Peterkin

Seems you have a quibble with one report of one reading of one temperature on one day in one place. So.... How does this change/affect/determine climate change ?

Thank Something for Australia.

At the time, it was also the standard reasonable western society. The word 'reasonable' does not have the self-same definition for every person, nation, culture and historical period.

It's just a holding tactic, until their tame supreme court overturns Roe v. Wade. It's just one facet (others include a variety of voter suppression and civil rights limitation and other discriminatory tactics in multiple states) of a strategic takeover by the far right. Yes, it can, too, happen here, and there and anywhere.

Does if I smash your car!

Is that one single temperature the tipping point of climate change?

I'm not entirely sure I get your meaning, please elaborate. Human bahaviour is far more emotion-driven than we like to pretend. We very often (and some psychologists contend, always) act on a feeling and rationalize it later. The particular feeling I was referring to there is a mix of envy, frustration and resentment, which is rolled into a long, smouldering, generalized sense of grievance. Sometimes that feeling just boils over into action. The action is an impulsive lashing out. The rationale is: If I can't own the nice things those happy people have, at least I can spoil their enjoyment by breaking or defacing the nice things.

Not a new reform; the same ones progressives have been proposing since the beginning of civilization. The same ones that, to the degree and extent they've been implemented, some nations became more reasonable, equitable and enjoyable than others. If you say we have reached the limit of improvement, you're probably right. After all, it was mere philosophizing.

Because I haven't proposed a system. I proposed social, economic and administrative reforms.

Interesting judgment on something you presume that I "would like established". Can you describe the system I would like established? I know I haven't.

That may just be the answer to a large percentage of crime in our times. Property damage, malicious mischief, joyriding, reckless endangerment, vandalism, arson. Much of that kind of crime is retaliatory: people who are or feel deprived of something, feel unfairly treated, abused, cheated, betrayed. Discontented - and determined to share with their discontent with those who have wronged them, or who they have been told are responsible, or those who benefit from the wrong done to them, or even, unreasoningly, those who appear to be content when they are not.

Okay, so i took the dumb test. It's a dumb test. They ask what you are and and then tell you are what you just said you were. Probably people like me: who didn't take the test seriously and just put down whatever.

People not open to experience are usually either fearful (because they have been injured or threatened) or complacent (self-satisfied; convinced that they are already complete). Are these references to a test or chart of some kind? What are Big Five?

Yes, but not into which person can, would, or is likely to break which law. It's illegal in most cultures to strangle a man. I might even desire to strangle some particular man for some particular reason. But I could not do it, simply because my hands are weak and stiff with arthritis. Besides, I have several times made the distinctions between breaking a law and committing a crime, between committing a crime and being a criminal, between unlawful and antisocial behaviour. No, it just dies. That's often, though not always, an available option for humans faced with impossible laws. However, if you're insisting that every citizen can be trained to commit antisocial acts, then you should consider the converse: that perhaps every citizen can be trained to refrain from antisocial acts.

You are basing a very big generalization on an untested theory. I'm not saying it's impossible to turn every person on Earth into a depraved child-raping murderer, but I'm skeptical. Even the craziest-making societies raise a variety of criminals and law-enforcers - I'm guessing because there is a variety of temperaments and mentalities.

All Germans obeyed some of the laws. Most Germans disobeyed some of the laws. Some Germans committed heinous war crimes. Some Germans disobeyed the law by refusing to abet the war crimes. Ignorance or knowledge, legality or illegality doesn't figure into individual capability or individual conscience. It doesn't matter whether something I am is against a law or not. If it's illegal to be albino and I lack pigmentation, I can't help breaking the law. If it's legal, and richly rewarded, to defraud pensioners of the equity in their home, I still wouldn't do it, because I consider it wrong. If the law says, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, I won't light the bonfire and might, if i were brave enough, help one escape her legal punishment. Everyone is capable of breaking laws. Not everyone might break every law.

Every person. I don't think so. Every person might break some laws at some time under some circumstances, but there is a limit to the physical and psychological capability of each one. There are many things I have done, am willing to do or might be provoked to do that are against a law. But there are some things I cannot do, whether they are forbidden or required - either due to my physical or emotional limitations, and some things I will not do, due to moral constraint. A human, not all humans. Else, who would throw the stones?

That's a restatement of the first one. What makes a society good or better? Which good is greater and by what standard of measurement? What level of sacrifice does it take to serve the greatest good? If societies have trajectories through history, those trajectories can be traced from the point of origin - or constitution - to the point of extinction. In past civilizations, we can point to the junctions at which pivotal decisions were made or events took place, that determined the direction that society's history was about to take. We can see which of those events and decisions led on to success and which to failure of the society. But the people, even the top leadership, living in those long-ago civilizations could not see where their decisions would lead. They didn't know they were making bad laws and creating unnecessary criminal classes, enemies, ruptures and fractures. Neither do we.

