-1=e^ipi

Like basically the entire scientific community unless we start redefining the scientific community to include creation science, homeopathy and other pseudoscience. The mainstream scientific community views runaway global warming as completely unrealistic based on our understanding of radiative physics and on paleoclimate data. Even the IPCC agrees. "A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away.[1][2] An example of this is believed to have happened in the early history of Venus. On the Earth, the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."[3]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect I sort of get where you are coming from. 1. There is a lot of green propaganda and lack of scientific literacy in society. 2. There were a few outliers in the scientific community such as James Hansen, who held the position that runaway global warming could occur. Although recently it appears that even people like James Hansen have come around and now admit that runaway global warming is not a possibility, or so I was told recently in the comment section on Judith Curry's blog. "Hansen no longer holds that a Venus-like runaway is possible in less than a billion year time-scale. Reason: improved accounting of “non-radiative vertical energy transport”." http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/quantifying-the-anthropogenic-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2/#comment-700817 Something causing warming does not imply runaway warming. Runaway warming means that positive feedbacks are sufficiently strong (greater than 1). If I cover myself in a blanket, is it going to cause runaway warming that will boil me in my sleep?

Your question is a bit meaningless and cannot be evaluated without some sort of emission scenario. Though I suspect you are looking for something along the lines of a climate impulse response function. Anyway, if you take both the climate impulse response function and the rate at which CO2 is absorbed by the bio-sphere + oceans then maximal warming occurs in approximately a decade after CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere by humans. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article Your scenario doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting that there will be a time period of centuries during which formally productive land will be unproductive but formally unproductive land will not be productive yet? Polar regions warm faster and more than equatorial regions. This is what is observed empirically and what is expected from basic physics. The Earth will become wetter at a similar rate at which it becomes warmer (the water vapour feedback is relatively quick); although ocean temperature increase takes longer (a few decades) to reach equilibrium. 2000 years is roughly the time it takes to reach the Earth System Sensitivity (ESS). I've tried to answer your question but it isn't adequately defined enough to answer.

I think the context that TimG was referring to was that you were claiming that loss of glaciers would provide a problem because human settlements that rely on the glacier runoff as a water source would no longer have a seasonally stable source of water. TimG's response was that a dam could act as a controllable water reservoir that would help these human settlements store water and have a seasonally stable source of water. The 'tipping point' usually refers to feedbacks exceeding 1 and therefore creating runaway global warming. Runaway global warming is not physically possible and isn't taken seriously by the climate science community. There is no 'tipping point'; it doesn't exist (although one might exist in 2 billion years when the sun gets bright enough).

An opinion's value doesn't somehow hold lessen if it is held by a male rather than a female. Don't be sexist.

But you haven't defined milestones and I'm not sure what you mean by 'noted'.

Do you not think that the male in the relationship should also spend some time off work to help take care of the children?

It's not conspiracy. The BBC has actually achieved Poe's law (see other thread). Look at the portrayal of #gamergate by the media. Look at how the CBC refuses to show the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Relate to? You mean belong to? Well I'm neuroatypical. I'm asexual, so am a sexual minority. I'm not cisgendered as explained in the other thread. Does that answer your question? How are you measuring oppression to determine what groups count as oppressed?

But apparently my responses are not good enough for you? But I guess you "don't have time to peruse [my] posts, comprehend and respond".

The mainstream media is a propaganda machine that has been infiltrated by the social justice warriors. Just because the media tries to sell you a narrative, doesn't mean you should buy it. The gender/sex of the pilot should be irrelevant. I care about lots of things. Your question is too general to give an answer.

Wow really! I never knew. Thank you for enlightening me. And thank WestCoastRunner for this thread. I never knew that women could fly planes. But apparently they can! *sarcasm* Now what if you were a worker for the government and you didn't have to care about profit margins? Then what choice would you make? Because society at that time was very patriarchal, sexist and didn't value women as much as men.

I think you are looking for strawman argument. Yes, this is the 'progressive' way. Be it gender issues, climate change, global warming, islamism, or whatever. And it seems to be getting more intolerant every day. At least some people such as Bill Maher are starting to realize how ridiculous things are becoming.

Except no one is attacking women's rights. Name 1 women's right that is being attacked in this thread. The right to be praised by everyone for an achievement more than you would if you were male and did the exact same achievement? You could try going to a feminist safe space where you are protected from evil dissenting opinion. Atheism+ and tumblr are good options. It's too bad you can't do what Anita Sarkeesian did several years back and disable comments so that you don't have to read dissenting opinion. Your ideology can't survive in a free market place of ideas, so your best bet is hide from areas where people can express a dissenting opinion.

