A new Full Press Diplomacy tournament, the Century Leagues, is starting now. For more information, and to sign up, check here.

And 12 days of giveaways is back. Sign up here for a chance to win free site prizes!

Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 173 of 407
FirstPreviousNextLast
Maniac (344 D (B))
14 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
Women Bishops
Finally women bishops in the Church of England, about time.
3 replies
Open
tvrocks (388 D)
12 Jul 14 UTC
How to play england
I've played as england a lot lately and have realized that i'm bad at it. So how exactly can someone do well as england?
14 replies
Open
mapleleaf (0 D X)
04 Jul 14 UTC
(+3)
americans need to answer.....
When will Palestinians get THEIR Fourth of July?
306 replies
Open
Crazy Anglican (242 D)
14 Jul 14 UTC
WTA games
Not to comment on ongoing games, but I haven't played very many.
5 replies
Open
Ogion (4977 D)
13 Jul 14 UTC
Quick question: accessing PMs?
Hey folks. I've never figured out how to get to the Messages page so i can look at old PMs and send them. What am I missing here?
3 replies
Open
denis (874 D)
13 Jul 14 UTC
How to Play
With all these How to Play X (insert country) threads going around why not just get down to the simpler question how to play and thoughts about the game.
16 replies
Open
josepr (100 D)
12 Jul 14 UTC
variation supply centers are shared?
I read if 6 or 5 players are available a country (or more) should be eliminated, but is there a variation where instead eliminating countries supply centers are shared first by weaker or difficult countries?

For example, if only 6 players are available maybe turkey and Italy can share the supply centers of Austria. Something like that.
7 replies
Open
ERAUfan97 (506 D)
17 Jun 14 UTC
(+3)
USA USA USA USA
gets revenge on Ghana 2-1!! oh happy days!!!
433 replies
Open
Putin33 (111 D)
13 Jul 14 UTC
American claims 'kingdom' in remote Sudan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-man-plants-flag-claims-african-country-calling-it-kingdom-of-north-sudan/2014/07/12/abfbcef2-09fc-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html

Somehow I imagine Krellin doing this.
9 replies
Open
ThatBuhlLarry (248 D)
06 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
How to play with Austria
So on the classic map I've gotten Austria a couple of times. Austria is by far the hardest country to play or win with. How exactly would someone do well with Austria?
38 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (60 D)
12 Jul 14 UTC
(+2)
Today's episode of "what the fuck is wrong with people?"
http://www.pqmonthly.com/breaking-department-education-grants-george-fox-religious-exemption-says-college-can-refuse-trans-students-campus-housing/20071

Nice to see a US government department supporting bigotry and discrimination. For fuck's sake...
46 replies
Open
airborne (154 D)
12 Jul 14 UTC
Magic the Gathering?
Anyone here plays? Going to the prerelease event this weekend?
13 replies
Open
Ogion (4977 D)
13 Jul 14 UTC
Modern Diplo France replacement needed
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=144117
Still decent with alliances already in place before th CD
0 replies
Open
NigeeBaby (100 D (G))
11 Jul 14 UTC
Good news for all supporters of Israel.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28271546
143 replies
Open
steephie22 (182 D (S))
12 Jul 14 UTC
Best mod for Crusader Kings 2?
I loved the game, but I need some change to get me into it again..
Recommendations? I just want an overall upgrade essentially, but any suggestions are good.
13 replies
Open
ILN (125 D)
10 Jul 14 UTC
I just realized...
Couldn't heart also be written as haert? It makes more sense. Or is haert pronounced more like Hay-Ert instead of Haughr-t

Silly English.....
30 replies
Open
krellin (80 D X)
12 Jul 14 UTC
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
...was awesome.

'nuff said.
8 replies
Open
Dunecat (5899 D)
12 Jul 14 UTC
Bigger/better chatbox via custom CSS, v0.1 alpha
Fellow WebDippers,

