What Western countries have always had a hard time figuring out is how to conduct asymmetrical warfare whereby the enemy hides amidst the population, uses tunnels, and in the case of groups like Isis and Hamas, use a variety of barbaric terrorist methods, no matter the cost to their own people. — schopenhauer1

Good point. That is one of the things makes the West so historically unique, that it seeks to hold itself to strict standards of humane warfare. The idea of war crimes, is as insane as it is brilliant because it creates an objective moral highground in relation to the brutality and savagery of total war.

The genocide — oh, sorry, I mean that very just “war” on innocent children — continues. Eight thousand dead and counting. — Mikie

Boo hoo

Apparently, you'be not been paying attention — 180 Proof

I only have to hear the lame ass bitching and whining from you Hamas symps to know Hamas is fucked.

And Bibi's regime took the bait, so fuck 'em too. — 180 Proof

Have you been paying attention? Bibi's regime is not the one getting fucked

Did you happen to look at the graph on the Wikipedia page? Look at what happened to the temperature at the beginning of the — frank

I did.

how is it applied specifically to the current trend of climate change?

The proximal vector in the multiplexed zone retraces the inferior Fibonacci levels to localize on the scale of dimensional applications. — frank

I have never heard such a precise and clear explanation of the weather. Does this apply to the fluid dynamics of both clouds and water vapor?

For decades Bibi has supplied matches & gasoline to Hamas and now firebombs Gaza in retaliation for Hamas setting one of Bibi's houses ablaze. — 180 Proof

Encouraging intruders is the best way to ensure who your enemy is. At this point there is no ambiguity about the motivations of the enemy, despite the fact that the front door was left open on purpose ... hamas played their hand, fuck 'em

You can't identify single incidents like this, or look at a single graph, or look at this year's weather and decide what the climate is doing. The climate is much bigger than this year, or even the last 150 years. This is why they use super computers to sort out all the billions of variables. — frank

Yes of course. Us peons couldn't possibly understand the the variable approximations of numerous models that get averaged out to give us a low resolution picture of how the climate will have changed in 100 years. Yes, we should just shut up when the politicians interpret all this hyper-accurate data and accept whatever they tell us. I'm sure there is no ulterior agenda.

I live by the sea, and empirically I observe none of the supposedly world-shattering trends that people talk about. — Tzeentch

True. Why haven't any of the beaches gotten smaller in the past 25 years from rising sea levels. I figured they would have closed many flooded beaches by this point.

I'm amazed at the lack of skepticism from the average person towards both media and government. It's not like they do not have clear record of nefarious and outright deceptive behavior. Why do people so easily keep trusting them with so much shit? Where is a speck of suspended judgment to be found? It is insane.

no, i just want to know one thing and i cannot get a straight answer.

The graph that shows the milankovitch cycle covers eight hundred thousand years. That's gigantic. Our species has only been around for maybe 300,000. It's kind of mind blowing to get the scale of geological time. I found it that way, anyway. — frank

And the scale of geological time makes our current predictions of "human caused" climate change look like a political agenda when a regular guy cannot get a straight answer about why human activity has superseded natural causes as reason for climate change, despite any historical precedent. I expect no explanation or effort to convince me. We are all simply meant to accept what the great masters tell us.

When you want hostilities to occur you ignore the warning signs and let your enemies attack you so you may appear Just to the world. — Vaskane

Correct. It is a sucka play for nabbing baby-raping dimwits

I have to ask you: did you think the earth's climate had pretty much always been the way it is now? — frank

I did not. And I never atttibuted any of the changes in the earth's climate to human activity. I'm just curious about why the pattern of climate change is attributed to natural causes in every instance except for the present one.

i want a real answer so i can be readily convinced. I'm willing to ignore the money trail if I can get a solid explanation for why, in the 4.5 billion years of naturally caused climate change, it is only in the past 150 years that human activity has become the overwhelming cause of the current trend. But i get nothing but evasions. I know why. I should follow the money.

When you want hostilities to occur you ignore the warning signs and let your enemies attack you so you may appear Just to the world. (In reply to the PBS documentary). — Vaskane

Encouraging intruders is the best way to ensure who your enemy is. At this point there is no ambiguity about the motivations of the enemy, despite the fact that we left the front door unlocked on purpose ... facts are facts

's

The IPCC attributes pre-industrial spikes in CO2 and temperature to natural factors such as volcanic activity, changes in solar radiation, and variations in Earth's orbit. These natural influences have historically played a role in climate change. However, the IPCC attributes the recent trend in climate change to human activity. The current trend of climate change fits perfectly into the prehistorical pattern of climate change, so why is it now attributed to human activity as opposed to natural causes as it is in every previous case?

i rarely do... but i always watch your videos. You are obviously insane

Despite your display of supremacy, the question remains:

According to @Mikie's graph- what explanation does IPCC give us for the occurrence of the pattern of climate change over the past 800,000 years (which the current trend fits into perfectly on time), in which all prior events occurred in the absence of human industrialization and modernization?

