Runner here (at least before my knees decided enough's enough).

My road route took me past a house where a toy some-such-or-other breed routinely chased me and came close to nipping at my heels. One day my knees weren't the only thing that decided enough was enough. Stopped, turned around, looked at the pesky atom, and ROARED. I'd like to think I'm a kind guy, but in all honesty, the other option of trying to score a field goal on imaginary 40-yard uprights was a very very close second. Runners will understand.

Anyways, I didn't, but it was very satisfying to see that little pest leave a vapour trail on its way back to its old-lady owner, who tried to comfort it against the big bad normally harmless passerby.

Do NOT train your dog to do what these people did. Might look cute, but is not.

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.

Must be reeeal difficult to poop with all those nightsticks up yer butt.

Chill out, baby boy, it's comedy. Controversy is funnier than:

Good Cop - helps little old lady across the street.
Good Cop - spends hours accurately filing reports.
Good Cop - buys a few cups of lemonade from kid vendors instead of shutting them down for not obtaining the correct permits & licenses.

Oh wait, that last one.. See what i mean.

You never see cops doing the right thing since it too mundane. Fare cooler to see cops thumping on a thug screwing the common man.

Who wants to see a cop helping an old lady changing her tire.

Its like me and my boss. I only hear from him when I fuck something up. I only see my boss about 3 times a year. He does not care about the good stuff I do. That's my job I'm supposed to do it well.

I don't recall saying that, Genji, so if you could show me, I'd appreciate it. But I'm quite sure I never said racism is over...I do recall saying that until you get over your massive butthurt from what racism that does exist, that you will never succeed in life.

Is there sound on this video, because I think that is important.

In my experience, most perps won't just say 'yeah, i'm the one you're looking for', so you have to use some aggressive policing because people don't respond to the British method, not being British and all...

these cops are very brave to go into these projects and take out the criminals, who prey on old ladies, women, and other non-warrior types because they are a bunch of cowards....
example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE1LDR6QWjk
here's another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoBw4TmaMz0
another (believe these are all from NYC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp1q4kwgK_U

also, these cops are there to protect people from these cowards, so I think they deserve everyone's respect and support.

But if you support the criminal element, go ahead and try and brand cops as racist, bullies, liars, etc. It's good that people know where you stand.

It's all good---and thanks for explaining!
And she is cute, isn't she? and the accent doesn't hurt.
And it's a funny damn story (unless you're the old lady whose car she jumps into the back seat of...)

Um...are you joking? Hope so.
Yes, huge difference, but from your initial reaction, I thought it was likely you would ignore that difference, only seeing red when slightly inconvenienced. I mean, it might be a sprite old lady in the cow suit (EDIT: thinking about it, that would make an awesome case for drinking milk), or a fanatic little girl (see SIA videos).
I would hope you would not force me to feel the need, however if I see someone punch an old lady, rest assured they're going to leave the scene with fewer teeth than she has in her mouth, no matter what that costs me, right or wrong.

If black americans really do have any kind of tendency towards being poorly educated or poorly civilised, is it because they have only very recently been allowed to have any education or any part in civilisation. And i'm not necessarily willing to accept that premise, because there similarly plenty of white americans who are also extremely poorly educated and poorly civilised. I know that because i caught honey boo-boo on TV once. It doesn't help that your legal system is inherently racist as evidenced by the shocking prison statistics for black americans; whitey made sure that 'black people' crime is highly punishable and 'white people' crime isn't. Just listen to what this man has to tell you.

Your advice to someone who lives in bad area is "Buy a house in a nice area?" OMFG I NEVER THOUGHT OF THIS!!! Why don't starving people in third world countries just move house? Why don't people who live in warzones move? Why don't the Palestinians just move? Why don't isolated, terrified old ladies move out of dangerous apartment blocks and council estates? Why don't abused women just leave their husbands? Why don't abused children just run away and tell a policeman? Why don't .... you just shut the fuck up? Honestly, better to keep silent and have people think you're stupid and racist than to share your blindingly idiotic comments and remove all doubt.

They are born there, they can't afford to move, they are supporting family who live there (and can't afford to move), they can't get a job anywhere else, they can't go to school anywhere else, there's no one particularly educated amongst them to help them out? Any of the above and millions more reasons (that i don't know because i never experienced it, nor did you)?

Black people were treated like sub-humans, murdered in the street without comment and for no particular reason, beaten, tortured, forced to work, forced to fight, bred for strength and most of all.... kept in the fucking dark about everything, because stupid slaves are easier to control.

