On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:21:46 +0200

...

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:51:39AM -0700, Ryan Carboni wrote:

...

Global warming is devouring island nations.

evidence?

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:27:31 +0200 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:

Dnia środa, 22 października 2014 18:45:54 Juan pisze:

...

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:21:46 +0200

...

...

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:51:39AM -0700, Ryan Carboni wrote:

...

Global warming is devouring island nations.

evidence?

Click the citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

Sorry your wikitrash link doesn't seem to be about island nations being "devoured" - or sunk. But feel free to link any evidence about islands going below sea level.

Or, in a format that should be more palatable for you:

Sorry, I don't know why you thought I consider video to be more palatable when the exact opposite is true. Again, feel free to post any real evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

2014-10-23 10:33 GMT+02:00 "Łukasz \"Cyber Killer\" Korpalski" < cyberkiller8@gmail.com>:

BTW: I made an oath last july, which was f****** unbearably hot in my location, to punch any climate change denier that I come across in the face. So consider yourself lucky that punches don't fly over the wire. Climate change is a fact, not something to believe/notbelieve.

No, please, just don't, god, this is even worse! Providing the wrong arguments for the right conclusion DOES NOT HELP AT ALL At *best* you'll only invoke the "it can be warmer randomly, that's fine, climate or just a hot year", which is the truth, at worst you're giving Juan a reason to deny an overwhelmingly large body of evidence. When leaving the doors open my father used to say "we're not heating the outside air", even as an 8 year old I thought that if all houses collectively attempted to heat the outside air it was bound to work. I had a pretty hard time imagining where all the heat must go. It turns out that cities are actually ~3 degrees (celcius ofc!) warmer because the air is heated (and slowed bc of buildings). It also turns out we lose insanely huge amounts of energy to space, yet do not cool down because the sun blasts in really about as much. So 8 year old me was right in his curiosity, but ultimately his hope that heating the outside air would work was a little ignorant of the science facts. I thought I could at least amuse you guys with an anacdote, given we're spewing irrelevant evidence. If you really care: http://www.unep.org/climatechange/ or more specifically http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml Let me know once you've independently (in)validated the results presented by the ~1500 people who's job it is to know. While you're doing that, I'm just going to continue acknowledging that it's happening and not doing anything about it because it's game theory and China/Russia are never going to vouch for anything that hurts their bottom line more than it does America's, given they will have hardly any trouble at all with climate change. Hell, Russia might become a nice place to visit and China might have some use for its desert highlands. Burn on, comrades! Note that the solution is trivial! We have ("share") a certain amount of destroyable earth, we can only spew so much of this and that over a certain time period. At the scale at which it matters, global pollution at the global level (UN), local polution at the local level (provincially or nationally), the amount of destroyable earth should be estimated* and auctioned. Sounds atrivial? That's because everyone's fucking incompetent and/or corrupt and/or simply doesn't actually care. If they did, they would have implemented this system for more-dangerous chemicals than greenhouse gasses, in a UN that was created not to deal with issues of war but instead with the issue of improving humanity as a whole, at or about 1900. Or earlier or later, for all I care. Now your best bet, if you're worried, is to: 0) Be wealthy 1) Live on ground >5 meters above sealevel. More is preferable (storms, etc). 2) Live somewhere a few degrees underneath your preferred temperature. 3) Have solar panels I don't think growing your own food is worth the bother, all of us on the mailing lists are in pretty wealthy nations. I think we'll turn savage and abuse the shit out of Africa and most of Asia before we go hungry. Not what I'd like to see, I'd prefer them growing wealthy from getting their crops bought, but who am I kidding? Surely, with all the anarchists here, we'd just abandon our systems of law as soon as it becomes profitable, right? Little doublethink and it won't even bother you at night. The solar panels are just there to ensure you can continue using your computer, and possibly sell electricity once the prices skyrocket because nobody would want to ruin the environment anymore. Being wealthy is 0, because it seems like that's always a good idea. (Sorry about the angry tone, I found out my roof is excellent at propagating sounds from above it. Hardly any distortion! Please play music before 1 in the afternoon when I wake up. I won't complain, because playing music after ~10 AM is totally socially acceptable. Thanks! I think I'll ask them politely and calmly once I can convincingly pretend to be. To be human ♫~~) * through a combination of politicians indicating the tolerable environmental effects and scientists estimating the amount of specific contaminants releasable at a certain scale to stay within those tolerable environmental effects. Corruption tolerance is no different from other governmental tasks, so let's not pretend this one specifically is a greater risk, please?

forced everyone in my family to use eco stuff (I'm pretty sure they are still throwing away all trash unsegregated when I'm not looking though).

