I'll address your linked report first because I have a problem with the statistics on there. It's a little misleading because the bit you mentioned only considers cancer deaths attributable with processed meats.

But then goes to includes all diseases attributable with smoking, not just cancer.
So it's not comparing cancer to cancer rates. The report is comparing processed meat cancer with ALL smoking diseases.

And this makes smoking look a lot worse. For a fair comparison we'd need to compare only smoking caused cancers to processed meat cancers.
Or we'd need to compare diseases from processed meat, to all diseases from smoking.

Further the report, states that it's an 18% risk for only 50g of processed meat.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I ate the stuff, it wasn't just 50g. That's like 3 chicken nuggets. I'd eat 9 at least in one sitting for lunch(150g). Maybe I had 2 rashers of bacon for breakfast, another 50g, and then I might have a few slices of salami for dinner, another 50g.

So in a day I might have eaten 250g of processed meat. So it might only be 18% chance to get cancer, but that's 5 times I've rolled the dice(250 divded by 50g = 5). So even low odds get pretty dangerous if you roll the dice often enough.


Right after that paragraph, it goes on to say that the total number of attributable deaths to processed meat is 644,000.

So now we're finally comparing apples with apples. 644,000 processed meat deaths vs. 1 million tobacco deaths.

Still smoking is the clear winner here, but it's 2/3 the way there. So to me Dr. Greger's statement is starting to ring true.

Of course Dr. Greger isn't only talking about processed meat, he's talking about all meat, including poultry and fish too. Because just like processed meat, they have cholesterol and saturated fat which causes heart disease and diabetes without a doubt.
The heart disease statistics are (google says:) "An estimated 17.5 million people died from CVDs in 2012, representing 31% of all global deaths"
Now granted not all of these cardiovascular diseases will be diet related. But we only need to another 366,000 out of that 17.5 million to be caused by diet, and now we're comparing 1 million meat related deaths to 1 million tobacco related deaths.

So it's totally comparable in my eyes. And in the end, regardless of which has higher chances of cancer. The death rates are easily matched.

(not to mention colorectal cancer is kills more people, even though more people get lung cancer. Because lung cancer is more survivable).

Absolutely false. He's outright saying that stopping eating meat, and nothing else, is equivalent to stopping smoking, which is an outright lie.
He sells a lifestyle, with books, blogs, websites, videos, and appearances for sale. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you claim to not have a financial tie to your movement or financial incentives to mislead and exaggerate. He clearly does, and lies about that too.

Insisting on honesty does nothing to remove personal responsibility for yourself. Please.

No one mentions Dr Williams because he's not making up studies or results, he's offering a personal opinion and explanation of his personal actions...not lying to convince others to follow suit out of misplaced fear....like your hero, "Dr" Greger.

It's proper to attack the zealous liar that's making a living selling lies....like "Dr" Greger, no matter when they appear on screen.

One more example of him lying....taking "Consumption of foods high in saturated AND industrially produced trans fats, salt, and sugar is the cause of at least 14 million deaths" and restated it as "consumption of animal foods (and processed foods) leads to at least 14 million deaths."...but the study conclusion he references doesn't mention animal foods at all, he just added that, and emphasized it over what the study actually said while completely omitting processed plant based foods, which are just as bad as the meat ones according to the study. That's lying. Lies like that make it difficult to take personal responsibility for your health, because you have to debunk them to get to the good advice/actual facts.

1. I *AM* an LGBTQ person, I don't speak for them, but I am one voice.
I tend to avoid harassing people.

2. No.

3. a) Both. They aren't mutually exclusive. I want women to be equal and I want legal protections in place to maintain this. This is not secret information.
b) They do.

4. Question 3b) suggests women should be responsible for their safety. Question 4 seems to criticize the notion of being responsible for your own safety. Glad to see unified thought in this. The answer is I expected random bouts of mockery, judgement, and violence. You know, the other 95% of my life.

5. Because shitting on a group that seeks to change culture to react similarly to loss of black life as it does for white lives, while pointing out where society fails to meet this standard is pretty charactersticly racist.
Also I don't say that "Kill all white people" is not racist.

