Um...no....I don't see that.
First, what would your alternative be, knowing that baby elephants NEED a family structure to thrive, and often just die when they don't have one? Would you just put it in a cage with no contact and just hope it survives? Bad idea.
I see she is doing this because baby elephants need this interaction from a 'family' unit, or they either wither and die or survive, but become rouges that have never known herd life in any way and are problem elephants that get shot.
If it were all about herself at the animals expense, why are the other less social animals not brought onto the porch? I'll answer, because they don't need to be.
Perhaps before calling out the behavior of those who's life has been spent successfully rescuing, rehabilitating, and reintroducing to the wild abandoned and injured animals you should do a little research on what those animals require?

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.

Comedians who thrive on being edgy and pushing those boundaries, yet get upset that sometimes people get offended by that pushing are way more annoying IMO.

"PC" isn't anyone stopping you from telling your edgy joke. But your jokes would no longer be edgy if everyone stopped giving a fuck or occasionally pushing back. You'd just be another Jeff Dunham, even if you see yourself as Bill Hicks.

Tell your edgy jokes, realize people will push back, and say "Oh, good. I'm not some boring nobody." rather than get way more offended at their "offense".

Argh. I hate it when people say that it "required" a very specialized set of conditions for life to arise on Earth. Instead, I would argue that life on Earth arose in a set of specialized conditions and is therefore accustomed to those conditions.

Life similar to what we have seen on Earth might "require" those conditions, but why should we assume that those conditions are required for life in general? We have discovered life here on Earth that falls outside of the hospitable conditions that we have previously thought of as being "required" for life. For example, consider extremeophiles like the organisms that live around deep ocean vents, and can survive and thrive in water well over the boiling point, with no sunlight, etc.

There is a limited range of conditions present in Earth environments; a maximum and minimum temperature likely to be encountered on Earth, varying amounts of light or other sources of energy, etc., and we can find life adapted to wildly varying positions within that range. Why do we continue to assume that Earth-like conditions are some sort of magic combination for life? For life "as we know it", ...maybe. But I figure there is a probably a lot of stuff out there that we would recognize as alive, but which is adapted to very different conditions than anything considered hospitable to any life on Earth.

It's a shame Affleck didn't let the guy speak. This is something that needs to be talked about. That doesn't make anyone racist, and any right thinking Muslim would agree with that because we are ALL at risk.

However. There is currently the largest episode of human migration in history. The west is responsible for this with their destabilising campaigns in the middle east. Those places are breeding grounds for terrorism. Personal loss to the point of numbness towards violence and death, hunger, insecurity, fear, uncertainty... these things play directly into the hands of evil people looking to manipulate people to do their dirty deeds for them.

Our actions have led to this worldwide humanitarian crisis which has made us far more unsafe than before we began our poorly planned excursions into the region based on a knee-jerk, eye-for-an-eye reaction to a small number of individual thugs tragically murdering thousands of people. And haven't we just played into the hands of the extremists...

The indiscriminate bombing has to stop. This only ends diplomatically, but we are already at it again in Syria dropping bombs with no clear long term plan. We are fueling an already out of control humanitarian crisis and doing exactly what the terrorists need us to do for them to thrive.

It's a difficult thing to really justify or demonize because sex is a head game, a dance but also a match of submissiveness versus dominance; it can become violent and abusive through the ebb and flow of permission and denial. One moment I'm smacking her ass during sex, after a year of smacking her ass, she needs to be spanked before sex even begins, and now 10 years later there's whips and clamps and shackles. It all started with a mildly amusing smack to the ass that over time became a mutual fetish.

All of that extreme abuse porn is a matter of course, just like the secret fetish in a relationship starts with something innocent then leads to something semi-professional. This is the end result of a fetish that started with Deep Throat in the '70s opening the world to oral sex. Now it's facial abuse. She doesn't need a deep throat, now she just needs to undergo a hazing.

Will regulation change an industry piloted entirely by desire and sex starved user demand? Or would the culture simply evolve around the regulations?