If you use Stylish (or userstyles in general) you can install this style that I just created to make the chatbox bigger and easier to read. It's alpha (read: feature incomplete) but if you install the Stylish browser extension you can get started with it.
2 replies
Open
A_Tin_Can (1958 D)
11 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
I don't know how to Russia
I know that Russia is supposed to be one of the easier countries to play, but I never know what to do at the start of the game. What deals do you like to make? What do you think is important for Russia at the start?
5 replies
Open
udvarid (221 D)
11 Jul 14 UTC
(+2)
Hungary
Is here anybody from hungary?
6 replies
Open
fulhamish (3718 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
Have you changed your mind about global warming?
A couple of weeks ago somebody started a thread along these lines. I thought that it would be rather intersting to discuss this particular point.
fulhamish (3718 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+2)
I admit to moving from a strong advocate of global warming to becoming agnostic on the matter. My belief in climate change, however, still remains comparatively strong.
Why have I changed my mind?
1) The vast majority, if not all, of the computationally derived predictions for Global temperature have been proven wrong. At one remove I have some experience of computational modelling and the modellers tend to insert constants and/or fudge factors when things don’t work out. Is the new accepted wisdom that the heat is being stored in the oceans just such a fudge factor which will in turn be proven wrong? Perhaps people remember the scare stories on methane release from the permafrost – that proved to be a false alarm too as any reasonable chemist might have predicted.
One thing stands out for me on this point. Computational modelling is a great tool but only as good as the real world data that is plugged into the model. Any move to replace real research and measurement with computational models, in this field at least, should be actively resisted.
2) Why did the hockey stick graph smooth over the mediaeval and roman warm periods? These are well known in the historical record, but do not suit the global warming lobby as to acknowledge them would be to also acknowledge the rather short term natural frequency of global temperature change.
3) Why when the proxy measurement of tree ring growth is good enough to be a key marker in reconstructing historical temperature, where thermometer-derived measurements are not available, does the recent (post 1960s) data move in the opposite direction to current temperature as recorded by thermometers? This, so-called tree ring divergence, is a real problem and demands an explanation if all of the past temperature reconstructions are to be worth a can of beans; so far these have been largely lacking.
4) Why do the climategate emails talk of tricks and manipulating the peer review process? Does that reveal good science or the presence of a group super satisfied in their own paradigm and research funding? If so then maybe we are ripe for a paradigm shift.
Please note I do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we are putting much more of it into the atmosphere. No doubt we are energising the whole system and Global climate will become more extreme as a result. What I do think, however, is that the system is inherently more complicated than we can as yet understand (let alone model) with a plethora of negative and positive feedback loops. The outcome is uncertain. It should also be noted that any move away from our dependence on fossil fuel has to be a plus too. Supply limitations and security, if nothing else, being a significant consideration.
Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+5)
I will enjoy you being totally annihilated over this pile of rubbish.

PSMongoose (2384 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+2)
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/
Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+3)
"4) Why do the climategate emails talk of tricks and manipulating the peer review process? "

They don't talk of either and this misinterpretation of the emails has been thoroughly debunked time and time again. It is very interesting that climate changes skeptics hold themselves to such low standards when it comes to their "facts".

"Why when the proxy measurement of tree ring growth is good enough to be a key marker in reconstructing historical temperature, where thermometer-derived measurements are not available, does the recent (post 1960s) data move in the opposite direction to current temperature as recorded by thermometers?"

The divergence only occurs at high altitudes. Why'd do you leave that little fact out? More evidence of your intellectual honesty?

"2) Why did the hockey stick graph smooth over the mediaeval and roman warm periods? "

Those were regional, not global phenomena. The overall temperature was cooler despite warming in some areas. Again playing fast and lose with the facts in order to smear people.
Ogion (4977 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+5)
Good grief. Someone is eager to display his scientific illiteracy.

1) This is a trivial statement. All models are approximations, so if you want to hold to a impossible standard beyond what models are designed to do, then yes, they are "wrong." In large measure models give a sense of the qualitative behavior and point out where there are aspects of the climate system we don't have a good handle on and how much they are likely to influence outcomes. However, qualitatively (ie, at the level such models are intended to operate) they are very very much accurate. YOu also ignore the fact that the models have generally underestimated the rate of change, which is not the strike against them that climate change deniers want to prove

2) They don't. The hockey stick graph is a long historical trend, so they show up, but they're pretty insignificant when a time interval average is used, especialy compared to the unprecedented warming we see now.

3) Cherry picking is silly (I'd like to see your peer reviewed reference for this one) because first, tree ring data do correlate well with other predictions, and furthermore that is one of literally thousands of independent records of climate change. So, maybe there's something odd with tree rings. What about species range shifts, glacial retreat, isotopic records, etc. etc. etc. trying to attack one strand of what is now a huge fabric of indepedent evidence shows you have very little understanding of how science actually works.

