@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.

Wait, wait, wait

@charliem,

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this as I can't get to the full body of the article you linked for methane, but here's the concluding statement from the abstract:
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.

Now, unless there is a huge nuanced wording that I'm missing, sinks in this context are things that absorb something. A methane sink is something that absorbs methane. More over, if the sink is enhanced by warming, that means it will absorb MORE methane the warmer it gets. So it's actually the opposite of your claim and is actually a negative feedback mechanism as methane is a greenhouse gas and removing it as things warmers and releasing it as things cool is the definition of a negative feedback.

The sacredness of life is subjective, which makes it a useless measure.

A Palestinian mother thinks her son's life is priceless, an Israeli mortar team don't even consider it. An American husband thinks his wife's life is sacred, the terrorist that blows up the plane she is on does not.

Think about the dispassionate way we regard yearly statistics on road fatalities or death due to chronic disease. Do we weep our hearts out for every one of those deaths? Of course not, those lives have no worth to us beyond the abstract "fellow human being". They don't really bother us emotionally because we have almost no care for them.

If life is only subjectively sacred, then it's not really sacred at all...

The people that picket abortion clinics are the same ones that vote down social support mechanisms to promote and enhance people's lives. Life is so sacred that they oppose things that would make the live far more worthwhile living...

I'd say "ironic" but it's not surprising in the least.

How so? If anything, it means gay people can normalize into family units, rather than choosing paths of rebellion against their families.

I've never understood your path of logic. The only thing I can imagine you mean is... well, sort of what this video is poking fun at. Gay marriage does not convince heterosexual people to be gay, nor does it convince them to somehow give up on the concept of the family unit.

Have you even really thought this out beyond some abstract belief that somehow *gasp* through the process of natural selection, we slowly EVOLVE into homosexuals... Is that what you're trying to say? That the hardwired heterosexual drive in some humans will fade out, sort like how eventually all white people will be gone because of all the Mexican and Chinese immigrants in America?

Who knew that the our final step in evolution is the break down of the family unit via gay marriage. I guess that means no more babies. Is this the end of the world God predicted for us? Gay marriage apocalypse!!

I'd genocide all IP if such a feat were possible. Tyler Durden has gotta be kickin around somewhere in the collective unconscious.

If there is such a force, be it far future grey goo or gods that dwell within or without, I dedicate the abstract concept of my fictitious soul to the undoing of all corporate power.

Corporations are people and their IP is what? The thoughts within its brain? Well, I'd murder one or all so easily. Prey on their greed.

As the datum of my prayer festers in the digital realm, my only desire is for vengeance. I will rise from within the 1s and 0s, Viggo the Carpathian style.

Seems as though she's paraphrased Feynman's video.

Instinctively, I know it's a reflection. What is closest to the plane of the mirror on one side will appear closest to the plane on the refection. We don't flip horizontal or vertically, we reflect. What is on our right stays to the right, and what is left, stays to to the left.
I love Feynman, and I can listen to him for hours. but I didn't need his discussion to understand it either.

From a scientific point of view, I suppose it's good to lay it out. A solid foundation is the best thing to build off of, and finding the words to describe seemingly abstract ideas is always a challenge. This one was easy, but I know they get harder.

I agree with you, but to me it would still be more interesting if the power of the one ring was manifested in some more concrete way.

I guess that in general Tolkien wasn't big on allegory, which is why he looked down on interpretations of his work where people assume that the ring is a symbol for "atomic energy", or "technology" or "industry" or whatever. So, from his point of view it is probably better to make the ring more abstract. But, I still think that personally, I get more out of viewing the one ring as sort of an allegory for "power" in general, and the corrupting influence of that power. So, even though I know that your interpretation is correct to what Tolkien had in mind, I like to read his books with my own spin on things in that way.

i am with @ChaosEngine on this one.

his "short skirt" analogy,from an absolute moral standpoint is correct.

so i am reading most of these comments in the abstract:"while it is a shame how you were raped and those men are deplorable and vicious...you REALLY should not have gone out wearing that skirt".

and as @entr0py noted,it comes across as mysoginistic.

was that the intent?
probably not,but it does explain chaos becoming so frustrated with this thread.something that should be self-evident is being buried under good intentions and a healthy dose of double standards.

as for this being her "revenge"...
i dont see it as revenge but rather as her recapturing her dignity and self-determination.

basically..fuck the haters.
and on that note i say "well played miss holten,well played".

It's like if you watched a cow get shot in the head, carved up and then served to you on a plate. You might be like "I'm gonna eat this timidly".

If you just walk in to a restaurant, totally abstracted from the process and a juicy hunk of meat is presented to you. You just dive right in.

If this water just came out of your tap and it was clean, tasteless and deemed healthy. Few days and you'd totally forget where or how it got there.

That statement is really a reflection of your own cognitive dissonance.

Chomsky doesn't pontificate about right/wrong or problems.

He's describing the applied game theory present in society.

If you think that's 'bad', then that's your own personal judgment of the matter.

Like 'the prince', his message is a conveyance of the relationship between intelligent actors manipulating perceptions, and intelligent actors acting on perceptions.


Imagine a fish seller, with too many fish. The fish will go bad soon if he does not sell them quickly.
Should he :

A) Ask people to buy more fish, before they go bad, please.

B) Go speak with the distributor that's buying fish from the fisherman and get him to spread the rumor that there is an incoming fish shortage.

(A) may be honest, but (B) will sell faster and for higher prices.