Japan blurs out genitals, so what happens? The culture evolves around the restrictions and now we have a thriving bukkake subgenre. You want cum in eyes? Niche. Cum in hair? Niche. Cum on teeth? For real though, the focus is on teeth. We don't even need genitals now! Just pick a spot on the body and then ejaculate in mass! What a phenomenon.

Niches form and when they trend, that's when you end up with a popular site like facial abuse.

But hazing porn exists in the reverse and is also quite popular. Pegging? Come on, where's my face sitting fans? Hey now, there's also a lesbian variety of big assed Brazilian women who abuse skinny blond girls. I don't know what they're saying, but clearly it means something along the lines of dig that white caucausian nose further up my brown latin pussy. One woman is empowered, the other not so much, but she likes it, so... empowered? But who watches it? Men? Surely not women. Well, I know several women who watch the shit out of lesbian domination porn.

I had the absolute pleasure to sit with some really open lesbians and watch lesbian domination porn where the women wrestle each other, and the winner gets to fuck the loser in humiliating and abusive ways. I mean... the topic of empowerment is tough here. If you do porn just own it. Damn. Come on, it's just sex. People just like giving each other a hard time and they're always worrying about the next generation, even though they know humans are all dirty, filthy, sex craved fiends.

I think the most abusive porn I've watched (was sort of forced to watch) was a man having his penis hit with a hammer by a very mean woman. He liked having his penis hit with a hammer for some odd reason.

Yeah he embarrasses her with his stupidity, as he embarrasses me. So fake news picks a naive college student to debate, and when she starts putting her thoughts together to make a point he interrupts her like the condescending asshole that he is.

I'm sorry, but you wouldn't need the top 1% to pay nowhere near 90% in taxes to cover education. Just a made up number to make her look stupid as she didn't know how to answer it.

With a higher percent of more educated people, they as a whole would be making more money to contribute to the tax fund, increasing revenue.

And really Neil, rich people would leave the honey hole because we taxed them more? How about we start taxing and putting tariffs on companies that go into these third world countries for cheap labor to export products back here. Fuck em if they want to leave, they will no longer be "hoarding" the money and it would allow other companies to fill the void and thrive.

And her point that was so rudely interrupted was spot on, "There is a population that is doing nothing to contribute to the progression of society"

And lastly, these are all moot points if we just quit dumping all our money into the military, and it's not even going to benefit our veterans, but to the select few who own these government contracts. Why do they NEVER Talk about that? Why do we have to continuously be engaged in some kind of war? Oh, that's right to convince people we need a bigger military budget, more spying...blah blah blah...unpatriotic if you don't agree...blah blah...scare people into some kind of threat..

I'm sorry this particular girl wasn't ready for this debate, she probably had a speech prepared they told her she could give.

No doubt about it! Some of these folks do quite well indeed. Before Google took over YT, there was a thriving, close knit and oh so supportive community of cat enthusiasts producing some interesting and creative video content ... a few of whom were just starting to "takeoff". Things definitely went downhill and I think it's been much harder to make a living that way since the change.

How about when the mountain faces a colliding super mass of entangled and engulfed galaxies, twisting and tearing apart the very fabrics of its reality in several 100 million years.

See, you don't actually CARE about the mountain, you care about temporal genetic existence around that mountain. You're talking about a biosphere which thrives and will one leave this earth; leaving this earth to the inevitable and utter destruction of this mountain and every mountain in this galaxy.

Save the mountain? It's topography. It's not actually a thing as your human mind has convinced itself it is.

But from a practical perspective, considering my life and the life of my kin, the spirit of saving a mountain from evil humans appeals and is in my best interest. It just doesn't make sense from an ULTIMATE, universal perspective.

I don't know how people like Jimmy Fallon and his ilk (kind, warm, seemingly-genuinely friendly people) not only survive intact in the entertainment industry, but actually thrive. That whole field is comprised of so many of humanities worst people, it's almost like an intentionally designed systematic destruction of the human spirit. My experiences in the world have scarred me personally so much, I wish someone had told me, like they evidently told him, whatever the secret was to surviving in modern industry without letting it turn you into a terrible individual.

ExxonMobil had the Bush administration lobbying strongly to replace the chair of the IPCC with a more agreeable alternative, which we know about because of a leaked memo. So let us not pretend that the IPCC are above the skepticism of being politically influenced. The name "intergovernmental panel" says it all, in my opinion; i had assumed the I stood for Independent.

