Where did you get Tartary is a country? Is is an obselete term for a wide region spawing Manchuria, the Gobe Desert and the Tibetan Highlands. It has always been inhabited by a variety of people. From what I get, Tartary is in a certain way associated with the Mongols, Manchurians and other Khanates, Khaganates and all that jazz, so it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say "they're gone". That's like saying the Indian subcontinent is gone.

Well, what else would you expect someone in a discussion to do? NOT to express a point of view?


That sentence is either a. ignorant (as in, you didn't even read what I wrote) or b. downright malicious (as in, you're blatantly exaggerating our interactions to garner sympathy and put yourself in the high ground) because not only I have apologized for asking you'd be a troll after you claim something preposterous (which is an immature stretch to claim this is "picking on someone") but I also pointed out the flaws in your arguments. Stop playing the victim, you're too old for this type of behaviour.


I find curious how you're implying I'm spamming... while your current post adds nothing to the discussion. Besides being a bit of an ass.

And no, we're not headed towards global cooling (something I have evidenced before) and much less to an Ice Age. To claim there is a possibility of Ice Age only points your lack of familiarity with basic concepts of geological-climatic trends given we're in an INTERGLACIAL PERIOD and we'll remain on it for a long while. (Or maybe I'm the fool here and you have substantial evidence pointing otherwise. If that's the case, by all means present it.)

Bottom line: if you're gonna keep avoiding discussing the subject and resort to these sleazy techniques, decker, then you can consider our discussion over.

And Spendulus, if you're reading this, I'll address your points in the short future.

Your outlandish claim (i.e. extraordinary without any substantial evidence backing it up) made me feel you were just teasing or not taking discussions seriously, but I agree I could've been a bit less aggressive when pointing that aspect. I'm a bit cynical with non-bitcoin discussion in this forum after seeing notbatman. So my bad if I was aggressive.


English Wikipedia is well moderated especially for more scientific articles so I'd argue they are trustworthy as long as they link their sources, which happened on the section you mentioned. I wouldn't think there are lies in there.


I feel this claim is a product of two misunderstandings.

The first is that when we're talking about global cooling, i.e. a trend of decreasing temperature, a punctual event isn't useful. It may affect weather (short term) conditions, but as the years elapse its effects will be slowly reserved. Volcanic-related global cooling has already happened on Earth's history (a geology paper that backs my claim but uses a lot of jargon).

The second is that our current geological setting does not indicate widespread volcanic activity (the last moment such was the case was the breakthrough of Pangea, some 180 million years ago.. In general we can say the tectonic plates shift between moments of intense volcanism and moments of intense mountain-building and we're kinda somewhere in between those.


That's an excellent question. My answer for that would be: the consensual explanation of specialists who back their claim on scientific evidence. And if that isn't enough, then I'd go and skim through the scientific articles myself. And if that is not enough either, I'd go and read their methodologies & results while ignoring their conclusions. But that third step is mostly reserved for academic purposes. What about you?


I mean, the oil industry isn't exclusively related to fossil fuels, neither is the only type of fuel that is "unsustainable", so I wouldn't say they're Great Satan. And while I do recognize environmentalists think so, I wouldn't say such an opinion is directed to the researchers but to the companies & their exploratory techniques (often bypassing procedures to guarantee minimal environmental impact) & their overall long-term goals.

With that said, I didn't get your point.


Of course they're not scientific, this is not a symposium and using jargon is not important. What matters is expressing one's point, and I'll restate mine in case it wasn't clear:

Global warming is the long-term trend of increase in average global temperatures;
Global cooling is the long-term trend of decrease in average global temperatures.


Since the Earth is in an open system, there's no thermodynamic equilibrium. There might be models of Earth as a closed system, but I'm not aware of that. But the lack of evidence does not point the lack of existence, so this might be a widespread tool used in Atmospheric sciences, who know. You'd have to ask a climatologist about that.

Nonetheless, I still think that the indirect evidences of anthropogenic actions & global warming suffices to cause a correlation. Firstly, men impacted the Ozone layer with CFC and was able to revert the damages, secondly, temperatures show a trend of unnatural increase since the Industrial Revolution which can't really be tracked to any other long-term influence other than, well, men (once again). And given our destructive impact on the biosphere it's not far-fetched to think we could also impact yet another (vulnerable) sphere of the Earth system.

Not only such argument was used in this thread (by BADdecker, but by now I've learnt to take what he says with a grain of salt) but also on the sites I originally linked.


In here lies most of our misunderstandings, I'd reckon.