4) Climate gate is a non-scandal cooked up by oil company funded hackers. The "trick" is of course (for anyone who understands beans about science) is shorthand for a clever approach to analyzing data (which that certainly is). Talk of manipulating peer review? That's, well, again ignoramus' grasping at straws who don't understand how the process work

You make a statement that it is too complicated, yet the actual professionals have done an excellent job and have a good handle on where they uncertainties are. The uncertainty is only in how much warming there will be, and the biggest uncertainty there is political, not scientific.

As a Ph.D. biologist who has studied climate change myself, I have little patience for ignorant misrepresentations of science. Frankly, I am ready to openly mock the stupidity, laziness and ignorance of climate change deniers, creationists and flat earthers as idiots who seem to think that you change lead into gold or whatever other superstitious nonsense they believe. Here's a clue. Instead of ranting on the internet, why don't you do the actual hard work of educating yourself?

Sorry for the testiness, but after decades of watching this I've had enough.
fulhamish (3718 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
PS a reference from green peace on Koch Industries is sort of the response I expected. Here is the other web-site which I am sure will come up - www.skepticalscience.com. I could respond by throwing in quotes from here - http://wattsupwiththat.com/. But does that actually get us anywhere, except shouting at one another at the top of our voices?
Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+2)
"But does that actually get us anywhere, except shouting at one another at the top of our voices?"

It would have been nice if you hadn't begun this nonsense with attacks on the character of scientists, but you can't help yourself. This isn't a serious inquiry this is a smear job out of some misplaced notion of contrarianism. If you want the temperature on the debate to be cool then show some good faith effort to appreciate that scientists aren't part of some greedy cabal out to distort the truth.
PSMongoose (2384 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
Well, Putin, you should at least believe that it is possible. Are you implying that ALL scientists are perfectly-moral people?
krellin (80 D X)
09 Jul 14 UTC
yippeee....let's watch all the religious zealots swarm and froth at the mouth!!! Woohooo...

dance climate monkeys!! dance!!!
Ogion (4977 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+5)
I'm sorry, fulhamish. I shouldn't have launched so much invective at you since you seem to have a good attitude. It's just after decades of the nonsense, I'm out of patience and you ended up reaping the whirlwind.

The wattsupwiththat blog is run by a crank who can't go two steps without making major major errors. ANthony Watts is a meteorologist, who has virtually no clue about energy, physics, climate science or biology, and it shows. He likes to be controversial to drive his ad revenue, and it works as a business model.

Denialism is a full blown industry, yes funded by business interests who don't give a rats ass about what the science says, provided it doesn't interfere with their profits. This has been demostrated over and over and over.

Look, we have over 150 years of solid evidence of the evolution of species by natural selection, yet creationism still thrives because vested institutions like churches or businesses can always create controversy among those who don't really understand science. These guys have been at this for a long long time. Evidence will not ever carry the day.

If you look at the actual professionals on this matter, they show an astonishing degree of unanimity. This is a group that thrives on disagreeing with each other and don't agree unless it is pretty incontrovertible. Go read the IPCC AR first.
Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
"Are you implying that ALL scientists are perfectly-moral people?"

No I'm simply rejecting the implication that they're all amoral evil people.

And I'm certainly rejection the implication that they're simply alarming people in order to get grant money.
Ogion (4977 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+3)
I will tell you, unlike the oil industry, scientists aren't going to make a killing on this. Not perfectly moral, but you don't go into science to get rich. And yes, the scientist who could disprove global warming would be instantly hugely prominent. Many have tried, but reality, sadly, does not cooperate.
PSMongoose (2384 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
No, Putin, I wasn't saying that all scientists are "amoral evil people." I was just saying that at least one (implied by your agreement with not all scientists are perfectly-moral) is denying climate change for the money. But probably not only one - how about as many as 25 (the number that argued against climate change at a UN conference vs 640 that agree).
krellin (80 D X)
09 Jul 14 UTC
"all scientists are "amoral evil people.""

That funny coming from Putin, our resident rapist. Right Putty baby? (I wish I didn't have him muted...) Putin is a Teacher, and some teachers are rapists...therefore all teachers are rapists.

That is how you deal with the moronic Putty baby and his "everyone X is Y" bulshit. Putin the Rapist.

