You can accept Rowdy Ronda Rousey in her MMA pursuits, yet somehow military men singing Barbie Girl is terrifying. Women can be anything, yet men can be men alone.

The society likes itself some inequality, that's for sure. The elusive nature of it is a terror that persists in all dualism (which is a false, fatalistic construct). The simple solution is to reject all labels, and to accept the oscillation of our being, which is merely the transitory and oft chaotic nature of the mind.

... so he missed 999,999,999 times before this?

That's impressive persistence.

@newtboy

#1 and #2, fine, if you won't go there to read it's now pasted in full for you:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear. Here, we present measurements of rates of methane consumption in different vegetation types within the Zackenberg Valley in northeast Greenland over a full growing season. Field measurements show methane uptake in all non-water-saturated landforms studied, with seasonal averages of − 8.3 ± 3.7 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in dry tundra and − 3.1 ± 1.6 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in moist tundra. The fluxes were sensitive to temperature, with methane uptake increasing with increasing temperatures. We extrapolate our measurements and published measurements from wetlands with the help of remote-sensing land-cover classification using nine Landsat scenes. We conclude that the ice-free area of northeast Greenland acts as a net sink of atmospheric methane, and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under future warmer climatic conditions.

#3, regardless of if it make's sense to you, and regardless of if it means a 10C warming by 2100, the IPCC scientists collaborative summary says it anyways. If you want to claim otherwise it's you opposing the science to make things seem worse than they are, not me.

#4, To tell them those things would sound like this. The IPCC current best estimates from climate models project 2100 to be 1.5C warmer than 2000. This has already resulted in 2000 being 0.8C warmer than 1900. Summer arctic sea ice extent has retreating significantly is the biggest current impact. By 2100 it is deemed extremely unlikely that the Greenland and Antarctic iccesheets will have meaningfully reduced and there is medium confidence that the warming will actually expand Antarctic ice cover owing to increased precipitation from the region. That's the results and expectations to be passed on from the 5th report from an international collaboration of scientists. Whether that fits your world view or not doesn't matter to the scientific evidence those views are founded on and supported by.

You said the ocean's may be unfishable in 20 years, and the best support you came up with was a news article quote claiming that by 2040 most of the Arctic would be too acidic for Shell forming fish. Cherry picked by the news article that also earlier noted that was dependent on CO2 concentrations exceeding 1000ppm in 2100, and even that some forms of plankton under study actually faired better in higher acidity in some case. In a news article that also noted that the uneven distribution of acidity makes predicting the effects very challenging. If news articles count as evidence I then want to claim we'll have working fusion power to convert to in 5 years time from Lockheed Martin. I'll agree with your news post on one count, the world they talk about, where CO2 emissions continue accelerating year on year, even by 2100, is bad. It's also a bit hard to fathom with electric cars just around the corner, and if not solar and wind, fusion sometime before then too, that we'll still be using anywhere near today's emissions let alone still accelerating our use.

by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
And you link to a blog, and a blog that provides exactly zero references to any scientific sources for the claim. Better yet, even the blog does NOT claim that the access to water will be limited because of climate change, the blog even mentions multiple times how other forms of pollution are destroying huge amounts of fresh water(again with zero attributions).

Here's the IPCC best estimates for 2100 impacts regionally:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf

You'll find it's a largely mixed bag if you can be bothered to read what the actual scientists are predicting. Just bare in mind they regularly note that climate models still have a lot of challenges with accurate regional estimates. I guess your blogger isn't hindered by such problems though. If you don't want to bother I'll summarize for you and note they observe a mixed bag of increased precipitation in some regions, notably monsoons generally increasing, and other areas lowering, but it's all no higher than at medium confidences. But hey, why should uncertainty about 2100 prevent us from panicking today about more than half the world losing their drinking water in 10 years. I'll make you a deal, in ten years we can come back to this thread and see whether or not climate change has cause 2/3 of the world to lose their drinking water already or not. I'm pretty confident on this one.

Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
Lost 50% since 2005? That'd be scary, oh wait, you heard that from the same blog you say? I've got a hunch maybe they aren't being straight with you...
Here are a pair of links I found in google scholar to scientific articles on the Himalaya's glaciers:
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~braup/himalaya/Science13Nov2009.pdf
I you can't be bothered to read:
Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Riana, whose report notes that the glacier has "not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years" Which looks likely that your blogger found a popular press piece about that single glacier and then went off as though it were fact, and across the entire mountain range .

http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/glaciers%20and%20climate.pdf
Here's another article noting that since 1962 Himalayan glacier reduction is actually about 21%.