Global warming & cooling to me climatic trends, which indicate whether the average world temperature is rising or decreasing, and therefore to claim global cooling exists is essentially to argue the world's temperatures in the long term are decreasing.

Naturally there are cooling & warming influences, but these are factors that feed the pattern and not the pattern itself.


That question is more complex than it seems. What would equilibrium temperature mean? Which sphere of the Earth System is being accounted (I'm assuming only the atmosphere)? In which time scale? And, lastly, I don't see how knowing that would contribute to the conclusion there is/isn't global warming/cooling.


A punctual event is irrelevant. That's the equivalent of me pointing at Australia and saying "See, global warming's so bad that it has exponentially empowered natural/artificial forest fires! Do your research ". Sure, one is a product of the other, but it's one out-of-the-curve catastrophic anomaly rather than the norm. Besides, can you point studies that sign current or future volcanic activity is so high there is a chance of global cooling?

There seems to be an ongoing misconception between what is, in practical terms, actual overpopulation and what is more aptly dubbed overabundance. If we're talking about a situation where there are far more people than an environment/the physical space can satisfactorily sustain, cases in point Hong Kong/Singapore/megalopolises, it certainly can be framed as overpopulation, which isn't the case for countries with low GDP & life quality conditions and a lot of inhabitants.

An important step for fast & efficient development is a demographic window. That essentially means a country will have a lot of young people, and therefore a prominent workforce, capable of providing for the "dependents" (children and elderly). Assuming 2.1 children per woman is necessary to maintain stable population levels, to achieve the demographic window a nation would require some good 3 - 4 children per woman which is the case, as of now, in Africa. (Also, many of you

Also, in regards to poor people having a lot of children,


Missing that demographic window has some costs, and so does inorganically (and carelessly) decreasing fertility rates.

My argument here isn't advocating poor people having a lot of children, as such behaviour does have perverse effects (birth mortality & criminality rates & overpopulation in urban areas & some others) but instead that overabundance of people isn't a burden to development (in fact, as I pointed, it's the opposite of that). An underdeveloped country with stable population (for instance, Brazil) will still have terrible life conditions due to its underdevelopment, and said underdevelopment is produced by a multitude of factors, especially those related to productive capacity & institutional strength. Those two things are strongly tied to long-term goals or, as we Brazilians call, a "nation project", a set of cross-generational development projects, which is often the opposite on what happens in underdeveloped/developing countries (where populist, short term measures to alleviate the immediate misery are the norm).

Lastly - and that may trigger a lot of people, but it's undeniable - historical inheritance is another heavy factor for underdevelopment. The constant meddling of world powers (the three largest culprits are always US/UK/USSR) in internal affairs has delayed a political interest in developing a "nation project" in several, SEVERAL countries.

Anywhere that has vinegar and clove is heavily avoided by ants. If you put a few cloves in your food pantries and you won't see them roam in your crackers & sweets.

I'll have to... um... agree with BAdecker.

Besides, it has irrefutable medicinal value.

You can't possibly be serious right now. Are you a troll akin to notbatman?

Oh, man. At this point I feel like you're just picking faults at everything I said.

I openly stated: "And in honesty that piece serves no purpose, so let's just scratch it and leave it as misargumentation of my part."

Yes, I realize I wasn't able to express myself clearly. Can we move rather than beating this dead dog?


In regards to that, it's mostly anecdotal. As far as my research pointed, hardly any larger press wouldn't use that type of misinterpretation. But if I ever get into a global warming skepticism group in Facebook I'll be sure to printscreen you the images.

In fact, what larger presses DO use as a global cooling "argument" is the idea that sun activity is paramount to Earth's climate and thus if sun activity increases global warming happens and if it decreases global cooling happens. Which I have pointed out a few posts behind is not scientifically accurate.


If you don't agree with the notion that sun activity is directly causing global cooling, then I guess we're done.

I'm surprised to see I've got 9/10 in the beginner quiz. It essentially focuses on historical/general characteristics of cryptos, and since I like the first and know about the latter, I was able to make it through. (Although it was a guess that Litecoin's subdivided in photons!).

Also, the quiz's design is quite elegant. Props to that.

I'd like to hear from antivaxxers their positioning on the eradication of smallpox through a 28-years-long worldwide campaign.

Smallpox is a disease that affected 15 million people per year in the 60s and killed around 2 million of those. Therefore, had that proportion maintained, smallpox would have killed as many as 80 million people nowadays.

Worth mentioning is that since Ancient China inoculation has been a treatment/preventive measure used against smallpox, decreasing mortality by around 40 times.

