"All of these things are predicted by the IPCC—I mean, not the permanent darkness thing, I don't think that's meant to be scientific. But yes, as we reported in May this year, Europe faces freshwater shortages; Asia can expect more severe flooding from extreme storms; North America will see increased heat waves and wildfires, which can cause death and damage to ecosystems and property. Especially in poor countries, diminished crop yields will likely lead to increased malnutrition, which already affects nearly 900 million people worldwide.

So, in all, well done Newsroom. Informative, accurate, if a little heavy-handed on the doom and gloom." /Mother Jones fact check

*Quality piece, Newsroom.

Good metro apps are few and far in between, and the ones that do exist are usually gimped versions. It looks like it would be great with the tablet mode for general browsing, but really, without either iOS or Android's app ecosystem, the usefulness of a touchscreen is severely diminished. I don't believe it has Wacom-level precision for pen input (like Surface), which in itself would make it a great note taking device.

I don't like W8/8.1 on my desktop either, and regret upgrading from W7. For whatever reason I can't get access to user accounts settings (which has for some unknown reason been incorporated into Metro unlike virtually all other settings) because it crashes/hangs whenever I try to open it. So now I'm stuck with entering a password on my account each time I restart when I have absolutely no need to have one.

I had a couple of virtualised apps (I had a version of MS Office in an .exe file that I could run from a flash drive) but that no longer works probably due to compatibility issues.

My laptop's internet settings for some reason no longer remember passwords and I have to type it in each time. Meanwhile I see no tangible benefits. It loads slightly faster, maybe? But with an SSD the difference is marginal. W7's side-snap was genuinely a good idea. Meanwhile, W8 doesn't offer anything like that.

Metro apps are mostly useless to me. I'm glad that they're going to allow them to run natively in the desktop environment in W10 instead of co-existing through a finnicky side-screen mode but unless they actually offer improved functionality or ease of use over desktop (unlikely), I don't see me using them there either.

And you are right in that people do need to speak up when there is a problem, and Sarkeesian has every right to criticize video games or anything else for that matter. The solution to the problem should come from reasoned debate of the issues, not just playing yes man to feminist ideologues.
I do agree that more diversity in games and other forms of media can only benefit both the industry and the consumers. So I don't see any reason why women shouldn't go forth and make those games where the princess rescues the prince, or rescues herself, or whatever, and if it's a good game I'll buy it.
At work today I was reminded of the incredible diversity you can find in Manga, almost everyone reads them over in Japan and as a result they can cover a mind boggling array of topics. I read stuff like Shirow Miwa's 'Dogs', or anything by Masamune Shirow (Appleseed, Ghost In The Shell), and Tsutomu Nihei (Blame, Biomega, Knights Of Sidonia). Many people of course would think of all the hentai sex books out there, that's what gets most of the press after all, not stuff like 'With the Light' which was about the struggles of a mother raising an autistic child, ran from 2000 to 2010. It's probably not my bag but it's an example of where two wildly different things can exist in the same ecosystem.

Wow, you really can't read, can you?

From the title of the article you linked:

U.N. climate change report sees risk of 'irreversible' damage

Then, from the article itself:

In a paragraph summing up the risks, the draft says that a continued rise in world greenhouse gas emissions is "increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."

(both emphasis mine)

Climate change is not irreversible, but if we continue down this path, it may very well be.

And even if it was irreversible as of this point, we would still need to do something to mitigate the effects. Personally, I believe this is the most likely future scenario.

And your contrarian link has zero credibility. An article in the Daily Express talking about a TV weathermans opinion? What's next? A link to the Weekly World News interviewing Joe the Plumber?

I agree with a lot of this.

What I'd dispute is whether we know know for certain it is largely man-made. Again I would defer to NASA where it specifies it is "very likely due to human activities" that is the consensus. I study statistics and the hypothesis/ significance testing you could perform to test time periods before and after human activity would be very rigorous in determining a trend change, and there is certainly no lack of data.

As far predicting the benefit/harm and the most cost effective policy alternative if one is required, I agree it's debatable. There are organisations such as the Copenhagen Consensus that argue for technology based solutions such as stratospheric aerosol injection or carbon capture rather than pure taxes/reduced emissions.

My own (layman) take here is that mitigating a potentially large unknown is pragmatic. At the very least until such technologies are proven to be effective and feasible in reversing the trend. European colonists destroyed ecosystems through introducing but a handful of non-native species to a previously isolated habitats. I think it goes without saying we should not be naive about the unforeseen impacts of a global change like this and taking a conservative approach is warranted.

Hi Notarobot, your argument is unfortunately based on a very common misunderstanding of the chemistry of water and salt.

I can assure you that it is an established scientific fact that pure water has the highest heat capacity per unit of its mass compared to any water solutions. The less water there is in a water solution, the less heat capacity that solution has. This is because the temperature of pure water is more proportional to the amount of energy contained within it, which is due to the flexibility of its molecular structure. The more salt you add to water, the less structural flexibility (i.e. purity) there is to distribute and contain energy as the temperature increases. To put it another way, the salt molecules weigh down and restrict the water molecules from moving as freely, which is why salt water has a higher boiling point.

So in fact the more fresh water that is introduced to the oceans, the higher heat capacity and heat conduction there will be.

