It’s sounding like the consensus is these were Ukrainian fired air defense missiles fired at incoming Russian missiles. They may have been old Russian made missiles under Ukraine’s control.
As the pentagon has said, no matter what, the world understands that Russia bears responsibility, since they fired the initial missiles at civilian targets.
In response, the world has stepped up its support efforts for Ukraine, supplying more weapons and supplies.

By that logic, Newt, its back to caves and eating berries for everyone. And 7 billion people need to die to make planet Earth sustainable.

Everything civilization does is toxic in some way. Even living in caves was deadly, ask the Mammoths.

I like how youre taking everything responsibly but in this case you might be lumping too many things into one problem. If we strive for any progress at all we have to take risks.

Maybe the consensus will be that we cant handle the production problems and need to ban the poly stuff, but this video was not the compelling analysis that would even push me in that direction.

The effort to analyze the growing influence of the media maximizes the possibilities because of all functional resources involved. The certification methodologies that help us deal with the commitment between the teams, entails a process of reform and modernization information flow. Regardless of, perception of the difficulties can lead us to consider restructuring return expected long term. I would like to emphasize that the clear definition of objectives adds value to the establishment the desired indexes.

Above all, it is essential to point out that the growing influence of the media plays an essential role in shaping the desired indexes. We realized increasingly that an increased dialogue between the different productive sectors provides a better overview technique in the recycling investment.

We realized increasingly that the fair trial of eventualities provides a better overview return expected long term.

Above all, it is essential to point out that the challenging global scenario, ensures the contribution of an important group in determining postures of the governing bodies with regard to its responsibilities. We realized increasingly that an increased dialogue between the different productive sectors provides a better overview the preferred directions towards progress.

However, we must not forget that the consensus on the need for qualification promotes leverage postures of the governing bodies with regard to its responsibilities. All these questions, properly considered, raises doubts about whether an increased dialogue between the different productive sectors hinders the appreciation of the importance of all functional resources involved. The accumulated experience shows that the fair trial of eventualities encourages standardization normative rules of conduct. We can already glimpse the way the growing influence of the media adds value to the establishment the financial and administrative requirements.

Care to retract now that even the new U.N. report (along with all the other studies I linked) reportedly says almost exactly what I suggested....faster and higher sea level rise than previously predicted, likely above 3 ft by 2100, hundreds of millions of refugees, massive loss of sea life, loss of water for billions, droughts, floods, and diseases expected to drastically reduce the amount of food production world wide, etc....or are you going to continue to, head in the sand, ignore the scientific consensus to stand on the 5+ year old report that was lambasted by the scientific community as unbelievably optimistic when it was released?

Had you read the Forbes article (or the other links provided) you would know it was reiterating NOAA data and predictions, not making it's own.
But it's a waste of time to point out the science if you aren't willing to examine it.

I'm still in.

Ok...i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me.

Since, time and time again, the UN "collaborative summary" has had to be revised upwards, and recent measurements show current melting rates it claimed won't be seen until 2075 in Greenland, yes, I have a low opinion of their political/scientific consensus...but the scenarios I mentioned are not the most extreme I can find, just the most likely if you look at data rather than projections based on the conglomeration of incomplete, cherry picked, and non peer reviewed science as well as full scientific studies.

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute on a voluntary basis to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.
They are not the scientific community, they are an international political body chaired by an economist that makes suggestions hopefully based on real honest science, but not necessarily.


There is plenty of consensus that the IPCC estimates are low....NOAA gives up to a 2.5M rise estimate for RCP8.5...the no mitigation, business as usual model we are outpacing already. Based on their numerical system, we're looking at RCP 10+ because emissions are rising, not flatlined, certainly not lowering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#712580f03ba0

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

Thats the problem, they've abandoned the more adavnced rockets the thing was designed for - I think the general consensus is thet SpaceX's massive reusable rockets have made the whole design concept redundant already - its another Spruce Goose I'm afraid.

