Expecting perfect prediction from an observational science of a chaotic system is hardly reasonable. Back in the 1890s it was predicted warming would follow the emissions. Limited in the kind of experiments they can do - climate scientists are bound to err.

It's not 'alarmists' saying the heat is being trapped in the deep oceans. At least not exclusively. It is an observed fact that there is more heat energy entering our system than is leaving it. This leaves some possibilities:

1) Our observations of heat flow are incorrect to a significant degree.
2) The laws of thermodynamics are nonsense
3) The heat is trapped somewhere on earth.

Without reason to suppose 1) and being able to reject 2) out of hand, we're left with 3). And from there, where is it? The classic answers would be

a) atmosphere
b) biosphere
c) cryosphere
d) hydrosphere
e) lithosphere

Some scientists proposed d) as an answer. This is at least partially true, the fist km or so of ocean is warming. It was hard to get measurements of the global deep ocean temperatures, it was hypothesized that some heat was down there.

Maybe they're wrong, and maybe the heat is somewhere else. This is the joy of science: the capacity to falsify ideas, even popular ones. But the heat is very likely here, and until we find it, it might be said to be 'hiding'. It may be that there is more heat going somewhere we thought we'd accounted for already such as 'the cryosphere'.

It's not happening at the litho-atmosphere boundary so much right now (the 'hiatus'), but that leaves plenty of stones to explore. It's still happening, and we're breaking post industrial temperature records almost annually (2014 looks like it'll be the new hottest year).

That's true for a post industrial POV.
When machines already exist, and you just need energy to get things moving.

The energetic concerns of bygone eras were :
Whale oil, and later kerosene. For lighting. (note: back then, a day's work would only buy minutes of light)
Firewood, and later coal. For heating.
Manpower was the only energy user when it came to food production.

Early machines such as the combine were horse drawn, and did not need an energy architecture in place. (ignoring "food" as an energy)

Later machines used steam power, and hence could piggy back on the already existing wood/coal energy architecture (in turn stimulating it to grow larger).

Once the machinery industry was established, and the revenue generation was in place, it was possible to invest in improvements and alternative energies - ultimately leading up to oil burning machinery being common.

In any case, historically, industrialization drove the energy industry. (As it should, why have an industry to produce a product (energy) that isn't needed?)
And industrialization depended on a conducive society. A place where an inventor could own his invention, and could sell it, allowing things that were no more than ideas or garage trinkets to transition into products - which in turn place demand on other resources such as [forms of] energy.

In the past, there was nothing, so everything was build from the ground up. Industries grew out of nothing, they weren't established up front.
Modern times are different, where you have investment capital from entities who's entire existence revolves around investing, and you can front the establishment of an industry in the calculated hope of future demand.
(Granted, lords/aristocrats had a hand in industrial investment. Just not the kind or scale that you can see today.)

What you say applies a bit later, when industrialization was already well under way. Like when Thomas Edison used investment capital to fund power plants and an electrical network, in order to power the first [practical, but not 'first'] light bulb in New York.

-scheherazade

I noticed you put your dual barrel 1911 video in metal. metal is not for actual "metal" it is for metal MUSIC -

" For all things metal, including sub-genres, can be found in metal sift.

No rock and roll. No soft rock, or rock of any kind.

Gothic, Doom, Heavy, Thrash, Speed, Death, Black, New, Post,Industrial, Symphonic, Operatic, Power, Viking, Folk, Extreme, Viking,MetalCore and many others can all find a home here.


Now stop reading this, and mosh. "


yea its pretty stupid of a channel name, It depicts actual METAL not metal music.... But I wanted to let you know so you can "Modify details" under the title and change the channel assignments yourself.

** edit- let me express that again, IT IS A COMPLETELY STUPID CHANNEL ANNOTATION THAT DEPICTS WHAT THIS CHANNEL IS ABOUT... Jackass'

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that
We can make your dream of universal taxpayer-funded health care come true! I'll be counting on your support when the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare.
It'll be you, me, and Dennis Kucinich out there yelling for single payer, and getting shouted down by Ron Paul and all the rest of the libertarian and conservative movements who want to make sure we let people die if they can't pay for the treatment they need.

How are those cherries tasting you've been picking?