6. Yes. Did you know that the permanence of objects, the transmission of ideas and culture and systems of law are based on events in the past? That by studying history we can understand how humans work in a unique way, that knowing that say, there was a WWI may help us understand the conditions under which WWII occurred and that this knowledge may help us decide what to do in the aftermath of WWII to avoid a recurrence?
That if a group has historically had problems, many of those problems have probably been inherited along with consequences of the problems (such as poverty, strongly inherited social trait). Yes. Linear time,human affairs, culture. They are all things that exist.

7. Yes, I have many examples of people doing this. Mostly this is due to short lifespan. But there are many manchildren in our culture, who seem to think that other people asserting boundaries is immature.

8. There are programs designed to help boost male education dropout rate. If you 'fight' for 'improvements in the fairness of social order ' to help achieve this, you are a Social Justice Warrior, and so you could just have asked yourself.
Also, American bias? Pretty sure this is not a global stat...

9. Because one focusses on correcting the inequalities between the sexes and was born at a time when women didn't have proper property rights, voting rights etc etc, and so it was primarily focussed on uplifting women and so the name 'feminism'. Egalitarianism on the other hand, is the general pursuit. Many feminists are egalitarian, but not all. Hence different words. English, motherfucker....

10. Nothing, as I am not.

11. No, my grandparents were being enslaved in eastern Europe by the far left and right (but more the right, let's be honest).

Seriously though, I don't remember the liberal protests of "Not all ISIS".

12. Ingroup outgroup hatred and distrust is a universal human trait. Race seems to provoke instinctive group psychology in humans, presumably from evolving in racially separate groups.

13. The phrase is intended to deflate 'Black Lives Matter' whose point is that society seems to disagree, in practice, with this. There's only one realistic motivation to undermining the attempts to equalize how the lives of different races are treated socially.
It's also designed to be perfectly innocuous outside of this context so that white people can totally believe they aren't being dicks by saying it.

14. My social justice fighting is almost always done in secret. I hate the limelight, and I hate endlessly seeking credit for doing the right thing. So I try to keep it to a minimum while also raising consciousness about issues where I can.
Hey wait, did you fall for the bias that the big public figures are representative in all ways of the group? HAHAHAHA! Noob.
Wait, did a man voicing a cartoon kangaroo wearing an Islamic headdress, superimposed on video footage of a woman in a gym grinding her hips tell me to stop trying show off how awesome I am and and to get real?

15. No, they are both not capable of giving consent. Sounds like you have had a bitter experience. Sorry to hear that.

16. I spent two decades trying to change myself. I tortured myself into a deep suicidal insanity. When I stopped that, and when society had changed in response to my and others plights being publicised sympathetically I felt happy and comfortable with myself.
You would prefer millions in silent minorities living through personal hells if the alternative means you have to learn better manners? What a dick.

17. Sure. It's also OK if you say 'nigga' in the context of asking this question. But I'm white and English. You should ask some black Americans if your usage causes unintended messages to be sent. I'd certainly avoid placing joyful emphasis, especially through increased volume, on the word.

18. Ah, you've confused a mixture of ideas and notions within a group as a contradiction of group idealogy. Whoops. I don't understand gender identity. I get gender, but I never felt membership in any group. That's how I feel, and have since the 1990s. The internet has allowed disparate and rare individuals to form groups, and some of these groups are people with different opinions about how they feel about gender and they are very excited to meet people other people with idiosyncratic views as they had previously been alone with their eccentric perspective.

19. If white men are too privileged then the society is not my notion of equal.

20. After rejecting the premise as nonsensical. In as much as I want rules to govern social interactions that take into consideration the diversity of humanity as best as possible, I recognize those same rules will govern my behaviour.

21. Women can choose how to present themselves. Video Game creators choose how to present women in their art. I can suggest that the art routinely portrays women as helpless sex devices, while supporting women who wish to do so for themselves.

22. You DO that? I've never even had the notion. I just sort of listen and digest and try to see if gaps can reasonably be filled with pre-existent knowledge or logical inferrences and then I compare and contrast that with my own differring opinion and I consider why someone might have come to their ideas. Assuming they aren't stupid I try to understand as best I can and present to them my perspective from their perspective. I don't sing, or plug in headphones or have an imaginary rock concert.