What makes a direction the right one? Which is forward? Every person? Every crime?

Evil, like good, is a product of the human imagination. While other animals show degrees of ingenuity in problem-solving, we have a flair for problem-creating. We have put as much effort into making one another suffer as we have into healing - and certainly more of our human and material resources into warfare than welfare. It's not so much a question of how many of its people are bad for a society, as how bad a society is for its people. A criminal justice system is built up from the assumption that the most desirable outcome for a nation is that all citizens abide by the law. To that end, it sets about training up its citizens to obey its laws. Those who fail to obey the laws are designated "criminal" - a breed apart, suddenly different in kind - and dealt-with according to some philosophical principle ranging from gentle persuasion to years of torture. We deal in the same way with the law-abiding citizens of another nation with which we happen to be in conflict. And with otherwise law-abiding citizens who have been on the losing side of an internal disagreement over political leadership. And sometimes with citizens who profess a spiritual belief that has been repudiated by the current rulers. Every society makes its own criminals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UqNIOc8rgc&t=51s But we're not like that anymore!!!!

I don't understand the significance of that ^^^ math; I'm a word nerd. Here's the Guardian article. Quite succinct, as usual. (I'll link it when my internet service resumes. It's been hit-and-miss for a week.) That would explain the three days "blanked out". I don't follow how recording temperature at 9 am forms a bias. I should think accurate charting would absolutely require that data be collected at the same time from the same place every day. You can't assume anything about commonality between places: the wind and ocean current patterns have been changing dramatically and unpredictably; landmarks, such as swamp, rain forest, reef, glacier and snowfield are diminishing or disappearing; the factors we used to count on to figure into our local weather can't be counted-on anymore. The only reliable gauge of trends is a graph of temperature, water depth, CO2 level, sandfleas per square foot of beach, or whatever local data are under consideration, collected at a specific spot at specified intervals over a period of time. News outlets like to report 'record' anythings - coldest, fastest, deepest - rather than show trends: those charts the scientist kept waving are such a yawn, they're afraid the audience will not understand it and tune out. There, BTW, is one of our biggest causes of inaction: leaders and news editors treat us like backward children who can't handle big, complicated facts and must be fed on slogans. The NSIDC entry is excellent. Thanks for that!

Look. It has already happened. Like the man in the video (thx, btw; you're just like us!) said, the 1.5 degree mark was passed in 2016. The evidence was compelling enough by the early 80's (when Reagan had the solar panels removed from the White House) Everything since is corroboration. There is nothing more to prove: it's a matter of watching it play out. What's not possible: Halt or reversal of the manifestations. Retention of low-lying coastlands. Saving any part of any glacier - and that means a lot of dry riverbeds. Saving many thousands of animals, bird, insect and plant species. What's still possible: Rescue, relocation and protection of vulnerable human populations. Developing alternate - more efficient - food sources, heating, cooling, lighting, production, transportation and communication. Developing and expanding high-density, efficient and self-sufficient housing. Some mitigation of local damage. Large-scale geoengineering. Some very big concerns there! You know the most bizarre, the most surreal thing about these endless panel discussions? The moderator always smiles and says "Now, now, let's all be polite and hear the crackpot out," as if the crackpot and the expert were both there for their equal entertainment value. In a sane world, the moderator, presumably having had the research team's homework handed to him ten minutes before air-time, wouldn't be fairnadbalanced - he'd be hysterical. It's only the end of the frickin world....

I do. I also very much appreciate how many more interesting sources of information you have contributed since the beginning of this thread. Maybe internet forums are not just a way to kill time, after all!

That wasn't in my sentence. It's okay to agree with things I didn't say, but not to pretend I said them. I think I'll skip the history lesson today. I'm never particularly sorry for people who abuse their power, when they finally - rarely - come to some kind of judgment. I can sort of appreciate why you mix in extraneous material, but I won't. Yay for Australia! (I mean that: it's one of the better western countries. But it's not the world standard - yet.)

Why should it? I didn't appoint or advise that magistrate. If that wrong decision influences other jurists to be unfair to other convicts, I have no control over that, either. Remember, my [uninformed] opinion was that the rapist had probably behaved abnormally long before the first major crime, and should have been flagged as potentially dangerous - possibly contained - sooner. Hitler didn't live in Australia: where and when he lived, it was normal. Racism has been, and is, quite normal and legal in many countries, and so were/are atrocities. Your definition of a normal western country does apply to modern Germany. You have no jurisdiction in the past. I am talking about all kinds of crime committed by heads of state. If they broke the laws of their own country, they can be prosecuted through its own legal apparatus, after they have left office. If they broke international laws, they can be prosecuted in the International Court of Justice, or in a war crimes tribunal set up for the purpose, after their defeat and apprehension. Suicide strikes me a quite sensible precaution in those circumstances.