different. In fact, the melting of large land-based permanent ice masses simply aren't a significant concern at all because it is necessarily slow and doesn't change the albedo much until it's gone completely.
Secondly: greenland ice is smelting rapidly.
Greenland's ice is melting slowly, in the obvious sense that we have sea level rise measured in a few mm per year. IPCC predicts a most likely sea level around 30 cm by year 2100 (less than 50 cm with very high probability). That is easy to adapt to; the IPCC report effectively comes to the same conclusion.
Maybe you need to go back to the definition of socialism:
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership, social control, and collective management of the means of production as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
How exactly do the UK or Sweden fit this definition?
What I am trying to get across to you and others is that when gays, lesbians, women, minorities, and other members that the "marginalized" groups these panels purport to advocate for use tags like #notyourshield, we are not "astroturfing". Yes, believe it or not, plenty of us "marginalized" folks don't need the patronizing advocacy and self-serving media appearances of these people to make it through the day or have careers.
You imply she's not worth listening to, then implore me to read her.
Her thesis is worthless as social science; it is useful for understanding her ideological origins. Kind of like Das Kapital is worthless as a book on economics but important for understanding Marxists.
I'm saying that facts don't work against anyone with a closed mind. You are living proof of that.
Well, we can talk about that as soon as you start providing actual facts.
You brought up Gamergate before me. And it's not about anything other than Zoe's sex life.
I didn't "bring up" GamerGate, and I don't care about GamerGate; I responded to a post about the origin of "#notyourshield". What I'm trying to get across to you is that lots of people use "#notyourshield" because we are tired of being instrumentalized for the political and ideological agenda of social activists and media personalities.
You are the one here defending the status quo so strongly
Not at all. What I am defending is my right to make my own choices and speak freely, instead of being instrumentalized by journalists and activists for their personal gain, or being silenced for not toeing her party line, or dismissed as a fake minority for disagreeing with activists, or having games destroyed by pressure groups that try to make them conform to their neo-Marxist theories. And, no, I'm not going to provide links to the various statements by her and people like her documenting that those are their intentions; go Google for it yourself, it's easy enough to find.
I just piss off the MRAs by turning the discussion back to the question about Zoe's sex life,
You really need to get over your obsession with Zoe's sex life.
That you assert feminists follow the same pattern isn't supported in your link.
Well, I suggest you read Anita Sarkeesian's thesis.
And you are asserting that if someone does anything similar to your assertion, that it proves the facts don't support them.
No, I'm saying that using facts to argue with critical theorists is pointless because they reject the existence of objective facts, at least when it is convenient.
You are so focused on winning the argument and playing rhetorical games that you are ignoring reality.
So the European socialism in the UK and Sweden and such has failed?
Neither the UK nor Sweden have "socialism"; they are European-style welfare states. And they have become even that only fairly recently. (And, in any case, they spend less per capita on social welfare than the US.)
It was never any kind of socialism. It was a dictatorship. Or do you think all dictatorships are socialist? Or none of them?
What I think is that all attempts of instituting socialism ends inevitably in totalitarian states. There are plenty of economic papers on why that is. I've also seen it in person.
So one way is for 2/3rds of a quorum (simple majority of members) of the House and Senate.
Sorry, you aren't reading that correctly. Google if the Constitution is too difficult for you to decipher.
Here in Canada,
Well, I'm happy for you. I still rejected Canada for the US.
In any case, you're missing the point: in both Canada and the US, a majority among voters or residents is never sufficient to pass a constitutional amendment.
You hate Sarkeesian so much that Zoe must be guilty by association
I didn't bring Zoe Quinn into this discussion, you did. I don't care about her sex life. All I know about her is that she is a poor game developer, and I only know that because I fact checked Sarkeesian's diatribe.
It was the MRAs like you
I'm not an MRA. I'm a gay man who doesn't like to be used by people like Anita Sarkeesian or you as your token progressive cause, or to be told that I'm thinking wrong. Hence "#notyourshield".
You'd have been a good hunter of innocent people under McCarthy
I would likely have been thrown into prison under McCarthy, as well as afterwards. You, however, probably would have thrived, given what a good little conformist you seem to be.
If large portions of the country turn into desert - is that a good formula for continued role as the world's superpower.
Large portions of the US are already desert. So far, climate change has led to an overall increase in precipitation in the US. Overall, long term, climate change will probably not lead to significant net changes for the US; if it does, it will be towards less desert.
And for some, after adjustment, it will be good news. For others? a catastrophe.
That's always the case with climate. It is naive to think that eliminating human carbon emissions will cause the climate to stabilize. Generally, pushing the climate in the direction of warmer temperatures is better overall.
