|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
How are global temperatures measured? I mean, the very basics. Boxes everywhere measure, data gets collected somehow. I would suppose by national meteorology authorities? Is there quality requirements for this? Does the data get published in original form or are there possibilities of tweaking it? Are the boxes properly calibrated? Has the spread of cities been properly corrected for in the placement of the boxes? Who decides where the boxes should be placed? Do we trust Albania not to tweak their data? Could interests in one direction or another warp this process? Who puts the data together? Is this process open and can anyone do it?
If there is a new field of doctors that all get their education, research money, publications and so on from political sources coordinated by the same bunch of people, and these doctors (let us call them green doctors) all tell you that it is a good thing to starve five days a week for everyone, and other doctors outside the field say that is probably not a good idea, but get stamped as "starvation deniers" and never get to publish in the "green doctor" magazines... someone needs to think a bit before they force their children to starve.
Yes, yes. Cherry picking is all the rage, isn't it? When warming doesn't happen for years, every year is cherry picked and it's weather not climate and besides it is about less solar radiation due to the solar cycle. When it does happen, it is real, steel hard evidence of warming and climate not weather. The solar cycle is curiously absent. No?
Which just makes it puzzling why they publish this data without the cloud effects added in. I mean, if I want to model the flow of water in a lake, and choose to ignore the river going out from it, it will be extremely easy to get a rising water level. If you then publish data to warn of the rising water surface of the lake and how people will have to move from the nearby village, you haven't been doing your job properly.
Revolutionaries have a hard time in this world, that much is true. India got independence from Britain because they exploited the fact that Britain was still in shambles after WWII. Ireland got independence from Britain because they exploited the fact that Britain was still in shambled after WWI. As far as I can see, it requires some shown weakness in the oppressor before it can work. Then again, I am no expert.
Extremely interesting, Nihilakh. As your article states: Clouds have been the greatest source of uncertainty in climate science for 20 years. Because, not joking, their effect has been excluded right from the start. Only when looking at their effect became politically necessary did anything happen. Now, why does the entire field of climate science ignore a factor that in all likelihood forms a negative feedback loop for anthropogenic global warming for years?
No. You did:
National Geographic article quoted by CBD wrote:
Here he says that a) burning all the fuels available will not get us runaway greenhouse effect, b) Earth will end up in Venus' situation... in half a billion to a billion years.
Also note he did not include clouds in his calculations. Clouds seem to be impopular among climate scientists. Could be because a negative feedback loop due to increased albedo doesn't get them their beloved climate apocalypse, hmm?
CBD: Our friend James Hansen is truly a ubiquitous presence, isn't he? Well, if he seriously claims that the oceans are going to boil away, he's just either delusional or uninformed. The energy required to do that is about the same as the energy needed to stop the Earth's rotation, according to the source I showed above.
Second, NG is many things, but it is not generally seen to be anything close to a serious scientific publication.
Third, the article you posted tells us basically that we can't have runaway greenhouse effect with what carbon deposits we have accessible, but the sun will eventually give Earth as much solar energy as Venus gets, which could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect... in about half a billion to a billion years. Wow. You certainly showed me wrong there, didn't you?
As it is, the witch needs to go. I have GMed witches enough, and I have no desire to play one, ever. Guns don't fit the basic assumptions of the game mechanically. The freak show wannabes are annoying enough, and THERE IS ALWAYS AT LEAST ONE in every group. These things force me to be the EVUL GM and TAKE AWAY the stuff that ALL PLAYERS HAVE A RIGHT TO PLAY in whatever campaign there is.
If it gets remade, that is something I will have to decide on then.
Fairly? Why expect the market to be fair when the states can't even make the courts and the police fair? Justice and fairness are very, very difficult things to obtain. The market isn't fair. It is a reflection of humanity with all its pettiness, foibles and stupidity. Not everyone has the option of participating properly, like the mentally handicapped just to mention one such group, and for them there should absolutely be support outside the market.
Seriously, people. We have NO idea what Venus used to be like if it wasn't always sulphuric acid storms, massive pressure and hundreds of degrees warm. Claiming that Earth could become like Venus is less than pointless. Venus is a lot closer to the sun than we are, and gets more than its share of solar energy. It's why people talk about the habitable zone around a star - too close and it's too hot, too distant and it's too cold. I sincerely don't get it. Why try to claim we could change Earth's climate into that of Venus at all? It's just silly.
Boiling the oceans? I'm glad you asked. Here is some information on how much energy would be needed to actually do that. Keep fantasizing, in other words.
How lucky for all of us then that everyone in a society participates in the market. Seriously, you think the market is just something the bankers do?
The thing is, a free market is not something we have any experience with. Regulations distort the market, making it less free, adding in various other types of incentives, and so on. The bad credit bundles of the 2008 bank crash would be a good example. I agree that regulation is necessary, none of us would like a society with a completely free market - but it is vital that the regulations (like any laws) actually reflect what the people making up the market think is important, and that the rest is left unregulated.
In contrast, the EU regulations of import of duck eggs is at some thousand pages of text. It is difficult to claim that the markets of today are ANYWHERE near free markets.
As for minimum wages, there is a simple and brutal logic to them. A company forced to pay more than they would have to if they outsourced their production would outsource their production. In that situation, you have to either force the company to stay in the country (sound familiar?) or you have to make domestic workers more useful to the company somehow. It is not an easy question how to solve this.