You'll be disappointed to hear that recycling is largely irrelevant on the global scale, and was favoured by green parties as a policy only because it gets voters involved and makes them feel important to the solution. Same goes for changing to efficient lightbulbs; it's helpful, but practically negligible compared to your daily commute, your choice of diet, your insulation, etcetera. In the end, industry, and the consumer products we buy from it that fuel its bad behaviour, is far worse for the environment than piffling things like bulbs and recycling. Buying less waste is better than segregating it. What we need is energy decline, and what that means is travelling less, buying less, burning less. Our energy should come from nuclear, not coal. Our buildings shouldn't be made from concrete. Our diets should use less land; less meat, and higher yields (go-go-gmo!). Our products should last longer and do more (cf. Bunnie's concept of "heirloom laptops"), instead of doing less faster and then breaking and getting "recycled" by impoverished kids in bangladesh. It's a totally systemic problem, and bullying people into just recycling makes them think that they've done their part, and the rest is up to the next worst person. They need to understand that shutting down the coal plant in their city would do more good all-round than if everyone in the city recycled everything they bought. On 23/10/14 11:13, "Łukasz \"Cyber Killer\" Korpalski" wrote:

W dniu 23.10.2014 o 11:55, Lodewijk andré de la porte pisze:

...

2014-10-23 10:33 GMT+02:00 "Łukasz \"Cyber Killer\" Korpalski" <cyberkiller8@gmail.com <mailto:cyberkiller8@gmail.com>>:

BTW: I made an oath last july, which was f****** unbearably hot in my location, to punch any climate change denier that I come across in the face. So consider yourself lucky that punches don't fly over the wire. Climate change is a fact, not something to believe/notbelieve.

No, please, just don't, god, this is even worse!

Providing the wrong arguments for the right conclusion DOES NOT HELP AT ALL

I'm not sure I follow. Being angry at people who deny clinate change, because of them less people care about the environment, seems like a good idea to me.

There's not much else I can do, I already gave donations, signed petitions, gave my computing power to climate model research in a BOINC project, forced everyone in my family to use eco stuff (I'm pretty sure they are still throwing away all trash unsegregated when I'm not looking though). I lack the power to change the policies of the large most polluting countries, and eco terrorism is quite difficult when they shoot first and ask questions later.

Anyway, I'll drop the subject now.

...

At /best/ you'll only invoke the "it can be warmer randomly, that's fine, climate or just a hot year", which is the truth, at worst you're giving Juan a reason to deny an overwhelmingly large body of evidence.

OK, I'll stop feeding the troll.

(...)

...

If you really care: http://www.unep.org/climatechange/ or more specifically http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml

(...)

Thx for these links.

W dniu 24.10.2014 o 09:47, Juan pisze:

lol - what a stupid piece of shit you are

I would like to have the moderator of this maillist look at the above comment and take appropriate action. Thx. -- Łukasz "Cyber Killer" Korpalski mail: cyberkiller8@gmail.com xmpp: cyber_killer@jabster.pl site: http://website.cybkil.cu.cc gpgkey: 0x72511999 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net //When replying to my e-mail, kindly please //write your message below the quoted text.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:06:54 +0200 "Łukasz \"Cyber Killer\" Korpalski" <cyberkiller8@gmail.com> wrote:

W dniu 24.10.2014 o 09:47, Juan pisze:

...

lol - what a stupid piece of shit you are

I would like to have the moderator of this maillist look at the above comment and take appropriate action. Thx.

LMAO!!! - stupid scumbag threatens violence and then wants censorship when he's treated like the scumbag he is? LMAO, again.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 09:59:55 +0200 "Łukasz \"Cyber Killer\" Korpalski" <cyberkiller8@gmail.com> wrote:

W dniu 24.10.2014 o 21:32, Juan pisze:

...

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:06:54 +0200 "Łukasz \"Cyber Killer\" Korpalski" <cyberkiller8@gmail.com> wrote:

...

W dniu 24.10.2014 o 09:47, Juan pisze:

...

lol - what a stupid piece of shit you are

I would like to have the moderator of this maillist look at the above comment and take appropriate action. Thx.

LMAO!!! - stupid scumbag threatens violence and then wants censorship when he's treated like the scumbag he is? LMAO, again.

I wanted to write something here, but on second thought, I'll just ignore you. That hurts trolls like you the most, doesn't it? :-P

Yes Korpalski, you just can't imagine how much hurting a non-entity like you is causing me. The pain is unbearable.