Furthermore, you grossly oversimplify the problem of climate change by assuming the only change that matters is immediately perceptible to "mammals like us". One of the biggest issues is that even slight variations in temperature can drastically change entire marine ecosystems. If enough ecosystems collapse, it will cause a chain reaction that will be very, very difficult to manage, let alone recover from. Also, even slight variations in salinity can drastically change ocean currents, which in turn affects not just marine ecosystems, but weather patterns throughout the world as well.

I can tell you're an intelligent person, so I hope you'll take me seriously when I say that it's very, very important for all intelligent people to be as diligent as possible when referring to the scientific causes and effects of climate change. Advocate whatever position you'd like as to how we should go about things, but please do your best to validate the information you're using to do so.

That's pretty scary too but starfish are a keystone species, meaning when/if they go, the entire ecosystem changes...again. I've heard stories here in the west that the anemones are having trouble because the shellfish that the starfish ate are now taking over the tide waters and displacing them...I wonder what happens when the anemones go, surely something else needs them in order to live, and something needs that thing...and so on, and so on....talk about a slippery slope (pun intended).
We need a "we're all going to die" channel. :-)

I've heard reports from several men who had sex before and after and said there was zero difference in sensation.

I circumcised my boys but not at all because of aesthetics, nor to "look like me", and especially not for any kind of religious reason.

We weren't dead-set against leaving them un-cut. In fact, we initially figured we'd just let them be natural.

One reason we decided to go ahead with it is we heard about lots of uncircumcised men have issues that require them to have it done later in life (e.g., phimosis, etc.), but the bigger reason was recent (at that time) studies showed strong evidence that circumcised men are at substantially lower risk for serious life-threatening diseases such as HIV and penile cancer (that results from HPV).

>> Yep, it's fucking barbaric. It is genital mutilation of children, period.

Talk about misinformation from a bunch of barbarians.

It's more barbaric to be completely close-minded, backward-thinking, and ignorant as to why there might possibly exist valid reasons to provide your children an almost 100% chance to avoid a plethora of penis-related problems and life-threatening diseases for their entire life in exchange for what's really a very minor procedure when done soon after birth.

The reasons against it? "It's fucking barbaric." Because... why again? "It just is," I'm sure is the best possible response.

The reasons in favor of it? Don't be so glib. Read the research.

Science Daily from Jan 2010:

Other epidemiological studies have shown that male circumcision is associated with significant reductions in HIV acquisition in men.

The strongest evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between circumcision and HIV risk reduction came from three randomized-control trials in sub-Saharan Africa, where the circumcision rate is relatively low and the HIV infection rate is relatively high. All three demonstrated a more than 40 percent reduction in HIV acquisition among circumcised men.

The largest of these three studies -- in Rakai, Uganda -- was led by Dr. Ronald H. Gray, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and the scientific paper's senior author. Dr. Gray's group collected penile swabs from all of the circumcision trial study participants, which provided the data for the new TGen-Johns Hopkins study.

The new study found that circumcision -- the removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, from the penis -- eliminates an area of mucous membrane and dramatically changes the penile bacterial ecosystem. Significantly, TGen's analysis of more than 40 types of bacteria, using a 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing approach, suggests that the introduction of more oxygen following circumcision decreases the presence of anaerobic (non-oxygen) bacteria and increases the amount of aerobic (oxygen-required) bacteria.

American Cancer Society:

HPV can also cause cancer of the penis in men. HPV infection is found in about half of all penile cancers. It’s more common in men with HIV and those who have sex with other men.

There is no approved screening test to find early signs of penile cancer. Because almost all penile cancers start under the foreskin of the penis, they may be noticed early in the course of the disease.

...

The 2 main risk factors for genital HPV infection in men are having many sex partners and not being circumcised.

The risk of being infected with HPV is strongly linked to having many sex partners.

Men who are circumcised (have had the foreskin of the penis removed) have a lower chance of getting and staying infected with HPV. Men who have not been circumcised are more likely to be infected with HPV and pass it on to their partners.

Facts like these are "the REAL reasons" my sons are circumcised.

help, sales are down, please have more kids.
really, it's about the old people.

given that our plentiful supply of humans is outstripping the ecosystem far faster than it can be replenished, the trend in denmark is likely an intelligent one.

Does that mean that there is an acceptable rate of harmful sociopathic behavior within human systems? So introduce large groups of calculating murderers into populations where the growth of humanity endangers the ecosystem?

Videos like that show ever so often the hubris of us humans to think that wih our limited understanding we can manage an ecosystem better than it has managed itself for billions of years.

@bcglorf
totally agree,
unless you wish to consider the massive rise of:diabetes,hypertension,heart disease,cancer,mental illness,obesity etc etc.

the connections linked to GMO's and its possible harmful effects to mammals and the environment,along with the surrounding ecosystems are beginning to surface.

turns out those company sponsored studies may not be as upfront and truthful as we were lead to believe and there might actually be a reason for concern.

well done batman for tearing up delicate riverbanks and their fragile ecosystems

Interesting. Removing bark from trees rarely kills the tree directly, by the way, since nutrient to the tree travels up the actual tree, while the tree actually provide fixated carbon to the soil downwards through the bark, and drives soil respiration. So, when you remove the bark, you are not actually damaging the tree directly, you are damaging the below-ground ecosystem, which in turn damages the trees.

EDIT: The above is true for trees in general and may or may not apply to the trees in the video.

No, it's an environmental problem. You know, wildlife dying, an ecosystem being destroyed...