Lots of complaining about free markets here. If you get a chance, talk to people who lived in the Soviet bloc about work, money and so on. It is often enlightening.
Generally, everyone had to work, and the state could often decide what you were supposed to do for a living. Every place they could stuff people into was full to bursting, like twenty-five people working in a small museum. Now, this would mean you didn't get much in the way of actual work... but you were forced to actually spend all the time there anyway. Also, the job didn't pay much, as in, literally not enough to survive on for your family.
What people did is pretty obvious. They used the time at work to sleep, so they were rested for the nights, when they participated in the cutthroat (and pretty much free) BLACK market, where they could both get money and the goods they needed to feed their families.
The choice is not between a free market and a regulated market, it's between a legal free market or a black free market.
Obviously, first come people who have the power to enforce things. That should be indisputable. However, what is interesting is what happens outside their direct influence. People are people, and power is certainly not only formal power. Instead, it becomes a pecking order based on very fluid, subjective criteria like political views, how well someone is liked in various groups, how well someone can bully others, age on the forum, previous interactions, number of likes you have in the thread, official stuff done, if you represent someone, and so on. Those above you have the right to shut you down. Those below you, you can shut down. All that is needed is to claim offense, then puncture their claim of offense with "it was made in bad faith". Nobody gets to say different.
EDIT: Rewrote this.
Then... the key is that someone gets the right to define the other's "offended card" as "given in bad faith". The one with the most popular support gets to determine that, as in all purely subjective situations. And the one with that support gets to decide in every instance whether to allow a discussion to continue. Right?
THC is a substance to which different people react very differently. Some become giggly and enjoy it, some get just slowed down and find it frustrating. Some feel sharper and more focused. These often swear they would drive better on it. When tried, however, while they subjectively feel they did okay, the films taken are often hilarious/terrifying.
And of course, there IS a pretty clear correlation between smoking pot and getting schizophrenia. It is one of the major risk factors we have found so far.
I have seen the prequel SW movies a few times by now. What strikes me is that there is little that is atrocious about them. Yes, even TPM. The stuff people usually bring up is not truly as horrible as it is said. Jar-jar is annoying, yes, but having read a deeper analysis in the Darth Binks theory, I find that rather convincing. If he were to have been an anti-Yoda, but due to the Jar-jar wars about racial stereotyping dropped in favour of Dooku, who felt pretty much tacked on, that would have been AMAZING. Just think, he would have been killed off as a proper villain. And not one character in the history of movies has ever been so hated. The politicking and so-called boring stuff is really fascinating to me. Anakin is a whiny kid, but really, where did you think Luke got his whine from? Both of them are deeply flawed people. I maintain that Yoda was right from the start: neither should have been trained. Both of them fell. Luke fell when he gave in to his anger and tried to strike down the unarmed emperor. All the talk of "I am a Jedi like my father before me." is just a critical success on a Diplomacy check against Darth Vader. All in all, the movies are visually great, with decent plots, some great actors, I'd say they suffer mainly for comparison to ANH and ESB. Which are given many free passes.
The worst situation I heard of in Sweden was an epileptic who had had a seizure unnoticed by anyone while out on town. He was postictal, which is a difficult situation due to poor inhibition, swaying, aggressiveness. A group of cops found him like that. They assumed he was a junkie and proceeded to beat the living daylights out of him.
Generally, when I have tried to talk to policemen about the importance of showing restraint in using violence even if someone is not instantly complying... they do not even understand the question. They say "oh, that is no problem. If that happens, I just evaluate the risk of the situation and apply the correct amount of force."
We send the police out there because we want to keep people safe. We want a better result than sending out soldiers to kill everyone who does something suspicious. To do their job, the policemen need to be human and have a sense of empathy. It isn't all an equation about the level of risk. And if risk needs to be taken, the policemen are who we pay to take those risks. Safety is NOT job one for a cop. If we do not pay them enough, then that needs to be addressed, but that is another discussion.
Pffff. A bit of cold always gets people scurrying for shelter. It's ridiculous. A box of cookies is a nice gift, and really, the coworker gets to keep undies. I don't get the complaint.
The Doomkitten wrote:
Not an expert on youtube, but... Because you may have searched for his clips before? I mean, we don't just look at things we like?
And perspective helps. A certain song from South Korea has billions of viewers.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
First, that is only relevant if uneducated white men vote to a greater degree than all the groups Trump has alienated. And similarly, that there are more piece-of-string voters for (R) than for (D).
Second, if all the alienated groups have to do to NOT have Trump as president is GO AND VOTE, one would think it could be worth a shot?
Third, why is voter turnout so low? I understand you need to register to do it, but why is that such a hurdle?
Sooooo... WHY do so many stand ready to vote for Trump? I mean, he wants war, torture, walls, etc etc etc etc etc. He likes Putin (!), he has been caught lying enough times, he seems to have alienated POSITIVELY EVERYONE except white uneducated men... but what will that give him? 15%? I mean, men is 50%, white men is a bit more than half of that, cut even further by education level. I don't get it. That is not enough to even be a failed presidential candidate. So... who is going to vote for him? Why? What do they hope to gain?