Misquoting him to make him appear facist is intellectually dishonest
Where did I misquote him? He said "you have to accept that the majority where you live decided...".
Taken together with his other line of argument this shows a basic respect for the democratic process.
It shows basic respect for a particular democratic process, namely majoritarianism. That is just one of many forms of democracy, one that exists almost nowhere, and one that is closely linked to fascism. It is closely linked to majoritarianism and fascism place the interests of society as a whole above the rights and liberties of individuals. And the link between majoritarianism and fascism isn't accidental: European fascists were often very popular within their countries, as were their repressive policies.
That is why most democracies in the world are not governed by majoritarianism, they are governed by representative democracies with constitutions. And AmiJoJo seems to lack "a basic respect" for these kinds of stable, just, and liberal democracies.
For the past several million years, the earth has undergone regular glacial cycles, first every 40000 years, then every 100000 years. There have been dozens of these. That's not controversial or "a theory", it's something you can read off ice cores.
Where do you get this crap? The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land which the court must follow, so there is exactly zero legal way for them to invalidate an amendment.
They can't just say "this amendment is invalid because we don't like it", but they can certainly say "this amendment is invalid because it wasn't passed properly". They might, for example, take the position that even voting on an amendment that violates equal protection itself violates equal protection, and that therefore Congress can never legally repeal the Equal Protection clause.
SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what the US Constitution means. And if you read SCOTUS decisions, you'll get an appreciation for how creative they can get.
Greenland holds fairly significant amounts of ice. The reason it's not a big concern is because, unlike sea ice, it would take a long time to melt, no matter what happens with climate change.
On the other hand, the sea rise from the current warming trend will leave much of the coastline (where many people live) uninhabitable.
At about 3mm / year, we're looking at a foot per century, or a meter per millennium. That's easy to adapt to. Even several times that rate of sea level rise is something we'd barely notice.
Furthermore, taking current topographical maps and combining them with sea level rise data is bullshit anyway; most coasts are sedimentary, not rocky.
The last "glacial period" (which is colloquially referred to as an "ice age", although that is not scientifically accurate), ended about 22000 years ago:
It's unclear how much longer that would last without anthropogenic climate change; we might have started into the next glacial period already, or we may be skipping one this time. Either way, a glacial period is bad news, far worse than global warming.
For basically every place on the world where it is aalready warm and wet, becomming more warm and more wet is a catastrophe.
Places that are already warm and wet won't be getting much warmer and wetter due to climate change. The increase in average global temperatures due to climate change is mostly due to temperatures increasing in currently cold and dry parts of the world.
The relationship between temperatures and storms is complex, but it seems likely that that will lead to a decrease in storm intensity, not to an increase.
If the ice on Greenland melts, it will alone lead to a sea level increase of ~15meters
By far the biggest arctic ice loss, and the one that is usually what people are concerned about in these discussions, is the arctic sea ice. That's because it is disappearing fairly rapidly. The Greenland ice mass, under any realistic scenario, melts so slowly that it is not a realistic concern.
For you US citizens: it is save to assume a meter is a yard... or multiply by three to get feet.
It's unnecessary for you to put in such explanations; not only am I from Europe, unlike you, I'm also a trained scientists. Since you seem to be a bit unfamiliar with how scientists work, let me explain to you: both US and European scientists use the metric system.
As has been pointed out frequently, parliament frequently does not vote according to what the majority wants. Progressives frequently cite that as a defect in our system of government, but it isn't.
In addition, supreme and/or constitutional courts generally can override votes and even acts of parliament.
Sarkeesian is an evil man-hating feminist SJW. It's never about the issues.
Since you mention the issues, I'm a gay male gamer, nerd, and immigrant. Video games have been the most accepting, tolerant, and diverse medium for communication and community in my life.
The issue with Anita Sarkeesian is that she pisses all over this medium because she wants to make a name for herself as a journalist and a feminist, and she doesn't give a fuck how much damage she does in the process. As a pretty, privileged straight white American non-techie, after all, it really doesn't matter to her.
Sarkeesian is an evil man-hating feminist SJW. It's never about the issues.
What issues? I looked at Zoe Quinn's game, and it's piss poor. I looked at Anita Sarkeesian's arguments about video games and found them to be inconsistent and bogus. And her academic work is the usual critical theory bullshit, not even original, and divorced from any possibility of rational discourse. So, what "issues" do you think there are to discuss?
What did Zoe do that earned her all that ire?
