@radx

I think we're probably going to end up rehashing old arguments.

The loans weren't the cause of the output loss, it was the huge and fraudulent debt their government amassed. The withdrawal of loans would have been and still would be more catastrophic than what has occurred. I think you're mischaracterizing it as a loss of sovereignty.

The unwillingness to fund fiscal stimulus rather than just bailouts comes back to the whole issue of lack of trust. It's fair to say the new government may not have the nepotistic past of the major parties, but they also have little to no governing experience, particularly with difficult reform. I don't really see Varoufakis as having the wherewithal to accomplish that.

The more they argue for things like raising the minimum wage or reinstating public sector workers, the more difficult it is going be for them to find any semblance of a middle ground with Germany. If they instead came to the recent meeting with a credible plan for tackling corruption then they may have gotten better terms.

Well, Syriza is an acronym for Coalition of the Radical Left (roughly), and everything left of the Berlin Consensus is considered to be radical left. So they are going to call Syriza a radical leftist party until the political landscape itelf has been pulled back towards more leftist positions. But you're right, if they were judged by their positions, they'd be centre-left in theory, if centre-left hadn't turned into corporatism by taking up the Third Way of Schröder/Blair/Clinton.

They are, without a doubt, radically democratic though. As your Grauniad article points out, they haven't turned on their election promises yet, which is quite unheard of for a major European party. Francois Hollande in particular was a major letdown in this regard. Few people expected him to bow down to German demands so quickly. Aside from his 75% special tax for the rich, he dropped just about every single part of his program that could be considered socialism.

Grexit... that's a tough one.

Syriza cannot enforce any troika demands that relate to the programmes of the Chicago School of Economics. Friedman ain't welcome anymore. No cuts to wages or pensions, to privatisation of infrastructure, no cuts to the healthcare system, nor any other form of financial oppression of the lower class. That is non-negotiable. In fact, even increases in welfare programs and the healthcare system are pretty much non-negotiable. Even if Syriza wanted to put any of this on the table, and they sure as hell don't, they couldn't make it part of any deal without further damages to an already devasted democratic system in Greece.

So with that in mind, what's the point of all the negotiations?

Varoufakis' suggestions are very reasonable. The growth-linked bonds, for instance, are used very successfully all over the world in debt negotiations, as just about any bankrupty expert would testify. Like Krugman wrote today, Syriza is merely asking to "recognize the reality everyone supposedly already understands". His caveat about the German electorate is on point as well, we haven't had it explained to us yet – and we chose to ignore what little was explained to us.

Yet the troika insists on something Syriza cannot and will not provide, as just outlined above. Some of the officials still expect Syriza to acknowledge reality, to come to their senses and to accept a deal provided to them. Good luck with that, but don't hold your breath. Similarly, Varoufakis is aware that Berlin is almost guaranteed to play hardball all the way.

Of course, nothing is certain and they might strike a deal during their meeting in Wednesday that offers Greece a way out of misery. Or maybe the ECB decides that to stabilize to Euro, as is their sole purpose, they need to keep Greece within the EZ and away from default. That would allow them to back Greece, to provide them with financial support, at least until they present their program in June/July. Everything is possible. However, I see very little evidence in support of it.

Therefore Grexit might actually be just a question of who to blame it on. Syriza is not going to exit the EZ willy nilly, they need clear pressure from outside, so the record will unequivocally show that it wasn't them who made the call. No country can be thrown out, they have to leave of their own. Additionally, Merkel will not be the person to initiate the unravelling of the EU, as might be the consequence of a Grexit. That's leverage for Greece, the only leverage they have. But it has to be played right or else the blame will be put squarely on Greece, even more so than it already is.

-------
Edit #1: What cannot be overstated is the ability of the EZ to muddle through one crises after another, always on the brink of collapse, yet never actually collapsing. They are determined to hold this thing together, whatever the cost.
-------

Speaking of blame, Yves Smith linked a fantastic article the other day: Syriza and the French Indemnity of 1871-73.