I don't apologise for not reading the entire thread because i noticed that in your first post you said the following, and it gave me cause to doubt your take on the science in the rest of the thread. I've been in too many discussions in which i spent hours researching only to find out people were completely wrong, and i spent 45 mins on your first paragraph already. Anyway here is the quote again:

"IPCC best estimates for 2100 are about 1.5 degree increase, so another hundred years and increase that is about twice as bad. Of course, it's twice as bad as what we saw the last 100 yeas and not only survived, but thrived under."

Firstly, the planet's flora and fauna have most certainly NOT thrived during that time. Humans have flourished by exploiting nature, so yes we have 'thrived'. In the same way that if i were to steal money from a dozen old ladies, i might say i was thriving even though i was out of work during the economic downturn. Pretty much every source agrees that the one thing the ecosystem is not doing is thriving - we are in or on the verge of the sixth mass extinction on the planet. So this is an inspiring yet futile "hurrah for us!" bravado that ignores the truth; we stand on the deck of a galleon around a big bonfire, ripping up planks and chopping up the boat, throwing it on the fire and going "we're all lovely and warm!" as we sit lower and lower in the water.

Secondly and in my opinion most significantly, according to the IPCC conclusions on page 8 you have used the term "best estimates" to mean "best case scenario" rather than "most reliable estimate" - which is why i have downvoted that comment, as it is misleading and incorrect. I would say it's cynically misleading, but i suspect you've lifted that from a cynical source rather than being cynical yourself.

I don't know if you realise, but you referred to only one result out of four, the rest of which strongly indicate a greater than 2 degree rise. Your reference is to RCP 2.6 which assumes CO2 emissions peak between 2010 and 2020. A decade in which the most populous countries on the planet are developing and a decade in which we must start to reduce global emissions so that we have a good chance of your best case scenario happening. We are already half way through it, and according to Mauna Loa observatory and every other source i could find (including EPA, NOAA and IEA) we are still increasing our CO2 emissions year on year including this year, where we've broken the 400ppm milestone, 120ppm greater than pre industrial times, half of which occured since 1980 (Pieter Tans).

So in fairness, you might have underplayed the IPCC report (which you seem to get almost all of your information from) in as much as newtboy might have overestimated the dangers and rapidity of climate change. I think you're out on a limb by telling him that the scientific community disagrees with him and he's using dodgy sources, when you've cherry picked one quarter of a conclusion from one source (the IPCC) to argue for your best case scenario which you refer to (unscientifically and incorrectly) as the "best estimate".

However, i do at least appreciate that despite your doubts (and in my opinion, slight confusion over the results, i don't think you're being intentionally misleading) you are very much behind changing our behaviour and using resources that are more appropriate... and that's what really matters right now is that people recognise the need to change.

@newtboy,
as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane.

More from charliem's article's abstract:
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.

The article he linked IS saying that they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets. They note this is a relatively unknown area as opposed to northern regions that emit methane. Charliem just didn't read the reference he pulled out at is it is counter evidence to his and your own statements.

As for your point:
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow
I never said anything about that, I said:
if we could magically remove all the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere
As in I was talking about not merely ending our emissions, but also sequestering and pulling out of the atmosphere all the CO2 lingering there from us over the last century as well. That's pushing CO2 concentrations back down from nearly 400 to under 300. Re-read my statements in the correct context and they'll make more sense.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now.
Again, context matters doesn't it? I'm describing how a person from 1915 would not look at our world today and wish they could go back to their time, end all CO2 emissions and avoid the catastrophic consequences we're suffering in 2015. If you want to talk about food distribution, your right and we've had problems with it forever. If you want to talk food production though, it's never been higher, if you go look at global agriculture output it's a steady increasing line as surely as the instrumental temperature record.

For the record, I absolutely state that the evidence throughout the entire instrumental record is a warming planet since records began in 1900. I absolutely state that the evidence is irrefutable that CO2 contributes to warming. I absolutely state the the evidence is irrefutable that we are raising global CO2 concentrations with our actions. Where I diverge from those like you is I do NOT see the scientific evidence declaring the results are catastrophic. It's simply not there to be found, in many cases it is in fact contrary to the limited evidence we DO have on it as well.

