The list of possible covariates or confounders is unknown and practically infinite for climate. Weather - anything beyond three days is guesswork, climate - more complicated.

Science is about repeatability (and disprovability), and it is true, correlation can provide false repeatability. You sure win that one. Correlation can be a good lead sometimes to find real relationships, but you cant base science solely on correlation.

"If we assume the risks are real" - (sigh) just dont assume. Also I would not speculate about future risks, the current situation is already bad enough to warrant action. The conflation of climate science and economic science worries me deeply, having a degree in the latter. Pollution is not an economic benefit/cost, it is a side-effect, it becomes a cost only if it is artificially designated as one ("taxed") and is better dealt with not by incentives, but by strict "safety" regulations of technology. Economic subjects can deal with pollution taxes with economic tools, rather than change of technology.

Like the ozone hole, the hype alone, or economic measures, would not have stopped people from using sprays. "Safety" legislation and the induced introduction of an alternative technology did.

Hype will generate irrational responses.

Given how politics works goverments go after soft targets only, unless pressured. What should be hyped are not dire predictions of the future but A) polluters and what can be done about them and B) implementation of new technologies that replace polluting ones (thats where tax breaks can help).

Mine are tiny and soft, and sometimes liquidy.

*quality 'My Guy' ... firm/soft Mr. Nobody

*related=http://videosift.com/video/WERD-What-The-F

*related=http://videosift.com/video/WERD-The-Lesser-of-Two-Evils

Yep, that puzzled me too. Note that the pipes are covered with ice and snow, and the tie downs are cutting grooves (circumferential) into the pipe you reference but not the lower one on the right hand side, so something "soft" there - I ascribed the marks to perhaps lifting or handling cut into the snow and ice that seems to be stuck fairly well on that joint. Perhaps different cladding, though looking end on before things start to move shows fairly clearly that there is some form of coating on the pipes (why can't everybody just use the same 323 Scotchkote color and keep things simple). If you have a look after the first big shift at 1:05, you can find a clear frame where the end on view of the same pipe doesn't appear to have any layer beyond the assumed coating (ie. no 2x4's) and much of the snow / ice has been shaken off (another clear frame around 1:09). Normally if they're stacking coated pipe, even a full joint, two or three bands of heavy polypropylene rope (1" - 2" diam) with the ends hot melted together to make a single hoop keeps the pipes from scuffing one another in transport. But then again, there's nothing normal about how this load was built, so anything's possible I guess. Cheers.

Lol. This video is nothing but speculation. Good for soft minds, devoid of substance in actuality.

I somehow doubt it. Why would they pay them extra to do that when they'll never show it? Just like soft core porn on Cinemax, it's likely just dry humping/simulation...although anything's possible.

You counter that by starting with more mushrooms... =)

ps. Another good example of this is Japanese straw mushrooms (enoki iirc) which have a very crunch texture raw, but can be stewed in sukiyaki for 30 minutes and despite the stems no longer being rigid (more like a soft noodle), they still give an audible crunch when bitten in to.

Dammit, now I want sukiyaki...

Aww shucks, I'm honoured you deigned to comment to me directly rather than out here... /eyeroll

ps. "sook"

To sulk, crack a sad and act like a big fat baby when you don't get your own way.

An Australian slang term used to indicate another person is soft, easily upset, or just a plain pussy.

Somewhat appropriate methinks.

edit: Have included the "private" comment to my profile. Newt, if you think you're so justified surely you don't have to post backdoor snipes at people when they're standing right in front of you... =)

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!! Really?!? Too funny.


When you 3-4 repeatedly (intentionally, or from lack of comprehension ability) COMPLETELY misread what I wrote because of your being triggered, yes, it's you.

Tell me when 'Feminism' has worked AGAINST women or FOR men in it's 'sexual equality' mission. You can't. You just whine. 'No no no no no no no....you're wrong'.

Yes, it's you 3-4 who got upset and started misreading from the first post and being insulting because of your failure....it was not 'everyone else in the thread', it was the few who remained in the discussion because they were triggered and/or didn't comprehend.

Well, you completely misunderstood the "bold", and apparently still can't grasp the concept even after being corrected about the meaning, so, yeah, reading comprehension, not your strong point........I have been tested, and I read and comprehend better than 99% of Americans. Again, how did YOU score? EDIT:...or is it my fault for writing at above an 8th grade level?


This ridiculous BS with you triggered 'feminists' is SOOO not worth my completely worthless time. There's absolutely no point conversing with someone who simply can't comprehend something they think they disagree with, or who misreads over and over and fights phantom red herrings like Don Quixote with a windmill.

Thank you, come again.

PS OK, I'll go back and downvote, since you decided to call me a "little sook", whatever the hell that is (it's not English), I'm pretty certain it's MEANT to be an insult....so you're wish is my command, downvoteing the ad hom.

Oh yeah, I'm not a feminist. /grin

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

I'd eat you and your baby in a heart beat if it meant survival for me. But the fact is almost nobody on this planet is currently in that situation, probably never will, and the more people that become vegan, the less likely that is to happen as well.