The author makes a convincing case why the suppression of wages in Germany led to disaster in Spain, why it was not a choice on the part of Spain to engage in irresponsible borrowing and how it is a conflict between workers and the financial elite rather than nations. He also offers historical precedent, with Germany being the recipient of a massive cash influx, ending in a catastrophe similar to Spain's nowadays.

It strikes me as a very objective dissection of what happend, what's going on, and what needs to happen to get things back in shape. Then again, it agrees with many points I made on that BBC videos last week, so it's right within my bubble.

If this purrpatrator was hoping to become a duck-filled-fatty-pus it should have got up at the quack of dawn to avoid such a purrplexing catastrophe

Kudos, I'd just like to really highlight two of the good points you make.

First, Tesla motors is huge. When I said electric cars, I didn't mention them by name but was thinking specifically of them. They have proven that electric cars are the future and are coming quickly.

The second is as Tyson pointed out, the most important metric is energy coming into the planet compared to energy going out. Temperatures fluctuate to many other variables. Particularly if the oceans are absorbing or releasing energy, temperatures as we experience them will shift on that and muddy the perception of what's actually happening to the overall planet's energy balance and long term change. In the late 80's we started measuring the energy in and out of the atmosphere with satellites. There was an observed increase between late 80's and late 90's in the energy imbalance. That means not only was more energy coming in than going out over that time, but the excess staying in was getting higher. With increasing CO2 emissions, that is exactly what we expect. An increased overall greenhouse effect should see the energy imbalance growing quite steadily as the effect gets stronger and stronger. Now, the IPCC's fifth assessment report has the the longer term data from those same and new satellites. The data shows that since 2001 there is strong agreement that the data shows NO TREND. That doesn't mean the energy in the planet hasn't been increasing. It means the rate of extra energy coming in hasn't gone up or down statistically since 2001. It means the overall greenhouse effect has been entirely stagnant for a little more than the last decade. Things are warming, but no faster than they were ten years ago.

I hope that's not to technical, but it paints a non-catastrophic picture. It also gives a superb metric to measure climate models against going forward. The models universally are projected on a steadily accelerating greenhouse effect as CO2 emissions rise. If the measured results of the last decade continue to not reflect that much longer, we have more reassessing to do. As noted in the IPCC, the effect of water vapor and clouds to increasing temperature is poorly modelled right now. If we are lucky the uncertainty of the sign on it as feedback is resolved to find it is a negative feedback. Meaning, as things warm, more clouds appear and reflect more energy back out. As things cool, less clouds appear and more energy comes in. And yeah, that's my own hope, and it is not the majority opinion within the scientific community as represented by the IPCC. They do acknowledge it as a possibility, but a less likely one. That said, the models they base that opinion on do not match the satellite energy measurements, and that one uncertainty would explain it rather well. My fingers are still crossed. More reasons for my optimism is the IPCC projections through 2100. If you look close, the actual temperature plotted against the projections has the actual following the very coolest of projections so far. Again, that lends hope that something like water vapor is either working for us, or not as badly against us as is currently modelled.

This is one extremely well made machine. I cannot even believe how extremely well this held together, even after the crash (it was practically still in one piece). I find this carbon-fiber/single piece engineering breed of helicopter fascinating. It is far better in a number of fields--and then on top of EVERYTHING to see it go through this absolutely catastrophic situation and remain in one piece (as they said, many helicopters would start breaking apart mid-air due to the absolute savagery of the forces involved and at play here; yet this thing holds together the whole time, even though it is a test design and not even an "improved" or possibly it's "final" design).

I really think that this type of design and make will eventually start to make it's way through the industry. It is just too obvious that the bonuses out-way the negatives to me--then add in the fact that while still in it's testing phase they successfully handled a "worst case" scenario breakdown for a helicopter and then crashed it, then once again showing that the helicopter was VERY good at sending all the forces across the design and holding together (showing that it did a good job during TWO events really)... I really don't know how you couldn't be a bit hyped for this type of design moving forward if you were a helicopter engineer, pilot, mechanic, and especially the manufacturers.

To me, my first thought was, this could end up being the "jeep" of helicopters...