23. I have done no such thing. Look, here I am listening to you. You have all been asking questions that have easy answers to if you looked outside your bubble of fighting a handful of twitter and youtube users thinking these people represent the entirety of things and seeking only to destroy them with your arguments rather than understanding the ideas themselves.

24. Reverse Racism is where white guys are systematically (and often deliberately) disadvantaged - such as the complaints against Affirmative Action. I'm sure your buddies can fill you in on the details. The liberal SJWs you hate tend to roll their eyes when they hear it too. Strange you should ask.

25. No. I've never seen the list. I just use whatever pronouns people feel comfortable with. Typically I only need to know three to get by in life, same as most other English speakers.

26. I'm the audience motherfucker, and so are you. That's how it works.

27. I don't do those things, but yes, I have considered the notion of concept saturation in discourse. Have you considered the idea that people vary in their identification of problems, based on a number of factors. Some people are trigger happy and this may be a legitimate problem. Since you are aware of this, you also have a duty to try to overcome the saturation biases.
Similarly, if you keep using the word 'fucking', motherfucker, you'll find it loses its impact quite quickly. See this post motherfucker. Probably why you needed to add the crash zoom for impact. You could have achieved more impact with less sarcasm and and a more surprising fuck.

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

i have been watching interviews where prominent comics are refusing to do gigs at universities due to the fact that the PC culture has become so saturated that they can't even do their bits,and it becomes a horror show.

young,educated people who mistake their own little bubble-world and attempt to project their sense of morality onto others by demanding changes in language and attitude by way of shrill harpy speak,is totally missing the point of humor.

comedy is the examination and critique of certain truths we may hold sacred,and expose the absurdity.a good comedian can do this fairly well,a great comedian does so with a finesse that is epic.

see:george carlin.lenny bruce,bill hicks,patrice o'neal,bill burr,louis ck.doug stanhope

so i have to disagree with you @Imagoamin.
comedians who thrive on being edgy are not thriving just for the simple fact of being edgy or controversial.they thrive because they are adept at exposing the absurdity of life in such a way that makes us all laugh.....at ourselves.

they experience pushback constantly in the form of heckling and jeering,and do so on a nightly basis and do not get upset that people get offended by their material.that is the very boundary they are pushing!

self examination,criticism and the ability to accept that maybe those things we held so dear are,in fact,absurd and in need of ridicule.the great comedians all give us a great,totally effective self-cleansing pill.they call it "the get the fuck over yourself" pill.

but the overly sensitive PC culture that is festering in our current higher education institutions is creating a new breed of human that lacks basic self-awareness and,on the whole,a gaggle of humorless cunts.

humor is a concept beyond their ken.they dont get it and instead of relaxing a bit,they prefer to get their panties in a knot over.....words.so they all get together and tweet and facebook,in order to share their outrage and make their little signs and march in front of a chris rock show with absolutely zero sense of irony.

to them they are striking a blow for justice!

which is just absurd,and in desperate need of ridicule.

Huh, never thought of that. So true...and I will add to this. In the past jobs in service have been able to absorb people into it to take up the loss of jobs (Say in agriculture and such.) So when Henry Ford made his assembly line, jobs were created pretty much everywhere. Restaurants are but one great example of this.

But with the techno revolution, the service sector was already pretty full. Now it is saturated. If I see one more new gas station down here in Florida, or another restaurant open, it will be too soon. I remember TWO, TWO Starbucks in the same mall. Such a false economy...

Now add automation and boom...

It's odd that they focused on sugar in this report. Processed foods are high in omega 6 and the healthy diet they described is high in omega 3 and fiber. That reduction in omega 6 and increase in omga 3 probably had the largest affect on his cholesterol.

Also, saturated fats are not bad for you. That's outdated information.

Great mashup. I had to drop by video saturation to 25% to enjoy it! I think this is an artifact of MPEG compression.

He answered the question you asked, you just couldn't let go of your desire to make everyone think the same way as you. You did not accept his response and kept drilling for a deeper underlying cause.