Source.

Slow down, cowboy. Mesoamerican civilizations were in some aspects superior to Europeans (and the bigger examples of this are the extremely efficient taxation system of both the Incas & Aztecs and their engineering capacities which were frankly astounding akin to Etruscan technology in its respective time stamp) but couldn't hold a candle to European military might and general cunning and that was their downfall. Besides, intrigues and civil wars were the motors that crumbled the mighty Mesoamerican empires, especially the Aztecs.

That does not mean one civilization is "superior" to another, for instance, Russia could trample Finland militarily but I think we both can agree that the Russian civilization/lifestyle is by no means superior to the Finnish one (especially if we put in perspective life quality aspects).

With all that said, I see no correlation between Christianity and European supremacy over the Mesoamericans assuming the conquests & expansion were hardly religion-fueled and, if anything, the Catholic Church was a deterrent to "utmost development" because it heavily burdened & opposed exaggerated exploration of the natives.

And, at last, to compare the current world order and its socioeconomics factors with those of 1400s is absolutely anachronic. You can't really measure that efficiently. What would be better was to measure Mesoamerican "socioeconomics" vs Europeans. Take a hint? It's a 50-50 battle to say the least.

Sure, but there's a complete difference between placebo as a collateral effect and placebo as the main healing factor of a medicine.

I'm glad he's over, this guy's a weird creep to say the least and smells like a proponent of status quo. And I agree with what you said about Bernie, in fact I think his ascension as a Democrat candidate was postponed by the establishment since the last election. This time though I don't think they'll be able to null him again.

Since there's a fat discussion regarding homeopathy around here, can someone explain me what are the basis for that sort of stuff? It is essentially placebo,  does it use some "natural alternatives to medicine" (i.e. herbal plants with scientifically proven efficiency), is it more like the esoteric bullshit I saw on TV once of an ex-homeopathy vendor trying to infuse her olive plantations with positive energy by burying some random crap, or neither?

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but a political analysis I've read recently is:

Buttigieg is growing because the establishment has sort of cancelled their support to Warren & Biden as they realized how little chances they actually have because of n factors and opted instead for this weird, almost unexperienced but relatively progressive and lacking a scandal in his biography, dude called Buttigieg.

I (honestly) can't tell if you're being sarcastic. If you are disregard this paragraph, but if you're not, then this becomes a bit concerning to me, because that was supposedly fundamental knowledge: we are in an "ice age", but on an interglacial period. We've been in an "ice age" for quite a while now. We're just not in the glacial period per se. And the wide majority of people who talk about climate knows that. If they don't, that just points a lack of fundamental knowledge.

My original arguments were: (A) there are people who use the thought of "we're in an Ice Age" to "debunk" global warming and (B) the concept of global cooling isn't a thing (for our current environment; I'm not talking about it never happened in Earth's 4.5 billion years of age).


I still don't get what is the "logical fallacy" of your argument that I haven't addressed. Besides, both articles you mention (the one you pointed to & the one I linked) I have already debunked. So, if they're supposed to somehow counter what I said, they're already off the table.

Plus, it seems a bit interesting how you're overall avoiding touching on the "sun activity is important in our current climate" part of the debate, which has been the largest target of my counter arguments - and something you've been a bit adamant in defending.


I didn't understand what you said, but "global cooling" implies the average Earth temperature is decreasing. (Is this what you were referring to?)

And if that's what you're arguing is happening right now, that is not what the majority of scientists who research and look at scientific data tend on agreeing.

A discussion among many scientists regarding this topic.

Physicists calling out global cooling a bit thoroughly.

And the icing of the cake, A more thorough explanation on how most measures point global warming is happening right now.


I'm not debating whether Hansen or Mann's concepts are trustworthy or not, I'm saying that Al Gore and his awareness campaign was alarmist. Similarly to, for instance, someone who reports on US-Iran conflicts and then points to an alarmist prediction of a Third World War.

And once again, no evidences of a climatic conspiracy worldwide.


You're missing my point. My personal admiration or loathing for climate skeptics/agree-ers is disregardable. And in honesty that piece serves no purpose, so let's just scratch it and leave it as misargumentation of my part.

That's an excellent argument against KYC measures. Once I'm knowledgeable enough on BTC and altcoins to operate without the assistance of an exchange I'll make sure to try to remove my traces.

My point was: there are people who think global cooling exist AND they lack strong evidence to think that, instead opting to use the (in blunt words) stupidity of "We're in an ice age".