It's partly the earth's axial wobble, and partly the way the earth's orbit changes from circular to elliptical. I haven't read a book about the climate change in a couple of years, and that's long enough to get out of date. So, don't take my word. Look it up. — frank

From the looks of it, climate change is far from being human caused. From what you have told me, it seems like it has more to do with axial wobbles and solar cycles than human activity.

Yes — frank

So then, what explanation does IPCC give us for the occurrence of that pattern in the absence of human industrialization and modernization?

That graph covers 800,000 years in 4 inches. You're just a tiny speck at the end. — frank

Nevertheless, it shows an obvious pattern. Don't play dumb.

don't know what you mean by "the same pattern — frank

I'm going off 's graph:

Basically a shit ton of computer modelling by a shit ton of scientists all over the world. It's called the IPCC. — frank

And what is the IPCC explanation for why the current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age?

For climate change? Of course. The climate has been changing since there's been a climate. — frank

Yes, for climate change. Why do you think current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age?

milankovitch cycle — frank

Are you suggesting that there may be causal factors beyond the human?

the graph you present shows a spike in co2 and temperature about every 40-60 thousand years.

What accounts for that?

800 thousand years isn’t short. — Mikie

It is compared to 4.5 billion years. What does the data say about the other 4,499,200,000 years the earth has existed?

That's usually the time Israel does something horrible which is then not picked up in western media because they're too busy gorging themselves on a ridiculous amount of food. — Benkei

Who is gorging themselves? The Jews or the media?

Climate scientists are alarmists, dogmatists, zealots. Funny so much quasi-religious accusations get thrown about when so much of this comes from evangelicals, who themselves are largely young-earth creationists. — Mikie

The great god Science has pronounced our doom, and your faith or lack of faith changes nothing. — unenlightened

Humanity as a whole stands in judgement of itself, and it looks like our judgement is that we might as well die in our own shit. So it goes. — unenlightened

You have neither listened nor inclined your ears to hear, although the Lord persistently sent to you all his servants the prophets, saying, ‘Turn now, every one of you, from his evil way and evil deeds. . . Yet you have not listened to me, declares the Lord, that you might provoke me to anger with the work of your hands to your own harm. — Jeremiah 25:4

Read what you wrote as if you were talking about money. Money is a successful social technology. So is the legal apparatus that allows us to do rule of law. We just don't have any social technology for orchestrating events beyond about a hundred years. — frank

Energy is also a social technology that is a real experience for people. People depend on it as much as money and law. It is ridiculous that people are willing to experiment with this highly impractical social technology for orchestrating events beyond about a hundred years at the cost of crippling our capacity for producing cheap avaliable energy in the present. "That the wise men should gaze up at the sun and moon and yet fail to see what lies beneath their feet." (Diogenes)

Im sure it will be really nice when Western countries become dependent on the coal power of countries like China and India to fuel their unproven green energy infrastructures.

The issue is that we don't have any experience with "caring" on the temporal and geographical scale of climate change. — frank

That is because it is not something that is experienced. It is an "idea". And there is no moral imperative to believe or agree with an idea. If an idea cannot compel assent on the weight of its own merit but requires coercion and ridicule to enforce, there is an obvious problem with the idea, and a bigger problem with the people that want to impose ideology upon others.

When was the last time you heard anyone talk about pesticides causing Parkinson's disease in increasingly younger people? — Tzeentch

Never. That is because the climate change doom cult is full of shit. And if they did actually talk about it, they would no doubt blame it on climate change so as to incite more alarmism.

Yeah, another shocker: just ignore whatever you disagree with. In line with the rest of your juvenile ramblings. — Mikie

Thank you for being nice enough to at least acknowledge that I'm consistent with my juvenile ramblings, because I am very capable of rambling in other ways.

according to an analysis of visual evidence by The New York Times.

:yawn: Blahblahblah. NYT has no credibility.

It was 12 midnight and I had an important meeting the next morning. Should I spend more time trying to convince someone on here that a comedian was wrong about some of the basic history of my country when they just don't want to believe that? I mean this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pale is all anyone would need, but then I'd just be inviting more off-topic conversation. — Baden

Fair point. Allow me to retract my reference to you.

identity as this or that nationality is no longer functioning other than purely from a place of grievance and revenge. — schopenhauer1

That says it all. Probably why the woke leftist victim mentality is so keen to symp for Hamas. Peas in a pod.

Being left apparently nowadays means having principles. — Benkei

Yes it does, specifically the marxian principles of critical consciousness.

who also didn't get the point of the video. — schopenhauer1

He got the point of the video. He is just regurgitating the programming of the college kids, leftists, and "useful idiots" so he can avoid addressing the actual point.

Peculiar that he never mentions the multiple times Israel tried for a two state solution and was outright rejected. I believe Maher mentioned it though. No ambiguity about it.

I actually think he did quite good cramming a lot of conflict-history in a short amount of time to make a broader point about getting over what one perceives as historical wrongs over land and whatnot. The Israeli-Pals issue is no different than what has happened and in the past people have coped, dealt with it, moved on, compromised. — schopenhauer1

Yup. Exactly the point.

So a familiar debate tactic is to focus on some wording issue. Thus the main idea is lost to fighting over the trees and not the forest. — schopenhauer1

And when you call them out for it, they always seem to cut and run...case in point:

Good night. — Baden