Putty baby...if you are still out...crawl back into yoru closet.
krellin (80 D X)
09 Jul 14 UTC
"I will tell you, unlike the oil industry, scientists aren't going to make a killing on this"

lol Moron! Scientists in the AGW business ARE making their lush acedemic living foisting bullshit disfunctional "models" on us. It is the ONLY industry inteh entire world where you can literally be wrong 100% of the time, and still collect a fucking paycheck.

And you zealot climate monkeys hiding under your desk so the sky doesn’t fall on you are making it happen. Suckers….
krellin (80 D X)
09 Jul 14 UTC
"Many have tried, but reality, sadly, does not cooperate. "

Complete and utter bullshit. No scientist need to disprove what does not exists. You see, the funny little thing called REALITY disproves global warming, assclown. You know..."scientists" make bold scary predictions year after year after year with their scary models....and then NONE OF THE PREDICITONS COME TRUE. Reality itself is all you need to disprove the fraudulent "science".
Jamiet99uk (60 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+2)
@ Krellin: "It is the ONLY industry inteh entire world where you can literally be wrong 100% of the time, and still collect a fucking paycheck."

I don't want to derail the thread, but I'd just like to point out that you forgot about the banking sector. If you're a senior banker you can lead your bank to the brink of collapse, post a loss running into billions of dollars, and still be paid a bonus on top of your fat salary.
Ogion (4977 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+4)
If Krellin is talking about scientists, no, you can't e wrong 100% of the time and do well. You won't get grants or publications and you are done.

However, being wrong as a corporate executive is highly lucrative. Recent studies show that there is a negative correlation between corporate pay and economic performance of the company. Seems that most industries you can be wrong and rewarded massively for it
fulhamish (3718 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
1) The vast majority, if not all of the models were wrong in their projections of global temperature over the last decade. Where they were correct is their fitting of past data, not so much of an achievement really. There has been minimal, if any, increase in globally measured temperatures over the last 10-15 years, period.
2) The mediaeval warm period was a global event (Rosenthal, Y., Linsley, B. K., & Oppo, D. W. (2013). Pacific ocean heat content during the past 10,000 years. Science, 342(6158), 617-621). Temperatures then matched current ones (Büntgen, U., & Tegel, W. I. L. L. Y. (2011). European tree-ring data and the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Pages news, 19(1), 14-150). Why is this absent from the hockey stick? What could be the motivation?

3) D'Arrigo, R., Wilson, R., Liepert, B., & Cherubini, P. (2008). On the ‘divergence problem’in northern forests: a review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes. Global and Planetary Change, 60(3), 289-305
Here is the abstract in full
An anomalous reduction in forest growth indices and temperature sensitivity has been detected in tree-ring width and density records from many circumpolar northern latitude sites since around the middle 20th century. This phenomenon, also known as the “divergence problem”, is expressed as an offset between warmer instrumental temperatures and their underestimation in reconstruction models based on tree rings. The divergence problem has potentially significant implications for large-scale patterns of forest growth, the development of paleoclimatic reconstructions based on tree-ring records from northern forests, and the global carbon cycle. Herein we review the current literature published on the divergence problem to date, and assess its possible causes and implications. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures. Another possible cause of the divergence described briefly herein is ‘global dimming’, a phenomenon that has appeared, in recent decades, to decrease the amount of solar radiation available for photosynthesis and plant growth on a large scale. It is theorized that the dimming phenomenon should have a relatively greater impact on tree growth at higher northern latitudes, consistent with what has been observed from the tree-ring record. Additional potential causes include “end effects” and other methodological issues that can emerge in standardization and chronology development, and biases in instrumental target data and its modeling. Although limited evidence suggests that the divergence may be anthropogenic in nature and restricted to the recent decades of the 20th century, more research is needed to confirm these observations.
To repeat: The divergence problem has potentially significant implications for large-scale patterns of forest growth, the development of paleoclimatic reconstructions based on tree-ring records from northern forests, and the global carbon cycle.
4) To the PhD student I thoroughly recommend this article, please be brave and read it.
Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive therapy and research, 1(2), 161-175.
On the detail here are a couple of examples which illustrate the unfortunate language used:
On tree ring divergence from Phil Jones: ‘’ "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." What he means is that he has ignored tree ring data after the point where they diverged from the thermometer-derived temperature record, but include them prior to that where they suited his case. Is that good science?
AND
On keeping an unfavourable paper out of the IPCC report Jones wrote this – ‘’ “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Pretty clear I think, what is he so afraid of?
fulhamish (3718 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
Ogion, there is no need to apologise. I appreciate you taking the discussion on rather than just throwing websites at me.
Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+2)
"There has been minimal, if any, increase in globally measured temperatures over the last 10-15 years, period."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_102.gif

Absolutely wrong.