I feel sorry for the feminists who know you, don't think Schumer is funny and are completely unaware they are about to be saturated with your "questions" aka badgering until everyone gives up and agrees with you just to shut you up... =)

As to why (or even whether) it's important to me, it's because you have every right to your opinion, but you've crossed over to telling people what their opinion is, and what it should be.

eg.

Recap of our convo:

You: I don't think she's funny.

Me: Wondering if this comedy is directed at you.

You: Nah, I don't think she is funny.

Me: I hear you. Let me tell you why I find her funny.

You: Nah, you're wrong, I don't think she is funny.

Your last response "should" have been -- Huh. So that is why you think she is funny. I still don't find her funny. Or maybe -- Huh. I don't want to think about it. Don't bother me with your opinion.

Ulysses never said that you were wrong, just that he disagreed with you. You're rewriting the conversation to justify the continuing role as a victim in all this. And also presuming that anyone actually cares why you think she's funny (you can have an opinion, as can anyone, but it's not a right to force it on others ; ).

We get it, you find her funny. I don't have a problem with that, you are not wrong or somehow deficient for enjoying humour that I do not. You finding her funny is not something I have a problem with. Your attitude to people who don't find her funny is. I hope this has clarified my position, but I sincerely doubt it'll make a difference... =D

Arrivederci!

I'll just say I must expect if you're so certain, you must put your money where your mouth is, and are looking seriously into buying as much beach front property in Vanuatu as possible. Your mind is made up that there's no issue of ocean warming, rising, and/or acidification, so of course you will be taking advantage of those islanders that have been 'tricked' by the climate change frauds (oh, and also tricked by that water in their homes, the loss of snails, shellfish, fish, and the destruction of their reefs), and you'll be buying their properties at reduced rates, because the ocean rising is a fraud and you'll make a mint when everyone sees the 'truth' in 30 years...right? I have put my money where my mouth is, I have solar, I grow (most of) my own food, and I'm building a water catchment system.
Pay attention to what the scientists say, yes...but don't put too much stake in any single statement by any single group. Take the science as a whole, discard the crazed outliers, then examine and compare the remainder. After doing that, I always find that things are getting worse faster than nearly any study suggested it would, certainly more than the public 'consensus', in numerous ways that often re-enforce each other, and in ways that often were hidden under older study methods (such as the Greenland ice sheet, which is not only moving far faster than expected, but is also losing density much faster than expected, meaning older methods of measuring glaciers by size no longer apply...or the heating of the ocean where so much heat was 'hidden' in deep water, not found until recently so claimed to not exist, or the theory that certain diatoms might do better in acidic CO2 saturated water, but they found that that was wrong because in reality low light due to turbidity more than erased any positive effect.)

Today, one can find a 'study' to show anything one wishes, complete with scientists, data, conclusions, and affluent backers. The study you quote actually claimed that there will not be a loss of ice cover in Greenland and/or Antarctica, contrary to current conditions where there already IS loss of ice cover and it's accelerating exponentially. If you wish to believe that simply slowing the rate at which we increase the amount of CO2 we create by 2050 is going to solve the issues, (issues that will be totally disastrous by then by most estimations, for tens of millions it already IS disastrous) I've got some swamp land to sell you in Florida. The same goes for if you believe China and India are going to DECREASE their emissions. To date, they have done nothing but ignore their own additions to climate change as far as their energy production is concerned, they have not put extra money into 'clean' energy, but instead consistently go for the cheap, but dirty methods. There's no reason to believe this will change in the next 35 years as they ramp up their energy use to first world levels, that goes double if people are convinced (as you seem to be) that there's really no big problem with the climate, nothing to worry about, and any small inconvenience will be solved by technology and intelligent governments doing the right thing, even though it's the more expensive thing that they normally avoid like the plague. Unfortunately, history does not show that this is how people or governments operate.

@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.

Impressive breath hold, but would be nice to have a bit more info, like how deep he was (I'm guessing pretty deep from the lack of colour saturation).

Boring dive site though.

I can't speak to Canada's system, but I can weigh in on Medicare quality of care. My Grandmother, the woman who raised me, was diagnosed with lung cancer in her early 70's. Since I was helping to take care of her at the time, I got to see what I have to look forward to in my later life.