Wait, you didn't really mean it? My heart is broken.
Does this mean you'd let him die if he couldn't pay?
I'm just asking if failure to pay for a service means you shouldn't get that service, no matter how dire your need for it is. If we were talking about someone buying cherries, you wouldn't be dodging the question, you'd be pretty steadfast in saying "you don't pay, you don't get cherries", because that's what the law of property demands.
Well, substitute "life-saving medical treatment" for cherries. Do the laws change, or do they stay the same?
PS: How do you like them apples cherries!


I don't think we should have compulsory healthcare. I think in a post-industrialized free nation we should have something better. But that would require the government getting out of healthcare altogether and letting the free market care for people. I understand that scares most of you.

But he's right that churches and hospitals used to care for people. Then sometime in the '60s (pardon me for being too tired right now to research it and find links) government got involved and it all went to shit. They got involved and started telling people how healthcare should be run. How doctors and physicians could care for people. And who could and couldn't give treatment. Also it's government's fault we tend to get health insurance through our work, which drives up costs. Again, I apologize for not getting you links, but maybe some other time. Tired and it's dinner time.

Now we have big corporate health insurance companies that are more of the problem. They get away with murder. Pun intended. I'd like to see the entire thing reformed, but not your one-size-fits-all-steal-peoples-money-to-fund-it way.

ive been having an ongoing discussion with my friend, a teacher, throughout his years in grad school. we email back and forth about his classes, i help him write and edit his papers, and he lets me read his textbooks when hes finished with them.

one of his most interesting classes hes had to date is something like the history of education in the republic.
the public school system was created, not to educate and enlighten the masses, but to create a literate post industrial revolution workforce and to instill patriotism. not much has changed. the goal is still to grow people to happily fuel the work force, and of course, to instill patriotism. not to teach you to think outside of the box, not to encourage creativity, not to inspire future problem solvers; simply to fill available positions to keep the economy going and with the shift out of factories and into walmarts, we need to grow alot of little consumers to buy all the shit were selling at our jobs.

and now of course, universities bring lots of jobs to communities, so weve had to dumb those down alot too so that everyone can go to college. it was not meant for everyone to go to college. and now that we think it is, the classes are grossly dumbed down and filled with all the morons you went to high school with. and now you need a fucking a bachelors degree to work in retail.

Comrade,

Good to have a discussion. I'll try to keep this up with ya, but I'm kinda busy
Lets duel

>> ^griefer_queafer:
Point is, isn't this just merely self-regulation?

Suppose that the leaders pay attention to scientific findings, and they realize that things have to change. Yes, the ‘insurance’ is a form of self-regulation for capitalism to increase industry and corporate markets. But, as is typical of a capitalist, they are trying to make a business out of saving the planet, at the risk of millions of lives.
My friend, Corporations are merely the bourgeoisie in a new form. Corporations are merely organized institutions to serve bourgeoisie interest, an interest in gaining capital.
The regulation is not a true regulation, however. What they are doing here is selling an idea of ‘regulation’. True regulation would be addressing all the points in our economic systems and finding the ‘open systems’ and making them a ‘closed system’, in the permaculture sense. Reduction of waste. Control of production to meet the needs, not the wants. We don’t need to produce thousands of cars that will never get sold solely for the insane and desperate hope that they somehow could.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Please respond to this question: what if 'growth' as it occurs today, also occurs concomitantly with POSITIVE effects to the planet?
Also, please make 'growth' relevant to our neo-capitalist moment.

neo-capitalist? In what ways have we moved beyond the worker? Are you to tell me that an office worker is not alienated in the cubicle? Are you to tell me that the the sweatshop labor in china, Indonesia, India, etc are not workers? Are you to tell me that nowhere on the planet, workers are paid in slave wages with the boss reaping profit off surplus value? Are you to tell me that workers control their hours, control their pay based on labor and the value of the product?