Generation after generation of being bred for work traits; intelligence systematically discouraged. So anyone who's around now was raised by people who were raised by people with no education, property or hope through no fault of their own. Add to that inherent racism as explained CLEARLY to you by this video. So the black people today are a product of their environment. And in a way, that excuses you for being a disgusting, poorly-educated, ignorant racist because the apple never falls far from the tree... and you're not worth any more of my time.

It is quite funny because the guy on the video, the so called 'priest' is one of the most twisted and unchristian leaders of the polish roman-catholic church. He is a businessman who begs old ladies like these, to send him their last money. He is a cynical hunter of 'jews' and 'anti-poles', whose sole purpose seems to be getting more money. He should be removed from the church, because he pushing it even beyond what catholic church normaly does, but he has such a fanatical following, that it is possible that he would start his own church. Number of followers possibly in tens of thousands, mostly poor people from the smaller cities and villages, older people, generaly people who feel forgoten and cheated by the system. He has a radio station, a tv station, a school - all catholic, tons of money etc. etc. The tv logo is his tv.

tl;dr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Rydzyk#Controversies

Harassment is a bad thing, but I feel very sorry for anyone that does not engage in general pleasantness, and finds phrases like "how are you?" and "nice day!" to be a form of harassment. Worst still, to chastise and publicly present them as harassers on youtube .. what sort of lowlife do you have to be to do that? I don't care how many actual harassers you caught, that is not an acceptable method so put the net away and get the fishing rod out.

I say things like hello, nice day.. And if i'm in a queue and i think of something to say that i think someone might find funny or help someone out, i'll say it. I don't expect a reply, but if there's a fun person around then it might pass the time better. I asked someone of the female persuasion at my pool the other week if they were looking for the sauna (slightly hidden away) because i heard her talking to what i assume was her husband about the sauna. I do that for old men, old ladies, fat blokes, skinny women; all sorts.. i offer men and women help out of the jacuzzi if they need it. Her reaction was to say "No..... WHY?" very pointedly.

Well you know what? Fuck her - i did something nice and now she's the one that's being rude to others. I cannot fucking stand the high and mighty attitude of these people, as though they have never been guilty of accidentally doing something other people didn't want them to do. As though they have an inbuilt capability to read the motive of other people. Obviously i offered to explain the location of the sauna because i wanted to have sex with her in it (yeah, sex in a disgusting public sweat box & burnt genitals, my favourite), god forbid someone actually be nice to someone else. I felt like being rude back, but that'd make me worse than her.

There is a very fine line between being an activist against harassment, and being an unhinged arsehole who goes around over reacting and getting the wrong end of the stick and hurting people who were showing genuine honesty. I'm so sorry if you've been harassed in the past, but you don't see victims of domestic abuse blaming everyone that looks/talks at them funny in the street for all the pain they've suffered - which is substantially more painful and personality-warping than the average activist blogger jumping on the "trigger-warning" bangwagon.

Harassment exists and this blanket of "harassment" that these videos engender for all sorts of shit is distracting us from that issue, and to some degree turning people against the issue..... I mean, if i get unfairly treated like a scumbag for years by "mostly" women who assume i'm harassing them, do i get license to make videos about it and complain about women as a whole, judging every action of every woman to be one of harassment because of my own insecurities? That's why these kind of videos are so poorly received @EMPIRE.. the majority of the content is the videographer sneering at people for being pleasant and exchanging niceties, why should people laud that kind of behaviour? I expect that behaviour to be discouraged by women as well and i'd forgive them for taking more notice of the fewer examples of harassment than i did, because opinions are a bit selfish by nature.

And i didn't even question the validity of the supporting cast..... I'm sure Rob Bliss (OF ROB BLISS CREATIVE DOT COM EVERYBODY FAVOURITE AND LIKE PLS) would have no desire to help make this video more interesting! I quote his own philosophy here from his website, he believes in "giving people the content that they want." Interestingly worded remit... Why does no one ever question the source if it's a "reality" video? The guy practically states in his "approach" section that he aims to pander to people, he doesn't want to challenge viewer opinion...

Walloftext, sorry, but i don't like the sentiment of this video, and i will not let people in the comments tell me that i am a bad person for doing so - these are my reasons.

Yeah I think they both make pretty intelligent points on profiling. It is silly to check little old ladies and toddlers, but it would be inflammatory if only Muslim men were singled out (not that they don't have better reason to be inflamed than airport inconvenience). Still, if we exempted the least threatening 30% of travelers I don't think the other 70% would feel outraged by that.