If you go back and read the IPCC links I gave earlier you can also find many of the regional rivers and glaciers in India/East China are very dependent on monsoons and will persist as long as monsoons do. Which the IPCC additionally notes are expected to, on the whole, actually increase through 2100 warming.

I've stated before up thread that things are warming and we are the major contribution, but merely differed from your position be also observing the best evidence science has for predictions isn't catastrophic. That is compounded by high uncertainties, notably that TOA energy levels are still not able to be predicted well. The good news there is the latest IPCC estimated temps exceed the observed trends of both temperature and TOA imbalance, so there's reason for optimism. That's obviously not license for recklessly carrying on our merry way, as I've noted a couple times already about roads away from emissions that we are going to adopt one way or another long before 2100.

OK, you're dead on about a back pat being LESS dangerous contact.
I do agree, at this point, a fist bump seems less 'professional'. That said, I hope that feeling changes, because it is a better alternative if you MUST touch hands.
I really usually just give a quick wave, or shot with my finger-gun, unless the other person persists. Honestly, those look just as bad in the board room though....good thing I'm never in one!

Notice how good the cops are at roughing people up when there is no danger and no real threat. But when the time comes when you actually hope that the police will defend person and property against invasion, times of genuine upheaval and fear, suddenly the police retire back and become strangely passive. It happens in every case of "civil unrest," and it's always astonishing. It's when property owners discover that they are on their own. The persistence of this behavior should make everyone rethink their presumptions that tax-funded, government-run policing is the right approach to security.

The smart response to Baltimore is to recognize that this is the product of the pointless drug war, a racially punitive policing system, failed public services, a highly regulated labor market that cuts off economic opportunity, gun control, and permanent martial law that makes everyone feel like prisoners in their own homes and lives.

Alas, we're likely to see only the typical bourgeois response to Baltimore: lock up these "animals" and unleash the cops on the rest.

Which explanation sells better to the "public?" I think it's pretty obvious. This is why fascism always wins.

Very interesting...

I'm one of those people who is highly sensitive to perfumes / scents, which is sometimes called "multiple chemical sensitivity". I know that it isn't technically an "allergy", but other than that I honestly have no idea whether this whole thing is psychosomatic (all in my head), "real" but with a lot of additional input from mental/emotional states, completely real and tied in some way to the smells themselves, or completely real and tied in some way to the actual "chemicals" (in a chemistry sense) in the air. All I know is that there are a LOT of triggers for me where I can get one small whiff of something and know that I'm going to get a pounding headache.

Aggravation with that has often caused me to wonder if it would be possible to surgically or pharmacologically destroy or impair my olfaction senses, like what happened to the woman in the video, and cure the headache triggers. If the smells themselves are the triggers, it seems like that could work. If it is largely or completely psychosomatic, it could still work because I wouldn't know that I was being exposed to the smell triggers; one thing that I've considered is that I also get very angry if I'm in a private place like my home or otherwise trying to avoid triggers and somebody wanders in wearing some nasty shit and compromises the integrity of my safe zone. In public I know that I can't control what other people wear so I just try to get away very quickly from trigger smells, but in my own home I get ultra pissed if somebody comes in and stinks it up. I have wondered if that anger exacerbates or maybe even in some cases is the actual primary source of the headache symptoms. But anyway, even if that was the case, being able to cap or cut off my sense of smell would solve the problem.

The only way that the problem could persist AFTER surgically eliminating my sense of smell would be if the reaction is really to the chemicals themselves in the air. And then, that would be worse because I wouldn't have the warning system of smell telling me to get the hell away from perfume counters, ladies wearing the stuff, dudebros wearing shit like Axe, etc.

All in all, I don't actually think it would be worth the downsides. BUT, I must say I've really wondered about it when I've got a pounding headache after simply walking by somebody wearing perfume in line at a grocery store or whatever...

Persistence pays off

Persistence -always- pays off in the end.

I did watch the video. I didn't hear any threats. Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

There were the two persistent guys. Although I think that had more to do with her acting. They were doing the equivalent of fucking with buckingham palace guards. It was obvious she was doing the silent shtick far beyond what's reasonable. In a real situation that would be diffused with two words, "fuck off."