"The mediaeval warm period was a global event (Rosenthal, Y., Linsley, B. K., & Oppo, D. W. (2013)"

"A frequent conclusion based on study of individual records from the so-called Medieval Warm Period (∼1000-1300 A.D.) is that the present warmth of the 20 th century is not unusual and therefore cannot be taken as an indication of forced climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged. In this paper, we revisit the controversy by incorporating additional time series not used in earlier hemispheric compilations. Another difference is that the present reconstruction uses records that are only 900–1000 years long, thereby, avoiding the potential problem of uncertainties introduced by using different numbers of records at different times. Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th century warm time interval. Failure to substantiate hemispheric warmth greater than the present consistently occurs in composites because there are significant offsets in timing of warmth in different regions; ignoring these offsets can lead to serious errors concerning inferences about the magnitude of Medieval warmth and its relevance to interpretation of late 20 th century warming."

How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?
Thomas J. Crowley 1 and Thomas S. Lowery
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(1):51-54. 2000

"What he means is that he has ignored tree ring data after the point where they diverged from the thermometer-derived temperature record, but include them prior to that where they suited his case. Is that good science?"

No that's not what he means at all. But you ignored Ogion's explanation of what this meant. Not surprising, considering your record.

"“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is"

Why are you still clinging to the widely debunked climategate nonsense? Is there your definition of responding to new and inconvenient information, by simply clinging to what you had initially thought was true?
Draugnar (0 D X)
09 Jul 14 UTC
"Recent studies show that there is a negative correlation between corporate pay and economic performance of the company. Seems that most industries you can be wrong and rewarded massively for it "

First and foremost, negative performance doesn't mean the executive was wrong. It means the market isn't friendly at the moment and he may have kept it from going completely under. You don't know what else might have happened so you can't judge the right or wrongness of his decision. Secondly, many CEOs are brought in to save companies that are going under. So the poor performance is still an improvement over the previous performance that was sinking the company. My brother in law is one such CEO. He goes in, cleans house and turns a company around, but it takes years so on paper for the first 3 or 4 years, it looks like he is being rewarded for the company doing poorly when in reality they are doing better each year over year and on the recovery.
Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
"He goes in, cleans house and turns a company around, but it takes years so on paper for the first 3 or 4 years, it looks like he is being rewarded for the company doing poorly when in reality they are doing better each year over year and on the recovery."

Says the Obama critic.
krellin (80 D X)
09 Jul 14 UTC
+1 Draug....funny, all the fucking Libtards around here that **still** say Obama is a good President and say his numbers only suck because of Bush but don’t grasp that a turn-around specialist may have lag-time between on-boarding at a company and turning it’s product/marketing/sales around…lol Mornonic libtards will be moronic libtards…
Draugnar (0 D X)
09 Jul 14 UTC
I gave Obama his first 4 years, Putin. I'm a critic now because he hasn't even shown year over year improvement. Compare the percent of employed versus employable people now and when he started and there is a smaller percent employed now. Compare median and mean salaries versus median and mean costs of goods for necessities and the is a loss of income equity. *That* is why I am an Obama critic. I voted for him over McCain. I voted for neither him nor Romney because Romney would report back to the almighty Mormon Prophet and he clearly was failing with year over year numbers. Show me a reduction in the deficit, I'll consider there to have been some success. But there hasn't been. Not only has the debt increased, but the annual deficit has as well. Show me an increase in the employed versus employable and I'll consider it an improvement. That too has been on the decline. Show me at least a consistent raise in salaries equal to goods inflation for necessities (milk, bread, eggs, gas, etc.)... Again, inflation of necessities is outpacing wage increases.
Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

Annual deficits have gone down every single year Obama has been in office. So you're full of it.
Ogion (4977 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+2)
ok, I have work to get done, but a few points:

First, we know the physics of CO2 and methane molecules well and can measure these concentrations with a certainty. We KNOW that heat is being trapped by these concentrations, and we know how much. If anyone wants to propose that the atmospher is not warming, then were is the heat sink? Any skeptic needs an alternate answer to that question if we are to reject the evidence that the earth is warming.

some points.
First, warming has not stopped in the last 10-15 years. Your statement only holds water (pardon the pun) if you completely ignore the largest heat sink in the climate system: The oceans. Yes, air temperatures haven't gone up a lot, but that's because ocean temperatures are shooting up as the oceans take up the heat.
HEre's the ocean temperature record:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Also, the 10 15 year time span is completely the wrong way to view it. For an solid analysis of this view look here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
In particular, that lovely first figure that demonstrates the giant hole in the notion that there's been a halt.