Why are you proud of accomplishments that you didn't not have any involvement in? Being proud of your own accomplishments or the accomplishments of the children you raise is one thing. Being proud of the accomplishments of someone completely unrelated to you who you never met makes zero sense to me. Yes. You should do your best to protect your children from dissenting opinion. Because if they were to be introduced to dissenting opinion, there is the chance that they might make the wrong conclusion! This is why we need feminist safe spaces, biased media like BBC and CBC that filter out all the incorrect opinion and evidence, and have our schools teach the correct social justice narrative so that children are raised up to not think incorrect thoughts. *sarcasm* You haven't defined 'milestones'. If the pilot were black, I wouldn't care either. Does that answer your question? Look, all I am saying is that certain versions of history are distorted and overly simplistic. If you look at the details, things are more complicated and nuanced. And for the past few decades the custody issue has been completely reversed and is a major issues that MRAs want to see addressed. Equality with child custody hasn't been achieved, and I see little desire by mainstream feminists to want to achieve gender equity in this area. Also, as an individual that grew up in some very extreme circumstances, the biased child custody laws have greatly affected me in negative ways. Existence of monarchy = evidence that society discriminates against women? What? I have a better idea. Let's abolish the monarchy and become a republic. Discrimination issues go well beyond affirmative action, especially when it comes to hiring people. It's politically fashionable to discriminate against white males when making hiring decisions because it helps reduce 'social injustice' and is the 'progressive' thing to do. If you, WestCoastRunner, or Michael Hardner were in a position about making a decision to hire someone for a job, and you had two candidates, myself and someone slightly less qualified but happened to be female, then my guess is that you would all be very tempted to hire the female because it would be the 'socially just' and 'progressive' thing to do. And if you did hire the slightly less qualified female, you guys would then give yourselves a pat on the back congratulating yourselves on making the 'progressive' and morally correct decision. And there are statistics to back this up. Male unemployment is much higher than female unemployment. Unmarried female millennials outearn unmarried male millennials in urban areas in UK, Canada & US (why do you think this occurs in urban areas?... perhaps it is urban areas are more 'progressive' and therefore it is more politically fashionable to discriminate against males). If you look at some recent studies such as Oereopoulos 2011 you will see that there is clear discrimination in places such as Toronto against resumes with male names (and this effect is statistically significant and larger than the effect of having a foreign name). http://oreopoulos.faculty.economics.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Why-Do-Skilled-Immigrants-Struggle-in-the-Labor-Market.pdf But don't worry, I'm doing my part helping to reduce all of the wage gaps and therefore increase social justice. For much of 2013, I was making a maximal contribution to reducing all of these gaps. 1. I'm not a WASP. 2. You having the perception that you have not observed discrimination does not mean that it does not exist. Society is very inhomogeneous and what you experience will vary depending on where you live, how old you are, etc. A female in a burka claiming that Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia do not discriminate against women does not mean that no discrimination against females in these societies exists.

What do you mean by celebrate? Do I hold an annual party in honour of past achievements? No. Ah the irony. I'm not 'opposing' the 'celebration', I just think that people should be treated equally based on gender/sex and the gender/sex of the pilot is irrelevant. I disagree. The 'dictionary' definition does not accurately reflect mainstream feminism.

You still haven't responded to what I wrote earlier, but whatever. I bothered to look at the trailer. I'll list two quotes from the trailer" "active and regular abuse directed towards women" "images of mutilated women's bodies" There is also active and regular abuse directed towards men and images of mutilated men's bodies. I've received death threats, rape threats, insults, etc. while playing games, far worse than what is listed by the people in the trailer. It's not a female thing, it happens to both men and women. Actually, I recall that a recent pew survey in the UK found that men are more likely to receive online abuse than women. What we are seeing is that a group of 3rd-wave-feminists that try to see sexism and misogyny everywhere are interpreting their online experience as being due to some misogynistic male conspiracy of misogynists that don't want females to play games, rather than it being something that both men and women experience.

Good for you. I hope you pass on some of your programming ability to your children. I am aware of the SJW narrative with respect to #gamergate and related issues, and have been aware of Anita Sarkeesian's 'work' for years. I see no need to watch the propaganda film you refer to as a 'documentary'. Now do you want to actually respond to what I write point by point?

Never. They face different kinds of discrimination, a lot of which is attributed to different gender roles. Facing different discrimination doesn't say which group of people faces more discrimination though.

Yeah, I probably need to adopt the large amounts of cognitive dissonance required for the 'progressive' mindset. Internal consistency is such a hassle anyway... *sarcasm* Perhaps you should learn that the past did not begin in the 20th century. Men only got the vote about a century before women did. Before that, almost everyone didn't have rights, male or female. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage "The First French Republic was the first nation that adopted universal male suffrage in 1792; it was the first national system that abolished all property requirements as a prerequisite for allowing men to register and vote. Greece recognized full male suffrage in 1829 (although it excluded the unemployed until 1877), and France and Switzerland have continuously done so since the 1848 Revolution (for resident male citizens). Upon independence in the 19th century, several Latin American countries and Liberia in Africa initially extended suffrage to all adult males, but subsequently restricted it based on property requirements. The German Empire implemented full male suffrage in 1871. The United States theoretically adopted full male suffrage with the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1870, but this was not practically implemented in the South until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1893 New Zealand became the first nation in the world to grant universal, male and female adult suffrage.[1] In most countries, full universal suffrage followed about a generation after full male suffrage. Notable exceptions in Europe were France, where women could not vote until 1944, Greece (1952), and Switzerland (1971 in federal elections and 1990 in all cantonal elections). It is worth noting that countries that took a long time to adopt women's suffrage were often actually pioneers in granting universal male suffrage." If you look at the historical context, the 'justification' that was used by both men and women for women not having the vote in western countries during the century during which men had the vote but women didn't was that the ability to vote was given due to the inability to be drafted. In many cases the vote and other male 'privileges' were used as incentives to get men willing to go die in wars. For much of this time period the majority of women didn't not want the vote. If you look at old newspapers from 100+ years ago you will see that women opposed to female suffrage referred to the draft as one of their main reasons against it. I don't agree with this position, but I'm just saying that the past was more complicated than this naive narrative of men = privileged, women = oppressed since the dawn of time. No, I'm not. To me the gender/sex of the individual makes no difference if the individual is flying an F-35 or if the individual is watching My Little Pony. The gender/sex makes no difference, not the activity. Oh look, attempts at using gender conditioning to control my behaviour. Should I also 'man up' and 'grow balls' as well? *sarcasm* Quite a bit, actually, but that isn't relevant to this thread.