I'm there with you partially, but if we must wait 50-100 years for the tech to START solving this problem, humanity as we know it has no chance.
I say that because 1. We're still rising the rate at which we add CO2, not lowering it 2. Even if it dropped to 0 tomorrow, we still see 3-5 degree temperature rise in the 100 years before even the extra CO2 already in the atmosphere is absorbed (and that's if the natural processes that absorb CO2 don't completely fail before then, the ocean system is, forests are disappearing, I'm not sure what's left to do the job nature has done for all history) 3. Assuming we do see even just that minimal rise, and not a catastrophic cycle that releases methane causing it to be more like 10 degrees minimum, the disruption of commerce, production (food and other), the loss of natural food sources, useable water, etc. could easily make solving the problem exponentially more difficult to solve in the even near future, and impossible 50 years farther down this road, and 4.Unexpected side effects of solving this problem could easily make things worse...for instance, if we just shut down all coal plants and combustion engines tomorrow, we could easily see a rapid 3+ degree C rise in temperature globally because we would stop adding the particulates that cause 'global dimming' (which is assumed to be causing approximately 3 degrees of cooling today).

(wow, that might be the longest run on sentence I've ever written!)

Trancecoach "In China and India (where pollution is no doubt a significant problem), there are hundreds of millions of people who have far bigger concerns and more pressing problems than some remote notion of a "warming planet" or some looming "catastrophic collapse of civilization." (In fact, the same can be said for the majority of the population of the planet.) "

Isn't that like saying the dinosaurs had bigger problems to deal with than an asteroid hurtling towards earth?

Like most of Sorkin's bloviating, this empty rhetoric is undermined by the incongruency of the climate change alarmists' own ballooning carbon footprints while attempting to use the government to impose force upon others' behavior. Until global warming alarmists themselves walk their talk (i.e., drive hybrids -- if they drive at all -- cease flying in airplanes, eat strictly vegetarian diets, have few if any children, and withdraw their consent from the worst polluter on the planet: the state), then no amount of freaking out, ranting, incentives, or attempts at policy will serve to avert the "impending catastrophe."

In China and India (where pollution is no doubt a significant problem), there are hundreds of millions of people who have far bigger concerns and more pressing problems than some remote notion of a "warming planet" or some looming "catastrophic collapse of civilization." (In fact, the same can be said for the majority of the population of the planet.)

And this is to say nothing of how ALL of the models used to support "evidence" for the case of a warming planet have ALL (not some, but ALL) been consistently undermined by serious skeptical science (PDF) while the claims of the political entity of the IPCC remain inconsistent with the data.

Since when do politicians get to decide the veracity of scientific fact?

EDIT: ALL of the climate-change alarmists' predictions, dating back to the 1980s, have all failed to come true. When this trend continues for the next few decades, there will be no shortage of "Told You So" moments that will undoubtedly be explained away by some unknown variable -- like the heat that is "hiding" in the ocean -- that, once "corrected for," will serve to further prop up this political ruse.

Bill Mitchell ripped into the language of austerity, particularly with regards to the catastrophe-in-the-making that is the Euro zone.

@Taint, The skeptics don't "deny" that the climate changes. They are skeptical of the reasons why it changes, the claims of consistent warming, and the claims about the catastrophic effect of whatever is caused by human activity. Also, I don't think I need to go into the debunking of that 97% claim (science is not a function of votes or consensus, but of evidence). In any event, most of the "debate" about this topic is a waste of time considering the "believers" are mostly not climate scientists and that no one is actually doing very much about it in their own lives.

So, straw man opinions about so-called "deniers" is a pathetic attempt to substitute character "analysis" for actual scientific evidence of man-made global warming of catastrophic proportions. Evidence of which has yet to be provided.

So the real reason many people don't "believe" has to do with not being presented with actual evidence and instead being given false claims (97%) about "consensus" (which is irrelevant to science), and claims of "settled" science (also meaningless in real science), postulated mostly by writers, politicians, and activists with no scientific credentials.