So yes, people that have made a conscious decision to not do cruel things while they are unnecessary are superior. Just like in the way you don't go around murdering people for shoes right now, even though in the apocalypse you would, makes you a superior person compared with some thug that does that now. You would probably steal food from people that need it, but you aren't doing that now, so you're definitely superior to people that do steal unnecessarily now too. But you don't see anyone telling people who don't steal to get off their high horses.....

There is no humor because the situation is so serious, not because it's puncturing a balloon of superiority. Or do you think that people who opposed concentration camps where simply doing so to feel superior too?
The other thing that makes it totally not funny is because I've heard this ignorant and false stereotype stuff so many times it makes my eyes roll. Vegans are as a diverse group of people as can possibly be, with the only thing in common is their compassion for animals, and care of the environment.

I'm also not a lion or a chimp, I don't copy their other behaviors like throwing poo or licking my own ass, so I don't see why I'd copy their carnivorous behavior either. It's a good thing I have a frontal lobe and can use reason to make decisions based on my understanding of the consequences.

Also while I would eat meat for survival, I would not be eating it for the taste. It sounds to me like you're under the impression that vegans are like ex-heroin addicts, always being tempted by that next hit. It's not like that all, taste buds adjust dramatically over time, in fact they adjust second to second - eat an apple after a swig of soft drink. It'll taste sour. Yet do it before, and the apple is sweet. I honestly find the thought of meat revolting now, just like you would if you had to eat something like a dog or rat. I feel the same way about milk the way you do about drinking human breast milk. I'm not just saying this to be dramatic or superior, I'm saying it to give you an example how easily your taste buds are influenced.

Great video. I really wish people understood this concept better.

Any of this sound familiar?
"Kids these days are too soft. When we were kids, we rode bikes without helmets, sat in the front seat of cars, <insert outer dangerous activity> and WE WERE FINE"

Of course, you were fine; the fact that you're here to tell that anecdote is proof of that. The kids who died in auto accidents generally don't get to tell their stories.

In terms of what this means for our day to day lives? You can't just look at the winners and copy what they did. You have to look at the losers and avoid what they did.

I can only speak for myself I guess, but certainly when I would order a chicken burger, I would only think about juicy soft chicken breast with a crunchy outer bread layer and the mayonnaise. There's no way I would order the burger and think about where the chicken came from, what happened to it, how it felt while hanging upside down, and the sad existence it lived prior to that.

Obviously everyone knows that meat comes from a farm. But again speaking for myself, once you know the reality of it, it's a different story.

If you have any hints on how to make headway without even unwilling being insulting while trying to make my points, I'm all ears

The F-35 can do everything better than any other plane. It's weapons are better, it's senors are better, and it's communication and situational awareness is much better. Thanks to the stealth, it has better survivability.

The only area it has some disadvantages in performance are the acceleration and maneuverability. Which is a small disadvantage, it still accelerates incredibly fast, just slower than a lighter plane, which is just physics. But it's not a slouch by any means. Plus the maneuverability is still being worked on, it's all fly by wire and they can do some really magic things with those systems once it's all tuned. They haven't started pushing it to the limits yet from what I've heard. (and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole "our plane sucks" thing was another tactic of spreading misinformation).

Here's the other thing. The F-16 can out maneuver and out accelerate the F-35. But every Russian fighter can out accelerate and out maneuver the F-16, anyway. Yet the F-16 always comes out on top. Why is that? Superior sensors, weapons, comms and tactics.

The F-35 is the best plane to achieve air superiority, because not many pilots have a death wish. Air combat is about survival, not about kills. Even in the Gulf war, the Iraqi's didn't want to fly against the F-15s because they knew they'd get just get shot down. They never even took off. So imagine how they would feel against a plane that can't be detected, let alone locked onto. A plane that can lock onto you and fire without you knowing. Not a good feeling knowing that at any moment you could explode without warning.

The A-10 is bullet proof, but not missile proof. It's a sitting duck against shoulder mounted IGLA's. Only the cockpit is bullet proof BTW which is great for the pilot, but not so great for the rest of the plane

I agree that the F-35 for the current war is overkill, but electronics and technology keeps getting cheaper day by day, and in 10 years time, even the current enemies will start buying more sophisticated systems. It's better to be prepared. As being reactionary like in WW2 and Vietnam was quite costly to the lives of allied forces. The F-35 will probably be in service for another 30 years, so it needs to try to meet as many requirements as it can for that time period, until the next plane comes out shooting lasers instead of missiles.

Also close air support these days is already done mostly by soft skin planes like the F-16. So not much difference there. Apart from the expense I guess. It's not low and slow either. You have a plane fly at such speed and high altitude the people on the ground never even know about it.


If you feel like it I'll give you a game of DCS World some time. It's a free flight sim (also used to train US national guard and other nations too). It really demonstrates the value of good sensors and weapons over flight performance

Now when it comes to being a waste of money, only time will tell. I guess either way it's win win though, because if there is no conflict that needs this plane it's only a good thing. And if there is a conflict we have the plane ready. But for the time being it really does seem like it's a waste of money. A lot of money, especially in a time of debt.

Wow, that brings back memories. Except I had parked cars and not soft, lovely grass for an exit. It's what I get for not using the whole lane I guess.