Guess what causes the most habitat destruction? Growing crops to feed FARM ANIMALS. This is not a vegan thing, it's scientific consensus amongst environmental scientists.

I'll again refer you to Dr. Richard Oppenlander speaking to the EU parliament if you care to find out more instead of just getting triggered.

the real life example were the Nazi hypothermia experiments --the consensus, last I checked, was that the data was not used.

Of course, the truly pointless unethical American study was Tuskegee syphilis progression to dementia sample of African American subjects after there was already a cure for the disease...among other, wildly unethical studies...

Well if you have 5 people in a room and 3 of them decide its morally acceptable to kill the other 2, that action would be moral under this theory. This is what some call a herd morality. If morality is by consensus then anything goes..you just need the correct number of people to believe it.

Most of the trash in the oceans comes from rivers. I read once that 90% of the plastic in the oceans comes from just 13 countries. This shocked me enough to look into it. The consensus seems to be that 80 to 95%(depending on your source) of all the trash in the oceans flows into the oceans from just 10 rivers, being all the major rivers of China, southeast Asia, plus the Nile and the Niger in Africa. However, that's trash in the oceans. This volume of garbage on the beach probably comes from locals using the beach as a dumping ground.

Newt,

A certain person, yeah -- but there have been others from time-to-time.

Look, everyone knows we're talking about Bob, and I don't want to throw rocks at the guy. FWIW, for all his faults, I believe he's not stupid and is probably capable of presenting something rational if he could just get past bomb-throwing. He's presented a video where someone tried to intellectually defend the views that he holds. It wasn't the strongest set of arguments ever, but it was better than the usual bullshit.

Here's the thing: I actually want to hear what the other side thinks and feels, both from the standpoint of empathy and curiosity. Maybe there's something to learn from people on the other side. But I can't do this when all they present is HURR BLURF HURR CUCK SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE SJW LOCK HER UP ETC.

I hold vanishingly little hope that any kind of consensus can ever be reached again in this country (and the microcosm that is VideoSift) again, but I'm willing to at least listen and try to do my part. That doesn't mean I won't call bullshit, but if someone on the Right is willing to speak their piece without resorting to Alt-Right (Far Right) games, I'm game for something better than the usual flame war.

That seems to be the current consensus. Sadly.

Fascinating. I can't help but feel a bit sad for the man. But there are some aspects of his testimony that leave me scratching my head:

"[T]he administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295

"Yet there is a growing consensus that Comey has wielded the powers of the directorship more aggressively than anyone since Hoover—to the consternation, and even anger, of some of his colleagues."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/james-comey-fbi-accountability-214234

"Mr. Comey got so many calls from former agents and others after he decided this summer not to pursue charges that he had to change his phone number posted online. And at a recent meeting with retired agents, he was still fielding tough questions about the decision."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-clinton-emails-james-comey.html

I think it's fair to say that Comey helped to create a "turbulent" atmosphere at the FBI during the past year, one probably not matched since the firing of William Sessions in 1993.

I wish someone had thought to ask him what he'd imagine the results of the "hopes, loyalty and leaks" would have been if he hadn't been fired.

SPD (Germany): 23%
PSOE (Spain) : 22.6%
SPÖ (Austria): 26%
PS (France): 10%
PvdA (Netherlnds): 5.7%

Those are just some of the latest election/polling results of social-democratic parties in continental Europe. Corbyn's Labour came in at 40.1%. Yet somehow, Corbyn (and Sanders) is painted as the destroyer of his party's electability.

Watch all the trolls come out of the woodworks again, after claiming for months and months that Corbyn would be the ruin of Labour. And keep track of all the hacks who will still maintain that neoliberal party apparatchiks are the only option to win elections. The mental gymnastics will be hilarious, and the smear campaigns against Corbyn will be even more ferocious. They cannot let anyone challenge the neoliberal consensus and get away with it.

Edit: https://twitter.com/TKMarx/status/873157244967432192