The German military had a report years ago that found the same conclusion about peak oil. Militaries are often asked to take long-view stances on things like resources and geopolitics, and climate/resource-depletion are the sorts of things that turn up. Not, that is, that I am a fan of militaries offering policy suggestions. :) On 24/10/14 20:38, Juan wrote:

isn't this cute

http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/10/24/climate-change-now-military-threat-s...

Dnia czwartek, 23 października 2014 04:53:59 Juan pisze:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:27:31 +0200

rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:

...

Dnia środa, 22 października 2014 18:45:54 Juan pisze:

...

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:21:46 +0200

...

...

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:51:39AM -0700, Ryan Carboni wrote:

...

Global warming is devouring island nations.

evidence?

Click the citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

Sorry your wikitrash link doesn't seem to be about island nations being "devoured" - or sunk.

But feel free to link any evidence about islands going below sea level.

You do realise that islands do not *float* on water, and rising sea levels *will* lead to islands sidappearing under the water, right? :) Also, kudos on the subject-matter critique as exemplified by "wikitrash". -- Pozdr rysiek

Any sufficiently advanced science denialism is indistinguishable from trolling. :) On 23/10/14 09:04, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

On Oct 23, 2014 9:44 AM, "rysiek" <rysiek@hackerspace.pl <mailto:rysiek@hackerspace.pl>> wrote:

...

Dnia środa, 22 października 2014 18:45:54 Juan pisze:

...

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:21:46 +0200

...

...

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:51:39AM -0700, Ryan Carboni wrote:

...

Global warming is devouring island nations.

evidence?

Click the citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

You shouldn't bother with Juan. He pulls this shit all the time. He could look for evidence by himself, he just chooses to forgo that the only question is into which extend it's humanity induced. And even that is quite settled with a bulky UN report.

So, Juan, please just, I dunno, honestly. Figure it out.

excursions in geologic time scales -- "snowball earth" vs. the Cretaceous (when there was no ice at the poles) ... push the climate to a place it has not been before,

Yea..even the places it's been before are pretty awful, for a human. I don't think this is a local unstable point, far from it; our current climate seems very stable. But, over those epochs, we've built up a huge store of high-energy carbon, and as the CO2 left the atmosphere since those epochs, the ecosystems we have right now are not accustomed to high-greenhouse climates. So, the fact that we're now suddenly digging up what amounts to eons of free solar energy, and are burning them all at once, is a problem. Will the earth burn? No, that's an unlikely outcome. Venus is Venus because it never developed life. Will the Earth burn *us*? Maybe. Totally plausible possibility, though still unlikely. Will the Earth burn the ecosystems that civilisation (rather than humanity, per se) depends on? At this rate, probably. We have fallbacks; go all-in on solar & nuclear for energy and biotech for efficient, lower impact food/med production, and use nuclear/biotech to cook up some hyperefficient carbon-capture system to try and roll back as much as we can. I'll just point at this, then, as an example of what I find exciting in this space: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0109935 - That's some staple elemental inputs, CO2, and electricity ONLY, and a massive sequestration effect per volt/meter using bacteria. Outputs are hydrogen and acetate, useful energy/industrial chemicals. Anyways, just to say doom and gloom is rarely useful, but ostrich-heads are worse than useless. Action can be beneficial, and action need not be "live like a peasant", it can be "change your tech and culture to live comfortably or even abundantly with less impact". As to on/off topic-ness, it's off topic. But this list has seen people bitching about who is and isn't a real native American, so I find this at least engaging and interesting. On 24/10/14 14:40, dan@geer.org wrote:

For the purpose of this note, I'll stipulate that global warming is happening without arguing why. The question for science would be whether it has a positive feedback loop, as it would if rising temperature releases, say, 10% of the carbon locked in permafrost. Given the wild temp excursions in geologic time scales -- "snowball earth" vs. the Cretaceous (when there was no ice at the poles) -- it is reasonable to imagine that some excursions have a phase where the feedback is positive and thus if the temp heads either north or south its velociity will, for natural reasons, accelerate as the excursion grows more extreme. That implies that the present time is an unstable equilibrium, thus our imapct, whatever it is, seems likely to be an initiator or a potentiator but not a cause in the classical sense of, say, a dose-response curve.

Put differently, I don't believe that we (humans) can push the climate to a place it has not been before, but we can change the clock. One might then ask what government has your confidence in its being capable of managing a comprehensive program of compensatory global cooling and what powers would be required to enforce same?

What this topic has to do with this list is unobvious.

--dan