Second, I have no clue where you get this notion that the models haven't done a pretty good job of capturing the dynamics. OF course, there are limitations from unknown mechanisms of where the heat is going (e.g., great oceanic uptake), but overall, the climate models have been pretty good.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

Long story short, if you use the temperature record pre-1990 dynamics to parameterize the models, the predictions going forward have been good. This has been remarkably true (given known limitations) from 1990 through 2007.

See also, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html

2) take a look at box 6.4 here :
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

3) as for the Rosenthal study, it seems to be behind a paywall and is one study. Hard to know what to do with it. Is it methodologically sound? MIght be, but there are a ton of contradictory studies here. Are we to ignore all those?

As for the tree ring business, as noted, that is one tiny corner of the entire story. Frankly, as a plant ecophysiologist I would say that anyone looking to a complex biological system to respond in some linear way to temperature needs to have his head examined. Consider the dataset: mid 20th century northern temperate region. Can you think of anything, say, anomalous that happened in that region during that time? In fact, a major portion of those forests were cleared and abandoned and were aggrading during that period, were subject to shifts in water regimes (as noted), nitrogen fertilization at a massive scale, invasion disruptions, and carbon fertilization. Anyone expecting this region to behave as it has historically isn't paying attention. Period. Whatever random out of context quotes may be pulled from, they don't say a rats ass about the thousands and thousands of studies out there. In fact, as I just pointed out, yes excluding data you know a priori to be not reflective of prior trends because of known factors is good science. It entirely depends on the justification and scientific basis for dealing with those outliers. Here, as I said, given the changes in the 20th century in the northern temperate regions, they absolutely should be ignored or held with skepticism. Not sure what the sources of these quotes are or their relevance. As for that last quote, maybe it's because they know the studies in question to be junk? As noted, look at the bibliography of the IPCC report. There are GUARANTEED to be technical issues with some paper, given the massive number. But that doesn't address the fact that the ther 95% are telling the same story.

Long story short, people pushing this bizarre conspiracy theory have zero concept of how science actually works. And funny how they all seem to be either in the fossil fuel industry or conservative ideologues who despise the idea of protecting the environment with a passion. Coincidence? Not really.

Anyway, as I say, I have actual work to do, so that's all I'm going to bother with.

Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Here's the ratio of employed vs working-age population. Notice it is rising.

So you're 0 for 2.



Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
"Compare the percent of employed versus employable people now and when he started and there is a smaller percent employed now. Compare median and mean salaries versus median and mean costs of goods for necessities and the is a loss of income equity."

You can't blame Obama for the loss in income equality when it's your party that opposes unions, the minimum wage, and supports corporate decisions to reduce benefits and freeze raises, all the while extolling tax cuts for the super rich. You also can't blame for Obama for increases to global fuel and commodity prices.

Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
Oh that's right, you're the same person who was jumping for joy when the SC recently implemented right to work laws everywhere, and you're sitting here whining about income inequality? Are you serious?
Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
"Long story short, if you use the temperature record pre-1990 dynamics to parameterize the models, the predictions going forward have been good. This has been remarkably true (given known limitations) from 1990 through 2007."

This is the same guy (Fulham) who extols the ONS despite being off on its population predictions by 16 million people for the UK.
Jamiet99uk (60 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
Surely, Putin, you understand that attacking workers rights will make everyone richer due to the trickle-down effect?
Draugnar (0 D X)
09 Jul 14 UTC
It's not "my party". I haven't voted Republican in the presidential election in the last 3 elections. I've voted third party twice and Democrat once.
Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=942750&page-thread=1#threadPager

Right, because here you are slamming people for voting 3rd party.