As far as I'm concerned, Quinn and Sarkeesian are just professional trolls: they make outrageous claims and statements to attract attention, and they translate that into speaking engagements and other personal benefits. Every time they are about to be forgotten, they come up with some other attention grabber, usually some claim that they have received "death threats". I think it's reasonable to be annoyed with professional trolls.
A second thing I find offensive about Sarkeesian is that she presumes to speak for women, minorities, and homosexuals in general and that she pretends to have our interests at heart, and that she denies even the right of members of those groups to make their own choices that differ from hers. And there are many people like me that are annoyed by this, which is why people came up with the tag "#notyourshield".
How can "facts" support a philosophy that denies the existence of objective facts?
Women are paid less for the same work, by the statistics.
That's a statistical observation that by itself is meaningless. Immigrants from Germany used to be paid much less than other Americans, and these days are probably paid much more than other Americans, for no reason related to discrimination or government policy. And when you look at the data, when all is said and done, there is only a few percent difference between male and female pay that can't be accounted for by demographics, experience, and other obvious factors. It's actually surprising how equal male and female pay is.
Furthermore, these analyses are always rather one-sided. Sure, there are fewer female programmers, but there are also fewer women in dangerous, unhealthy, and dirty occupations. If you're applying government coercion to make women programmers, why not apply government coercion to make them sanitation workers and loggers?
But facts don't sway the True Believer MRAs, so to combat stupid, they had to move on to persuasive speech
Neo-Marxists and critical theorists didn't start of rationally and then move on to telling wild stories as rhetorical tool. In different words, your interpretation of their motivations and understanding is divorced from reality. I suggest you read up on the link I provided.
Furthermore, you misattribute motives to people who stand up to modern feminism. I really don't care about "men's rights" any more than I care about "women's rights". I simply think the government has no business interfering in these issues. I shouldn't have to explain to anyone whether I refuse service to a transsexual Catholic in a wheel chair because she is transsexual, a Catholic, disabled, or because I simply don't like her attitude or because of her body odor.
Finally, the policies that feminists advocate have not been shown to be effective. Personally, with the increasing pressures for political correctness and mandatory inclusion, I simply avoid contact with women, minorities, and homosexuals in a professional context altogether, since I don't want to have to walk on egg shells. And, mind you, I don't avoid such interactions because I don't want to have them (after all, I'm a gay immigrant myself), but because in the current legal and cultural climate, they are simply too risky. Do you think that's helpful for "equality and inclusion"?
Considering that the EU countries had the US do most of the dirty work and just feed back the relevant data, why should they _NOT_ be targeting the transfer of personal data to the US?
Because going through the US is a big hassle and US intelligence agencies generally only give out information when actual terrorism is involved (not because they care about the privacy of EU citizens, but because they can't be bothered). EU governments want much more detail and much easier access to private information, to prosecute anything from tax evasion to inconvenient speech.
Solving problems seldomly happen in a single step, despite what most people think.
But making a step in the wrong direction doesn't get you any closer to a solution, it gets you further away.
Many governments require warrants and court approval to spy on their own citizens at home and abroad
Many countries require warrants and court approval for police investigations.
Most countries have national security and other exceptions for spying on their own citizens. European governments have been spying on their citizens under such exceptions since their founding, and they show no sign of changing those policies.
Slashdot Mirror
This discussion thread is about statements like: "The net result is that the Earth's ice cover is shrinking". Obviously, "total ice cover" isn't relevant to polar bears or seals. Neither is it relevant to sea level rise. My point is that "total ice cover" isn't relevant to much of anything, other than possibly albedo, because "arctic" and "antarctic" ice are so different. In fact, the melting of large land-based permanent ice masses simply aren't a significant concern at all because it is necessarily slow and doesn't change the albedo much until it's gone completely.
Greenland's ice is melting slowly, in the obvious sense that we have sea level rise measured in a few mm per year. IPCC predicts a most likely sea level around 30 cm by year 2100 (less than 50 cm with very high probability). That is easy to adapt to; the IPCC report effectively comes to the same conclusion.
Maybe you need to go back to the definition of socialism:
How exactly do the UK or Sweden fit this definition?
But here we are talking about SXSW and panels on harassment, and those are explicitly not about GG.
What I am trying to get across to you and others is that when gays, lesbians, women, minorities, and other members that the "marginalized" groups these panels purport to advocate for use tags like #notyourshield, we are not "astroturfing". Yes, believe it or not, plenty of us "marginalized" folks don't need the patronizing advocacy and self-serving media appearances of these people to make it through the day or have careers.
Her thesis is worthless as social science; it is useful for understanding her ideological origins. Kind of like Das Kapital is worthless as a book on economics but important for understanding Marxists.