I think you have some tarnished definitions. Corporations are the logical outcome of Capitalism. Corporations operate on capitalist principles. We do not live in a post-industrial society. Manufacturing and productive have increased substantially, less workers are needed for high-tech facilities, but in the United States and other developed Imperialist countries, we don’t see the worker. We are alienated from them, and we exist as fragmented consumers. We are needed to buy these products so this economy and corporations can continue to exist. Neo-capitalism? Perhaps, but capitalism nonetheless. The changes aren’t as substantial as it may seem. Things have just become harder to see in post-modernism.
So what’s growth?
Destruction of the natural environment, say, the Amazon, for cattle ranches. Increased production to meet an increased demand. This is unsustainable, because Capitalism favors the increased demand. What do corporations want Americans to do? Consume. BUY BUY BUY. This is all very obvious. We see it everyday. Hell, just look at Christmas. Where do the resources come from to make these products and where do they end? We take it from the earth and it winds up in a dumpster or landfill. The resources aren’t returned, there is no equal exchange, energy is wasted in the inefficiency of our system.
Paper pulp released into the rivers. Environmental damage of the Niger River Delta for the oil, with acid rain so powerful it eats the tin-roofs of the shacks were the local villagers live. People that live on that land that don’t get ANYTHING from the energy companies except the corporate hired gunmen to maintain a ‘favorable business climate'. How then, is this 'favorable bussiness climate' POSTIVE for the planet? Its not positive for the planet or for any of us.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Why is it a short term goal if the idea is to fundamentally change the ways in which 'growth' affects the planet?


But they aren’t trying to fundamentally change anything. They want the Maldives to go under so they can sell them the fucking life rafts! Capitalists/Corporations don’t give a shit about the mass amount of human suffering that will occur. They just want to maintain their profit margin, seize the planets resources, privatize everything, and maintain control over the worker. You are a worker, I am a worker. Even intellect and academia is a commodity that is bought and sold. We are the proletariat. We have a boss, we don’t control our hours, our labor is sold for surplus value, at the cost of our liberties and our security on this planet.

bf: I have to disagree, microgeneration, such as small/mid scale distributed wind and solar, already beats nuclear.

We in the post industrial world are so obsessed with the concept of "economies of scale" that we fail to realize that it does not apply to electrical generation. If you waste 50-70% of the energy you generate to move power hundreds of km down wires, the 20% you saved with "economy of scale" get you nowhere.

It makes far more sense to allow everyone to generate their own power, sell excess back to the grid at market value(instead of subsidizing the large facilities at the expense of small/local), and pay the energy monopoly to maintain the infrastructure through a flat tax(edit: per/km) on power transfer.

The line loss will be much lower. The chance of catastrophic failure falls through the floor. The chance of collusion, such as the California blackouts which were created in order to change public policy effectively disappears. And with the added benefit that one large monopoly gets downsized to what is in effect a government office managing infrastructure on a fixed budget.

i would have sead the chav originates from Yorkshire area.

as for all this controversy it would be nice if thay interviewed the kids that made it so people know there intentions before thay go mental over it. personally i think its just reflective of the fact that u still have toffs and chavs in england both groups don't really contribute much positive to society.

chavs arise from not having monny and living in a pore post industrial environment always failing back on state benefit.

toffs arise from having to much money living in a compleaty comfortable enviroment where thay can always fall back on there parents money.

Evan though likely unintentional this clip dose highlight the fringe classes of english soicity so i think its good.

Perhaps while legalizing all drugs in their purest forms, while simultaneously making all prescription controlled substances obsolete through right living and thinking.....folks who have never programmed their bodies to rely on sugar, for instance, become ill if they eat too much.....same with antidepressant addicts.....seen folks tolerances that were violently scary...same dose, would put some in an emergency room...and WHY again is it that anti-depressants were developed and manufactured???...why were there more heroin addicts in the US after the civil war?? Pain-killer addiction, morphine, heroin.....fast forward to now, we traded drugs that have been here since Methusela's day, for some pay-to-the-man, legal addictive synthesized shinola that renders the post-industrial prole, a simpering, passive-aggressive, robot.....HAH! the prospect of the alternative to the republican party in the US's next go-round, make ya wanna just scream from yer spaceship, -Silly, pathetic humans, soon you will meet your own insanity head-on!!.....(got any popcorn???let's watch that shit!!)

Election 08' vote same, vote lame, pick the most-used, paid-for name, just make sure, it don't say it's the same....red team blue team, rah rah rah..

(damn, did we vote yet???)

high post-industrial art.....the childhood in cultures on the decline, see changes daily....