Consistently we had to wait for treatments to be approved and she was often delayed for patients that were not on Medicare. Additionally, every single therapy or quality of life aid was scrutinized beyond belief.

As an example, the doctor gave her a prescription for an oxygen tank and delivery system after they removed part of her lung that was not responding to chemo. Medicare refused to cover it without an 'oxygen saturation level test'. This 'test' was horrible. She had to try to breathe without the machine for multiple minutes, struggling and gasping for air. It was fucking brutal to watch, but the people that Medicare sent to verify didn't give a shit. They basically told me that if her saturation wasn't low enough after 15 minutes, she couldn't be covered for the machine. I couldn't take it, so I told them to fuck off out of her house and paid out of my own pocket for the rental.

These are just some examples, there were others before she died that made it quite clear that Medicare is not quality care. It's basically the bare minimum they have to give you to keep you alive. So this video comparing Canada's care to Medicare doesn't reassure me in the slightest and it's almost certainly an unfair comparison to their system. I can tell you I am dreading making the swap to Medicare in 20-25 years, let alone being forced into something similar sooner. As far as ACA, I don't really care. It's probably good for people who don't have good jobs or who are unemployed, but I will be more than happy to hang onto my extremely good insurance provided through my employment.

Marvel's going to hit some over-saturation point soon but they've got Daredevil, Luke Cage, Iron First, the Defenders and Jessica Jones all headed to Netflix in the next few years. Madness.

Burden or gridlock. Those are subjective terms that connote a desire to catch up. Catching up helps no one involved in law enforcement.

They terms you should look for are "Artifacts and metrics".

Every department must spend more than it did last year. This year's funding is what it is because of what was spent last year. Next year's funding depends on what will be spent this year.

A lack of funding leads to downsizing and furloughs. Best way to secure funding for next year is to spend this year.

Money has colours. You get different charge codes for different actions.
Some charge codes are considered low pri / overhead. Others are considered necessary. If you're charging mostly overhead, and very little necessary, you have bad metrics. If you charge mostly towards necessary and little to overhead, you have good metrics.

Police have to arrest/charge people to look productive. That generates metrics showing that police are needed. If they can make sure to spend at least as much money on enforcement this year as last year, their jobs are secured. A department that's mostly sitting around, is a department that is not critical, and can get a budgetary cut.
So long as police are employed, they will find people to arrest/charge/ticket/whatever. Even if they have to stretch for it.

The same situation applies in court. Prosecutors are looking to maximize their convictions metrics. Their job is to get people convicted. It's not that they /want/ to convict people. That's simply how they charge their time, and how they get good metrics.

Judges don't necessarily care how a case goes. They simply want to charge as much time to judging as possible.

Actually "catching up" serves the interests of no one. And it's not that people are sitting down saying "Hey, how can I make myself look necessary". Some people do, sure. But most people are simply thinking "I gotta stay/look busy".

The "system" takes care of getting things to run amok.
Everyone stays busy so they can charge productive looking time codes, so they don't get scolded by management or downsized.
Departments spend all their allocated money so they don't get under funded.
Analytically, it looks like they are saturated, so they get more funding, and bring on more people.
The new people need to stay busy, and the cycle repeats.
The beast grows.

In effect, burden and gridlock are the food that keeps the beast fed.

This isn't simply a law enforcement issue. It's how government works. Every program makes it a goal to spend all of their funding, and look as busy as possible. No one wants to be cut, and looking like you're not busy is an easy way to be 'it' when there is a cut.

Rememer : All money is spent on payroll.
You don't pay the earth for anything.
If you buy materials, that's simply paying the payroll for the material supplier.
The entire cost of anything, is the total cost of all employees.
The only way to ever reduce costs, is to reduce how much someone makes.
Either by cutting the amount paid, or by cutting jobs.
Every year there's talk of reigning in government spending.
That means that every year, there's talk of cutting jobs.

TBH, newtboy, I don't know your background, or how much experience you have around government crap. I donno if this all sounds like a joke, but it really is this stupid.

-scheherazade