Well, we can talk about that as soon as you start providing actual facts.
I didn't "bring up" GamerGate, and I don't care about GamerGate; I responded to a post about the origin of "#notyourshield". What I'm trying to get across to you is that lots of people use "#notyourshield" because we are tired of being instrumentalized for the political and ideological agenda of social activists and media personalities.
Not at all. What I am defending is my right to make my own choices and speak freely, instead of being instrumentalized by journalists and activists for their personal gain, or being silenced for not toeing her party line, or dismissed as a fake minority for disagreeing with activists, or having games destroyed by pressure groups that try to make them conform to their neo-Marxist theories. And, no, I'm not going to provide links to the various statements by her and people like her documenting that those are their intentions; go Google for it yourself, it's easy enough to find.
You really need to get over your obsession with Zoe's sex life.
Well, I suggest you read Anita Sarkeesian's thesis.
No, I'm saying that using facts to argue with critical theorists is pointless because they reject the existence of objective facts, at least when it is convenient.
There is no argument to win here.
Neither the UK nor Sweden have "socialism"; they are European-style welfare states. And they have become even that only fairly recently. (And, in any case, they spend less per capita on social welfare than the US.)
What I think is that all attempts of instituting socialism ends inevitably in totalitarian states. There are plenty of economic papers on why that is. I've also seen it in person.
Sorry, you aren't reading that correctly. Google if the Constitution is too difficult for you to decipher.
Well, I'm happy for you. I still rejected Canada for the US.
In any case, you're missing the point: in both Canada and the US, a majority among voters or residents is never sufficient to pass a constitutional amendment.
I didn't bring Zoe Quinn into this discussion, you did. I don't care about her sex life. All I know about her is that she is a poor game developer, and I only know that because I fact checked Sarkeesian's diatribe.
I'm not an MRA. I'm a gay man who doesn't like to be used by people like Anita Sarkeesian or you as your token progressive cause, or to be told that I'm thinking wrong. Hence "#notyourshield".
I would likely have been thrown into prison under McCarthy, as well as afterwards. You, however, probably would have thrived, given what a good little conformist you seem to be.
Large portions of the US are already desert. So far, climate change has led to an overall increase in precipitation in the US. Overall, long term, climate change will probably not lead to significant net changes for the US; if it does, it will be towards less desert.
That's always the case with climate. It is naive to think that eliminating human carbon emissions will cause the climate to stabilize. Generally, pushing the climate in the direction of warmer temperatures is better overall.
Where did I misquote him? He said "you have to accept that the majority where you live decided...".
It shows basic respect for a particular democratic process, namely majoritarianism. That is just one of many forms of democracy, one that exists almost nowhere, and one that is closely linked to fascism. It is closely linked to majoritarianism and fascism place the interests of society as a whole above the rights and liberties of individuals. And the link between majoritarianism and fascism isn't accidental: European fascists were often very popular within their countries, as were their repressive policies.
That is why most democracies in the world are not governed by majoritarianism, they are governed by representative democracies with constitutions. And AmiJoJo seems to lack "a basic respect" for these kinds of stable, just, and liberal democracies.
For the past several million years, the earth has undergone regular glacial cycles, first every 40000 years, then every 100000 years. There have been dozens of these. That's not controversial or "a theory", it's something you can read off ice cores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They can't just say "this amendment is invalid because we don't like it", but they can certainly say "this amendment is invalid because it wasn't passed properly". They might, for example, take the position that even voting on an amendment that violates equal protection itself violates equal protection, and that therefore Congress can never legally repeal the Equal Protection clause.
SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what the US Constitution means. And if you read SCOTUS decisions, you'll get an appreciation for how creative they can get.
Greenland holds fairly significant amounts of ice. The reason it's not a big concern is because, unlike sea ice, it would take a long time to melt, no matter what happens with climate change.
At about 3mm / year, we're looking at a foot per century, or a meter per millennium. That's easy to adapt to. Even several times that rate of sea level rise is something we'd barely notice.
Furthermore, taking current topographical maps and combining them with sea level rise data is bullshit anyway; most coasts are sedimentary, not rocky.
Everything I said is true, as a minute with Google shows you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The current ice age, the one we are in, is called the "Quarternary Glaciation" or "Pleistocene Glaciation":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The last "glacial period" (which is colloquially referred to as an "ice age", although that is not scientifically accurate), ended about 22000 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We are currently in an interglacial period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's unclear how much longer that would last without anthropogenic climate change; we might have started into the next glacial period already, or we may be skipping one this time. Either way, a glacial period is bad news, far worse than global warming.