No one really argues with the idea that the climate changes. But, rather, what caused the change, to what degree, and what the effects will be... Well, let's just say for now that all (not a few but all) climate models have been proven wrong.
So no, there are no climate change "deniers," but plenty of people, and many scientists, who don't believe certain claims about specific aspects, even when believers keep repeating the "consensus" canard.

I honestly don't think believers actually believe their own claims of impending greenhouse gas climate catastrophe. If they did, they would all drive hybrids and go vegetarian. Also, most "green" tech companies wouldn't fail (like most of them do). Why do the climate change believers drive their SUVs and fly to their holiday vacation without regard to the impending climate doom? They are polluting the air, are they not? By their own theories, they also warm up the climate.

Contrary to consensus claims, nearly every aspect of climate change is being debated by the scientific community. Can you name a specific aspect of it that is not under debate (without going into some general "climate change" "consensus" canard)? Such claims are too broad to mean anything of any relevance. What specific aspect? What about it?

@bobknight33
you are confusing a political argument with a scientific one.

as @bcglorf has pointed out,the science is already In and established.the debate is on the relative parameters i.e: how much/little the affects will manifest.
so while it has been established their IS climate change and man HAS affected that change.the debate is the varying degrees and the level of impact.

so we know there will be a global effect,the debate is HOW and WHEN it will manifest,and on a smaller scale,just how much influence humankind is responsible.

some predict an extinction level catastrophe,while other predictions are not quite as apocalyptic,but the debate on whether or not climate change is real..is over.

because that is a scientific debate.

now in the political arena,whose job is to obfuscate any relevant facts to muddy the argument to propel the interests of extremely monied and powerful interests,they create a faux debate to give the appearance that the debate is still ongoing and the science is not settled.

which is exactly what this video is addressing.
remember,they dont have to win the argument.they just have to make a reasonable sounding argument..even if based on bullshit...to make you think.."well,...maybe" and they GOTCHA!

so you can make this a liberal vs conservative argument if you wish,but i would just point out that you playing the game exactly they way they have set it up.to manipulate you.

as for your assertion of "liberal owned media".
dude...
stop parroting that tired old trope that does not hold up to one minute of scrutiny.you are literally doing the plutocrats work FOR them.
every outlet of media in the united states is owned and operated by FIVE companies.

FIVE.

and not a single one could even remotely be considered "liberal",because that does not serve their interests.

this debate is simply NOT a political debate,it is a scientific debate.
plain and simple...learn to recognize the difference buddy.

and stop being a tool for fuck sakes.../slap
you are better than that.

and just a side note,for my own personal pleasure and enjoyment:
@dannym3141 you are my fucking hero brother! between you and @newtboy i struggle to hold onto my cynicism around both of you.

you guys give me hope.

now lets go grab a smoke @bobknight33 cuz these pansies wont let me smoke inside and i have to do it on the patio and they keep trying to get me to drink that godawful "redbull" when crystal meth does a much better job.

sheesh..kids these days.

ok..enough ranting for today and smacking bob around.
ya'all stay awesome.

I think it's very important to recognize that there is more than 1 camp in this that has completely abandoned science. Sure there are plenty denying that things are warming, or that our activity contributes to warming. Don't spend so much time decrying them that you miss the people demanding the science clearly indicates impending catastrophic disaster that only emission reductions can save us from.

Also take note that we are just beginning to move into the measuring the 'real' part of the issue now by satellite for the last few decades. Previously temperature was the only proxy measure for showing increasing energy trapped in the atmosphere. With satellite records though we have been able to directly measure radiation coming in and going out and observe the real trends. The IPCC that shared Al Gore's nobel prize on climate change has this to say on the satellite measured energy budget:
Satellite records of top of the atmosphere radiation fluxes have
been substantially extended since AR4, and it is unlikely that
significant trends exist in global and tropical radiation budgets
since 2000.

It's important to read that closely and correctly. There has been an overall net influx of radiation, as in more energy coming in than going out. The RATE of that increase is the flux they are referring to. The IPCC is stating that since 2000, it is unlikely that the rate of energy being trapped in our atmosphere has been changing.