The idea is not to get what you want the most direct way - the idea is to get what you want the most efficient way.
You can be direct about getting what you want, or you can give people information that makes them come to a conclusion for themselves that makes them do what you want.
More abstractly : If it takes less energy to 'persuade' than to 'do for yourself', then use information to 'get people to do for you'. Let others spend their time and resources for you, and save your own.


Politically, this means ruling not by telling citizens what you want, but ruling by nurturing an environment where the media provides information that makes citizens ask for what you want of their own volition.
Then you aren't telling citizens what to do, you're merely obliging their wishes. You not only avoid appearing overbearing (which is not sustainable on account of eventual public disdain) - you actually appear obliging (which is perpetually sustainable).


If you want examples in an a-political environment (if in fact the political backdrop is foiling your ability to take the message in an impartial manner), you should look at Boyd's OODA loop and the Conceptual Spiral.

Analysis, synthesis, etc, etc, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_fjaqAiOmc&index=8&list=PLDB0DF43AA0B67552
http://www.iohai.com/iohai-resources/destruction-and-creation.html

Related matters :

Game theory (life/politics/economics is a game)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Lo2fgxWHw
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lro-unCodo

Persuasion (use tools [real or perceived] to apply influence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw

*keep in mind that "from the responder's perspective" there is no difference between you doing X, or the responder thinking you did X - because in both cases the responder is acting on his personal perception of what happened (be it real or not).

-scheherazade

@A10anis
i do not understand why chomsky confuses you so easily.you pretty much have the same criticism on every video you watch of him.

his premise is fairly consistent and self evident:he is critical of power.

while i do not disagree with your assertions on personal responsibility and i suspect most people would agree with you on that point.i do not see chomsky making an argument against personal responsibility.so your point in that regard is moot.but to ignore massive monied and powerfully influential political and corporate institutions and their affects on society is naive' at best and venal at worst.

you appear to be made uncomfortable by the criticizing of the power structure and institutions of the west (i do not know where "here" is for you).which suggests to me that you have confused ideology with reality,made clearer by your suggestions:
1.taking advantage of an education system that more and more translates to debt peonage and a high percentage of not even working in the field utilizing that education.
2.free thought.
ok i have to admit this one made me giggle.
everybody has free thought but the irony here is relevant to the very video on how that thought is manipulated and your comment reveals in ironic delicousness.
3.certain rights.
yes we do have certain rights.rights that have been systematically chipped away at due to abstract wars on:terror,drugs,immigrants etc etc.rights are becoming more a suggestion than actual rights.

your conclusion has the suggested flavor that since chomsky benefited in this society that he should just shut up,sit down and behave like a good little boy,and that those who admire his courage to criticize the most powerful country on the planet are "followers".

since you do watch the videos of chomsky( you do watch them dont you?),yet have the exact same criticism every time,maybe it is time you actually read one of his books?
just an idea...
you may find much of your confusion in regards to chomsky will be clarified.

NOMA as in how Dawkins criticises NOMA?

I think there's a subtle distinction between what NDGT is saying and NOMA, which is that i don't think he suggested that any religion should be given the position to present what they know as fact. He seemed to suggest that the American physicists he knows, if they are shall we say 'spiritual' then they are spiritual in a more open sense than being classed as any particular religion. Perhaps in the sense that they see no reason for there NOT to be different realities or even that the universe is not a part of something else. In that way they may be open to spirituality even if just in a general well-being sense, and use religious texts as interesting moralistic tales. If you believe in the possibility of something greater than yourself and that it is abstract and unlike anything we can imagine, then you could use the christian god as a 'good enough' placeholder, even though you believe in the physical universe as being separate to 'god'.

At the end of the day, no matter how cutting Dawkins can be, he himself knows that you can't prove anything about this god or that god, and ultimately anything to do with why there is this reality nor what any alternative might be. He's just a guy with opinions about how this place works too, and he's certainly not the smartest of us to ever have been.

Might you be putting too much focus on the (i think facetious) comment that it teaches how to go to heaven not how the heavens go? I think, or rather hope, that he was trying to say that there's no way to tell one way or the other, but he can understand why people feel comforted by it, why some people are moved by their own unique experiences to feel that way. Also that you can say you subscribe to something even whilst you hold your own completely modified version of it according to what you experience in this reality!

There is. Lactose intolerance is the norm for adult mammals. Humans who come from dairy-heavy cultural backgrounds are an exception.

This study focuses on humans, but it tells you this right in the abstract.

You're right that a tiny squirt of whipped cream isn't going to hurt, but I don't see the point in getting them interested in it in the first place. I wouldn't want to train them to seek out something that's going to make them sick if I'm not there to control portions.

Cures Brain Cancer
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/abs/6603236a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11479216
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/17/6475.abstract
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/308/3/838.abstract
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/1/90.abstract
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/61/15/5784.full
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/16/5617.full

Two days of great weather motivated me to pick up Naomi Klein's new book, Capitalism vs The Climate.

A mere ~160 pages in, I'm inclined to say that it's even more thought-provoking than The Shock Doctrine.

The early chapters include some digressions into the psychology behind climate change denial, at least with regards to its extreme forms within the US. I'll refrain from posting my own interpretation of her conclusion.

In any case, her reasoning is highly convincing to me, which made it all the more disturbing when I tried, and subsequently failed, to come up with a set of arguments to challenge this particular psychological/cultural root of absolute denial. It never occured to me to consider the enormous ramifications a step away from denial would have, given a certain cultural background...

Well, that was awfully abstract, so let me present my tl;dr:
If you haven't done so already, get the book -- it's right up your alley.