There MUST be a miswording there, or bold faced, outright lie.
As temperatures rise, frozen underwater methane (methyl hydrate)is melted and RELEASED, not trapped. Not only that, as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane. It's been happening for a while now, and is accelerating. Methane is FAR more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2, for longer times, so once this cycle takes off, we can expect exponential increase in the temperature rise.
It's POSITIVE feedback loop, not a negative one.
EDIT: Perhaps they mean when the Atlantic currents are disrupted and the lower ocean becomes colder...at that point it will have the ability to store more methane, but not the ability to capture it from the atmosphere since the upper ocean will be far warmer.
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow won't remove any in the atmosphere, it will be there for quite some time before it could be absorbed in the ocean/forests, and that time period extends daily as the ocean becomes more acidic (making it impossible for diatoms to use the CO2 to make their shells) and the forests are removed. Once the ocean stops absorbing CO2, even the amount naturally created will be far too much for the atmosphere, and temps/CO2 levels will still rise even if we produce absolutely none. The tipping point was in the 70s-80s when we could have stopped CO2 production and made a difference. Now, it's too late unless we find a way to trap CO2 and keep it trapped. The systems are quite slow to react.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now. The water shortage is becoming a bigger threat, and that's expected to increase exponentially as glaciers, snow packs, and aquifers rapidly disappear. Ocean harvests have drastically decreased, as have natural foods. We are thriving in the same way locusts 'thrive' when they swarm...but note that 99.9% of them die of starvation in the end.

0.8 degree increase in 100 years. We've come from the 1915 and WW1 days when cars and planes where futuristic dreams, and not dying from tetanus or basic infections was a major concern. Today 100 years later we are thriving by comparison, in spite of the 0.8 degree increased temperature. IPCC best estimates for 2100 are about 1.5 degree increase, so another hundred years and increase that is about twice as bad. Of course, it's twice as bad as what we saw the last 100 yeas and not only survived, but thrived under. It's a problem to be sure, but it's also no catastrophe either. Switching to electric cars within 20 years will reduce emissions alot and is likely inevitable no matter what. Adopting non-emitting power is possible today if people accept nuclear as France did years ago, and would be a good idea if we could only sell environmentalists on the idea. Barring that we are waiting another 20-40 years for alternatives like solar, wind and hopefully Fusion to undercut the costs of running on coal. That said, without any special moral or government mandate we should be cutting our CO2 emissions radically long before 2100 of our own accord.

Bottom line, don't panic, it's a manageable problem and we got this. In the last 100 years we've come from not having cars or planes or space craft or computers or modern medicine to taking all those things entirely for granted. It's really hard to say that 100 years from now our descendants will be crying for their inability to cope.

I came back when I saw @speechless's comment. She is exactly right. Ignore does not work. It is a poor substitute for moderation.

Ignoring only works if everyone does it...and possibly not even then. It only takes one person to take the bait to make a troll thrive. If everyone actually did ignore, then it's no different from booting the troublemaker so quit beating around the bush and just boot the troublemaker. One method shifts the burden on the community members who many have given up after seeing how ineffectual ignore is and left, the other method shifts the burden where it should be, on those who run the site.

This site has been going downhill for a long while now because problem members have not been kicked out. It has been noted that the #1 video now only requires 40-ish upvotes where in years past it needed over double that.

I think I even recall @lucky760 voicing his concerns about the continued existence of this site in Sift Talk a while back.

All it takes is a short glance at comment histories to see who is here to contribute to the community and who is here only to incite and rile up and do not contribute to civilized discourse. Most people who read this will know who I am referring to. Dissenting opinions are still required to back their points up. Simply dissent by itself doesn't make the viewpoint valid or else you've just lowered yourself to the level of youtube comments, at a minimum, ad hom attacks and the bigger more well known logical fallacies should not be tolerated.

A good community requires moderation. All the strong forum communities out there depend on moderation to lay down the law on a regular basis...not just when one feels like showing up on the site once every month or so.