And look at all your posts from 2012 defending Romney and calling Obama a socialist.
Draugnar (0 D X)
09 Jul 14 UTC
"Oh that's right, you're the same person who was jumping for joy when the SC recently implemented right to work laws everywhere,"

Hell yeah I did! Unions shouldn't have so much power that they can force someone to join them. That gives the union a monopoly on the jobs. Jobs should be for *everyone*, not just the union elitists.
Draugnar (0 D X)
09 Jul 14 UTC
Do you actually read what you link? My entire point in that thread was that voting third party splits and potentially causes the other guy to win. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. It just means you should be aware of that fact. In the end when the election came around, I decided Romney was just too Mormon for my tastes and I couldn't vote for someone who would be some religious figures puppet.
Yonni (669 D (S))
09 Jul 14 UTC
Relevant article recently on effectiveness of carbon tax in BC. Don't know much about the legislature but may interest those here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-insidious-truth-about-bcs-carbon-tax-it-works/article19512237/
Draugnar (0 D X)
09 Jul 14 UTC
The fact that it is revenue neutral alone (and that BC has actually had more tax cuts than the money it has raised) is what makes it successful. But the debate is whether it is an issue that even needs tackling. Assuming it is (I'm not jumping into that fray), then B.C's implementation is well done. And even if there were no climate change, the reduction in carbon fuel use is worth it if just to reduce that part of Canada's dependence on oil in general.
Putin33 (111 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
" I decided Romney was just too Mormon for my tastes and I couldn't vote for someone who would be some religious figures puppet."

So you agreed with Romney and defended him but ultimately couldn't vote for him because of your dislike of Mormons? Nice.
ILN (125 D)
12 Jul 14 UTC
http://qz.com/233051


40 replies
Jamiet99uk (60 D)
11 Jul 14 UTC
Today's episode of "what the fuck?"
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/09/3458159/manassas-erection-pictures-police/
18 replies
Open
President Eden (3059 D)
11 Jul 14 UTC
(+1)
Proactive and Reactive Countries
I've recently had something close to a breakthrough about how to approach play with different countries in Diplomacy. The short of it: The same play style *doesn't* work for every country, because some countries are designed for more proactive play, and others are designed for more reactive play.
21 replies
Open
jengamaster (1039 D)
11 Jul 14 UTC
If it looks like your ally will NMR
What is the general consensus on how to approach an ally NMRing, or at least there being less than five minutes to go, and no moves reported yet? Should you stab or alter moves from the original plan assuming he or she is gone and you should take what you can before other nations? Or do you feel it is more appropriate to stick with the original plan? Follow up question: does your position change if it is an anon game?
13 replies
Open
ssorenn (2400 D (G))
09 Jul 14 UTC
Fantasy football
Any interest in starting a webdip FF league?
40 replies
Open
ssorenn (2400 D (G))
30 Jun 14 UTC
best RPG games!!!
I loved Dragon Age origins, looking for another rpg... Please help...
58 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 D X)
08 Jul 14 UTC
Insult and sarcasmnthread.
Three basic rules:
1. Don't do something that would get you clearly silenced or banned in another thread. There is no immunity to this thread.
2. You may only insult or be sarcastic to someone who has already posted in the thread.
3. No insult is serious. This is for fun, dammit.
74 replies
Open
habsfanatic (398 D)
09 Jul 14 UTC
Fall of the American Empire IV
hi guys i'm about to play my first diplomacy game on the american empire and i'm looking for some guidance/tactic. do you have any suggest or link I could look online?

thank you in advance
10 replies
Open
THELEGION (0 D X)
10 Jul 14 UTC
Could we add a new map
I would like to request for a new map but not just any map a map of a game series called Fallout. The map would be a little like fall of the american empire but a little smaller it would just contain usa (except Hawaii), canada and mexico. There would be 12 factions.The NCR, Caesars Legion,The Enclave,The Commonwealth,The super mutants,The Great Kahns, The Chinese remnants jackal Raiders,viper raiders and 3 brotherhood of steel texas, midwestern and capitol.
19 replies
Open
Top 50 GR Game
I've just had a 2 month absence from playing on the site (which for me was a long time - even if I know people leave for much longer), and I would love to return to playing some high quality games.

This might be a bit ambitious, but I am hoping for a top 50 GR game (WTA July ratings). My rating is 31. Besides the GR rating, and a classic WTA, I really don't mind phase lengths, if it is non anon or semi anon, or the point buy in.
24 replies
Open
Page 173 of 407
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top