Also, if you read what I wrote, I didn't label you as a feminist. I said that you have a perception of a traditionalist-feminist false dichotomy of possible positions what can take with respect to gender/sex issues.

I still don't understand what you want. You want me to state a group of people that were oppressed in a particular situation in a place or time? Okay. Black people in the US South for most of the past 200 years. Yet you still refuse to accept the existence of my position and claim it is a silly pendantic cartwheel. Again, you refuse to acknowledge the existence of my position because it doesn't fit with your predetermined set of possible positions with respect to gender issues. So you try to associate me with the traditionalist position on the basis that I don't hold your position. Yes. But that isn't the only definition of feminism. Feminism can mean anything from gender egalitarianism to misandric hate ideology; so if you are a gender egalitarian, then why not just identify as a gender egalitarian? Furthermore, if you did support gender egalitarianism as much as me you would reject the label of feminism on the basis that it isn't gender neutral alone.

Exactly. There are different types of games who play different genres of games. But these SJW ideologs can't see that and want to portray this narrative that gamers = straight white misogynistic males that play games like grand theft auto. There are strategy-gamers, MMORPG-gamers, FPS-gamers, puzzle-gamers, gamers that prefer pc games, gamers that prefer console games, gamers that prefer indy games, gamers that prefer racing games, people that like games with good storylines, casual gamers that play things like angry birds, people that play only minecraft, people that play only pokemon, people that play only starcraft, people that play only counterstrike, etc. Not many people that play games would identify as just a 'gamer'; there are many subdivisions.

I never said that. Don't misrepresent my position. Again, preaching to the choir. But I agree that they aren't isolated incidents. They are both very much a result of the SJWs trying to infiltrate the media, including gaming media, to spread their nonsense ideology. This notion exists primarily by non-gamers or by SJW ideologs that want sexism in 'gaming' to exist so that they have a cause to fight. This notion is propagated by the mainstream feminists & SJWs, not by #gamergate or its supporters. How about you and all the 3rd-wave-feminists take up programming then? It's very fun, I do it during my spare time. Except there are many instances where females are not depicted this way and also instances were males are portrayed with unrealistic body forms. But when women are not portrayed in this way, 3rd-wave-feminists complain that the portrayal is 'repressing female sexuality'. For example, Anita Sarkeesian complained that Lara Croft from Tomb Raider was a sex object, but when a later game with a version of Lara Croft came out with smaller breasts and other features, Anita Sarkeesian complained that this was sexism because now female sexuality was being repressed. And if you make an extremely generic character with basically zero sexual traits that happens to be female, it is also sexist according to Anita Sarkeesian because it is now the 'men with boobs' game-trope. Basically, there is no satisfying people like Anita Sarkeesian. Any portrayal of women is sexist because it either depicts women as 'sex objects', 'men with boobs' or is repressing female sexuality. But if games do not portray any women, then they are also sexist for not having enough female representation. Well, to be fair, Anita Sarkeesian recently admitted that there is 1 female character that she finds acceptable, meet the scythian: The only way to satisfy people like Anita Sarkeesian is to pixilate all video game characters to the point where physical traits are unrecognizable. Repeating SJW talking points over and over again doesn't make it true. Why are sony & nintendo based in Japan? Why is Korea the progaming capital of the world? White males are just one of many demographics that gaming companies cater to. Grand Theft Auto is 1 game and is hardly representative of games in the market place. Stop trying to lump all games together.

If you are anorexic then you are less likely to be obese. Obesity = bad. Therefore, anorexia = good?

Sigh, I've been reluctant to make threads on gender issues and/or go into much detail, but if you are going to spam threads on every trivial thing, I guess I should get serious because this false narrative propagated by you and mainstream Canadian society is greatly annoying me. You will now have an ideological war. Documentary? You mean propaganda film that preaches to the choir and propagates the false mainstream-media narrative of #gamergate and related issues? Let me guess, it involves Anita Sarkeesian. Guess I should make a #gamergate and Anita Sarkeesian thread.

Yes, this is the progressive mindset! Either you are with us or you are a misogynist. No other position can exist! Perfect logic.