Places that are already warm and wet won't be getting much warmer and wetter due to climate change. The increase in average global temperatures due to climate change is mostly due to temperatures increasing in currently cold and dry parts of the world.
The relationship between temperatures and storms is complex, but it seems likely that that will lead to a decrease in storm intensity, not to an increase.
By far the biggest arctic ice loss, and the one that is usually what people are concerned about in these discussions, is the arctic sea ice. That's because it is disappearing fairly rapidly. The Greenland ice mass, under any realistic scenario, melts so slowly that it is not a realistic concern.
It's unnecessary for you to put in such explanations; not only am I from Europe, unlike you, I'm also a trained scientists. Since you seem to be a bit unfamiliar with how scientists work, let me explain to you: both US and European scientists use the metric system.
As has been pointed out frequently, parliament frequently does not vote according to what the majority wants. Progressives frequently cite that as a defect in our system of government, but it isn't.
In addition, supreme and/or constitutional courts generally can override votes and even acts of parliament.
Since you mention the issues, I'm a gay male gamer, nerd, and immigrant. Video games have been the most accepting, tolerant, and diverse medium for communication and community in my life.
The issue with Anita Sarkeesian is that she pisses all over this medium because she wants to make a name for herself as a journalist and a feminist, and she doesn't give a fuck how much damage she does in the process. As a pretty, privileged straight white American non-techie, after all, it really doesn't matter to her.
What issues? I looked at Zoe Quinn's game, and it's piss poor. I looked at Anita Sarkeesian's arguments about video games and found them to be inconsistent and bogus. And her academic work is the usual critical theory bullshit, not even original, and divorced from any possibility of rational discourse. So, what "issues" do you think there are to discuss?
As far as I'm concerned, Quinn and Sarkeesian are just professional trolls: they make outrageous claims and statements to attract attention, and they translate that into speaking engagements and other personal benefits. Every time they are about to be forgotten, they come up with some other attention grabber, usually some claim that they have received "death threats". I think it's reasonable to be annoyed with professional trolls.
A second thing I find offensive about Sarkeesian is that she presumes to speak for women, minorities, and homosexuals in general and that she pretends to have our interests at heart, and that she denies even the right of members of those groups to make their own choices that differ from hers. And there are many people like me that are annoyed by this, which is why people came up with the tag "#notyourshield".
How can "facts" support a philosophy that denies the existence of objective facts?
That's a statistical observation that by itself is meaningless. Immigrants from Germany used to be paid much less than other Americans, and these days are probably paid much more than other Americans, for no reason related to discrimination or government policy. And when you look at the data, when all is said and done, there is only a few percent difference between male and female pay that can't be accounted for by demographics, experience, and other obvious factors. It's actually surprising how equal male and female pay is.
Furthermore, these analyses are always rather one-sided. Sure, there are fewer female programmers, but there are also fewer women in dangerous, unhealthy, and dirty occupations. If you're applying government coercion to make women programmers, why not apply government coercion to make them sanitation workers and loggers?
Neo-Marxists and critical theorists didn't start of rationally and then move on to telling wild stories as rhetorical tool. In different words, your interpretation of their motivations and understanding is divorced from reality. I suggest you read up on the link I provided.
Furthermore, you misattribute motives to people who stand up to modern feminism. I really don't care about "men's rights" any more than I care about "women's rights". I simply think the government has no business interfering in these issues. I shouldn't have to explain to anyone whether I refuse service to a transsexual Catholic in a wheel chair because she is transsexual, a Catholic, disabled, or because I simply don't like her attitude or because of her body odor.
Finally, the policies that feminists advocate have not been shown to be effective. Personally, with the increasing pressures for political correctness and mandatory inclusion, I simply avoid contact with women, minorities, and homosexuals in a professional context altogether, since I don't want to have to walk on egg shells. And, mind you, I don't avoid such interactions because I don't want to have them (after all, I'm a gay immigrant myself), but because in the current legal and cultural climate, they are simply too risky. Do you think that's helpful for "equality and inclusion"?
Mitosis.
Because going through the US is a big hassle and US intelligence agencies generally only give out information when actual terrorism is involved (not because they care about the privacy of EU citizens, but because they can't be bothered). EU governments want much more detail and much easier access to private information, to prosecute anything from tax evasion to inconvenient speech.
But making a step in the wrong direction doesn't get you any closer to a solution, it gets you further away.
Many countries require warrants and court approval for police investigations.
Most countries have national security and other exceptions for spying on their own citizens. European governments have been spying on their citizens under such exceptions since their founding, and they show no sign of changing those policies.