You did say it's fine, but also said you don't need any. I think it should be mandatory at least once each time cops are forced to use force.
That's a distinction that may have been lost. Your explanations often sound like excuses. You should perhaps be more clear that they are not, and you may garner less animus.
I do understand courts aren't 100% perfect at justice, but they are fairly good at being more impartial than the average cop on the street. If force is used against someone, but a case can't be made against them, there was no reason OR excuse of the force, it was 'jumping the gun'.
I also said that the <5% of inappropriate contact outweighs the >95% appropriate contact. Like I said, if 95% of the time a person takes good care of little old ladies, that won't excuse or explain them spending the other 5% raping children. Good does not excuse bad. 20 goods do not equal -1 bad. If only .01% of police contact is violently inappropriate, that's 0.01% too much, and if all the other cops protect those inappropriate cops, they'll all be colored the same. If cops would police themselves and turn on bad cops instead of being 'team players', I (for one) would not have issues with the entirety of them, only the bad few.

If that's honestly the extent of your use of force, and they all were proper arrests on people who were also resisting (you only said one of them was resisting), and those you brandished at were armed and violently resisting, that sounds acceptable, but totally abnormal. I would guess that not all those you brandished at were armed threats.
EDIT:A good question....was every suspect you used force against convicted? If not, it seems you made a mistake and were a violent assailant to an 'innocent citizen' yourself, no? If there's no repercussion for those kinds of 'bad acts', how do you know it's wrong? (I'll answer, it seems you don't.)
My experience has been that cops brandish their weapons at anyone they think may be criminal, including those only guilty of 'contempt of cop', like me when a cop read my license plate wrong and assumed the car was stolen, so he violently threw me to the ground at gunpoint and violently handcuffed me (as tight as he could make them go) and acted like a douchebag bully until he realized his mistake. (I followed all his directions to the T without pause but was still treated like I was resisting.) Then there's no apology, in fact he said something more like 'You know why I did that, now go on your way or I'll find something else to arrest you for, and don't think about making a complaint, I know where you live now.' That's only one instance in my life out of many where cops did not act properly, due to no fault of my own. (I was not intimidated by his threat and did make a formal complaint anyway.)

That's 3 shootings (maybe 2 were the same cop?). It sounds like one may have been improper, shooting someone in the back is usually not acceptable, unless he had just been shooting at the cop and turned to run just before being shot, or was running at someone else that needed protecting. If he was not an immediate threat to someone, there was no reason to shoot him in the back rather than track him until he could be safely arrested.
It seems you have a problem understanding our position. We understand that 95% of interactions with cops are done properly and often respectfully. That does not excuse the other 5% by any means, just as it does not excuse someone from committing murder if they were a fine, upstanding citizen otherwise. Get it? It only takes one bad act to erase all your good acts. That's the way of the world. You can't say 'Yeah, I raped that 6 year old, but come on guys, I take good care of little old ladies the rest of the time, so it's fine.'. That doesn't play, neither does 'Most of the time we're good cops, so we should get a pass for those 'rare' times when we are terrible thugs and violent criminals.'
EDIT: It's not only deadly force that is inappropriately applied. You don't have to end up murdering the citizen to have acted inappropriately violent. I hope I'm not telling you something you don't know, only pointing out something you ignored.
The fact that you don't seem to think mandatory counseling is appropriate for those in 'authority' that have failed in their job (to protect citizens) and resorted to using force against citizens (yes, I consider that a fail, there's nearly always another option) is bothering. As I explained, it leaves you feeling it's 'us VS them' (which has been shown to be your mindset from your past comments) and that's terrible for someone in authority to think. I think you need counseling to fix that mindset, and find it troubling that you might disagree (yet are still in a position of power).

Cops DO NOT always assume someone is armed and dangerous. That's why they get killed so often. Someone comes in to file a report, you don't assume they are armed and dangerous. Little old ladies...not armed and dangerous. Children...not armed and dangerous. Wives of bikers...not armed and dangerous. Shoplifters....not armed and dangerous.

Guy runs a stop sign...you don't assume he is armed and dangerous. But you have to be aware that the possibility exists. Too many cops have paid the ultimate price for not watching the hands.

Of course, sometimes you are wrong. You can find a video of a shoplifter being detained in Russia...he pulls out a gun and shoots 4 people.

As for pepper-spraying people...I carried pepper spray for 30 yrs, never used it.

If a cop is using it on 'non-violent' protesters sitting in the street, it's because his supervisor said 'clear the street, cars have to move through here'. See...because you've already told 20 people to move out of the street and guess what...they didn't do it.

As for being treated violently by other cops, the reason cop's families don't get treated violently is because they generally don't make meth in their kitchen, they don't engage in violent domestic arguments, etc.

The iCade is WAY WAY better, bigger screen, Arcade stick and buttons,, MUCH cheaper, AND DOESN'T LOOK LIKE AN OLD LADIES MAKEUP BOX