We describe good etiquette as "classy." Why do you suppose that is?

IMO we should all be forced to acknowledge the riffraff here and there.

Rather, some moronic miscreant transforms a simple encounter into felony charges by spewing Its baboon red butt out of Its filth drooling mouth and then persistently but characteristically blames and vilifies the system that far more often than not, but not enough, protects people from....

Obviously...It's still here to spew Its insipid...

Insipid...word of the day...brought to us by Swirlry

Legally, it's probably a fairly gray area with differing rules in different jurisdictions. I imagine most laws would say something about a reasonable threat, although I don't know how "Stand your ground" laws would affect that.

Morally, if someone is "in your personal space" on public property, in theory you would ask them to back off and then call the cops. Violence should be a last resort, and if they persisted, I'd probably just walk away.

I watched it carefully. His arm moves very fast for a dying man. Keep in mind, I think they set the tone of Oberyn's amazing speed and reaction time when they first introduced him and he nailed that guard's hand to the table. So I would have liked them to persist with that (as in, fast as the Mountain was he would still be too slow)

Being run through with a huge bladed spear twice will inflict massive trauma to a very vascular region, creating immediate blood loss and very quick hypovolaemic shock. I agree that you can keep going until your blood pressure is low enough to knock you down (I was a paramedic - that's bread and butter stuff for me). But he already fell down involuntarily. If he made a massive adrenaline fueled exertion after that I expect to see rainbows of blood coming out of the Mountain (for the viewers pleasure of course) and for you to be slower (you've got blood loss! - which doesn't speed you up).

As I wrote I haven't read the books, so a lot of the nuances will be lost on me (and other unenlighted).

I would have dropped the emotion and instead pushed the cockiness of Oberyn and let that be his downfall (and you could have almost the exact same ending).

I understand in the book the Mountain is like 8 feet tall. This would have helped with the skull popping effect (which is not possible by even the strongest men in our world). And it would have made it look cool with a veritable giant next to Oberyn.

I'm with @newtboy. Do you actually read the responses or just cherry pick the parts that suit your agenda? Christ, even in the part you quoted I said "the first step". The paragraph before that explicitly outlined how that there were huge challenges to overcome.

And you're posting links from an organisation that

worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms... and is known "for its persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of 'experts' who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is fake."

Andrew Napolitano agrees that Lincoln did not engage in war to end slavery but to bring back the seceding confederacy, as the clip Stewart clip shows. He also shows a clip, presented without context of Napolitano talking about the war being unnecessary to free the slaves. That is addressing those many who believe the war was fought to free the slaves. Napolitano in the original interview is addressing both camps: those who think the war was about slavery and those who think it was about tariffs or something else to indicate either way, it was unnecessary. Watch Napolitano's statements on Lincoln in full, not taken with zero context like Stewart does, and you will see that even if he thinks the war was about something other than slavery, he says that. Even if it had been about slavery as many people, namely Lincoln fans, and even historian have argued, even still, it was an unnecessary "murderous" war. There is no contradiction there. If you think it was about slavery, then still it was the wrong approach to it. And more likely it was not even about slavery. So his comments are meant for someone who thinks it was about slavery. Stewart just edited out the context, as he typically does. The context being that he is addressing the persistent idea that the war for Lincoln was or became about slavery.

Maybe it needs more simplification. Napolitano's point:

Some believe the civil war was necessary to liberate slaves. But if Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves, there were a number of options to pursue. Instead, he 'set out on the most murderous war in American history'. Because the intention was not to free the slaves to begin with.

What about that makes no sense? If anything, the "debate" on this point is what "makes no sense."

BTW, among those who believe the war was not about taxes is Jon Stewart.

You're attitude is disgusting.

These come out to people on camera videos are usually meant as inspirational or in some way positive, sometimes negative when it goes that way ( usually people with your mentality of ignorance and double slit narrow minded vision. The whole Homosexual orientation in media such as this is the same as other minorities trying to get the same value and respect that is owed and deserved by those different than yourself, it is your mentality that will drive this point until you wieners either die off or change your mind once you take logic into account.

It is not sad that he recorded this, it is sad that this sort of movement has to even exist

The only reality that this woman has to disregard a possible nephew or niece is the one you persist on having, were they can not unite and adopt children who need love and caring, aka FAMILIES.