All that means is that it's not time to panic. If you look at the latest IPCC temperature projections you'll similarly see that the projections are much less scary for 2100 than the first IPCC projections from 1990. Better news still for us, the instrumental record thus far looks to be tracking the lowend of the IPCC projections.

All that is to say that science is agreed things are warming. It is agreed we are contributing. It also agreed that the severity isn't some doom and gloom we are all gonna die in 2050 scenario either.

Eat the rich, etc. etc.

Catastrophe is the only thing that will change this course now. Sad, since that fucks everyone, and not the people who cause/benefit/deserve it.

Unmanned Rocket CATO (Catastrophic Accident on Take Off) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

@dannym3141, I understand that you are "stepping out of the debate," but, for your edification, I'll respond here... And, for the record, I am not "funded" by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Solar, or Big Green. Nor am I a professor of climate or environmental science at a State University (and don't have a political agenda around this issue other than to help promote sound reasoning and critical thinking). I do, however, hold a doctorate and can read the scientific literature critically. So, in response to what climate change "believers" say, it's worth noting that no one is actually taking the temperature of the seas. They simply see sea levels rising and say "global warming," but how do they know? It's a model they came up with. But far from certain, just a theory. Like Antarctica melting, but then someone finds out that it's due to volcanic activity underneath, and so on.

And also, why is the heat then staying in the water and not going into the atmosphere? So, they then have to come up with a theory on top of the other theory... So the heat is supposedly being stored deep below where the sensors cannot detect it. Great. And this is happening because...some other theory or another that can't be proven either. And then they have to somehow come up with a theory as to how they know that the deep sea warming is due to human activity and not to other causes. I'm not denying that any of this happens, just expressing skepticism, meaning that no one really knows for sure. That folks would "bet the house on it" does not serve as any proof, at all.

The discussion on the sift pivots from "global warming" to vilifying skeptics, not about the original skepticism discussed, that there is catastrophic man-caused global warming going on. Three issues yet to be proven beyond skepticism: 1) that there is global warming; 2) that it is caused by human activity; 3) that it's a big problem.

When I ask about one, they dance around to another one of these points, rather than responding. And all they have in response to the research is the IPCC "report" on which all their science is based. And most if not all published "believers" say that the heat "may be hiding" in the deep ocean, not that they "certainly know it is" like they seem to claim.

They don't have knowledge that the scientists who are actively working on this do not have, do they? It's like the IRS saying, "My computer crashed." The IPCC says, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

Here are some links worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

And, from a different rebuttal: "Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims."

Here's the entire piece from emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen: http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/

And take your pick from all of the short pieces listed here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is-gores-missing-heat-really-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean/

And http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

"Just where the heat is and how much there is seems to depend on who is doing the modeling. The U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center ARGO data shows a slight rise in global ocean heat content, while the British Met Office, presumably using the same data shows a slight decline in global ocean heat content."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-2/#sthash.idQttama.dpuf

Dr. Lindzen had this to say about the IPCC report: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/#sthash.oMO3oy6X.dpuf

So just as "believers" can ask "Why believe Heartland [financier for much of the NPCC], but not the IPCC," I can just as easily ask "Why should I believe you and not Richard Lindzen?"

"CCR-II cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide controls."

And from the same author's series:

"Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C per year. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/01/climate-change-in-perspective/#sthash.Dboz3dC5.dpuf

Again, I have asked, repeatedly, where's the evidence of human impact on global warming? "Consensus" is not evidence. I ask for evidence and instead I get statements about the consensus that global warming happening. These are two different issues.

"Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming."

Or Roger Pielke, Sr: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/

Or Lennart Bengtsoon (good interview): "Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. It does not bring up the large difference between observational results and model simulations. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

Bengtsson: "I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are."

What Michael Crichton said about "consensus": "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Will Happer on the irrelevancy of more CO2 now: "The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds."

Ivar Giaever, not a climate scientist per se, but a notable scientist and also a skeptic challenging "consensus": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

Even prominent IPCC scientists are skeptics, even within the IPCC there is not agreement: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

And for your research, it may be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683