I presented evidence for both claims.

You retorted claiming I was wrong, pointing an article which DOES NOT BACK UP WHAT YOU SAID. Therefore, you came with a claim you did not have evidence for.

The point in the above paragraph is essentially what I said in my last post, plus a bit of a clickbaity question to see how you'd answer.

You responded again, implying my evidence isn't trustworthy because climate science is biased and providing essentially false information. You did not provide any evidence of that. Your example was Al Gore, which we can both agree is an alarmist and a doofus.

Are we on the same page here?

Besides, to elaborate on what I said, a sustainable society would be one that relies less on fossile fuels for well, fuel and energy, opting instead for renewable sources that cause the least environmental impact; governmental agencies to incentivize sustainable measures by companies & heavily monitor and punish activities that are detrimental to the environment; more robust measures to increase natural vegetation & other type of measures considered by studies to be beneficial for achieving a human-ecosystem relationship; immediate measures to mitigate climate change impacts in society (for instance, more robust catastrophe systems, overhaul in cities to be prepared for droughts, incentive for walking/biking/public transportation over personal vehicles); companies gradually changing to less wasteful products & bottles, etc. This type of stuff are the measures usually proposed to mitigate climate change, and I think regardless whether or not you think it doesn't exist you'd be willing to back them up.

Honestly, whether or not you believe or not in modern science is disregardable, as long as you support such a more "eco friendly" lifestyle

I think I now get your point here.

The article I originally linked I used to prove my point that there are people who think the world is cooling. My goal using it was not to discuss the validity of that claim. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I guess I left it a bit ambiguous.

Now, you're saying that both that "page post" (so to speak) & the article you linked debunk the idea the world isn't cooling. They don't. Sighn & Bhargawa do not, at any moment, link the decrease of sun activity with climate repercussions. Sure, YOU can interpret that, but to do so you would need more scientific evidence that backs up that correlation.

That's sort of what the page post does. It reports on decreasing sun activity & then reports of weather events of places getting colder. From all the articles I mentioned (have you checked them out?) sun activity has negligible influence in Earth's climate, and weather events are absolutely meaningless when we're talking about climate (and confusing these two things just point that the person is ineducated in that subject), so neither of them back up scientifically the claim that the Earth is cooling. So no, as far as evidence has been brought, I am not wrong.


Yeah, so do I. Geology is my field of study. And I trust Quaternary geologists, glaciologists, sedimentologists & geochemists when their articles and hypothesis are backed up by evidence, and I think their claims are inheherently more valid than say those of climatologists, astrophysicists, geographers and oceanographers... when they're discussing about their field of work. When a Quaternary geologist is talking about Earth's conditions a few hundred thousand years ago, I trust him profoundly. When a glaciologist writes an article that points of evidences for a NW-headed ice sheet, I trust him. When a sedimentologist claims this is silt and not sand, I trust him. When a geochemist says carbon dating isotope isn't the best way to measure this sediment's age, I trust him. But when any of them talk about modern climate.... I trust them as much as I trust a geographer talking about geology. Sure, they know what they're talking about, but by no means they're as knowledgeable and trustworthy as those operating in their respective fields.

(Sorry, I get a bit too excited when I talk about Geology.)


That's the equivalent of saying that I should trust a nose-specialized allergologist to do a rhynoplastia surgery. "They're all doctors, and they work on the field nose!".

Um, no. Geologists analyze paleoclimates, not modern climate - they know how to measure Earth's past climatic events and to interpret the paleoenvironments from that, but that's about it. The methods used are COMPLETELY different from that of a climatologist (geologists use fossiles, sediments & isotopic equilibria to do these stuff whereas climatologists as far as I know use mathematic models of prediction). Same goes for guys who correct satellite sensors.


When they're talking about astrophysics, by every means I do tust them.


Would you trust a climatologist's analysis of the sun's activity, despite knowing he doesn't work in that field & neither has expertise on it?


They can tell a lot of stuff, most importantly what you said: more watts in, less watts in. That's about it. Can he explain to me the impact that an increase or decrease in watts will have related to Earth's absorption capacity? Can he explain how much does increased sun activity measure compared to plants' and humans' production of energy? Can he explain the effects of an increased or decreased solar output in Earth considering N different endogen factors?

Besides, how exactly can you show me evidence the sun activity IS directly responsible for long-trend climactic changes, and that those changes aren't really of increased temperatures?

And lastly, even if climate change isn't real and whatnot, why would you still oppose climate change's utmost goals - the change for a more sustainable society? Because, regardless of "political/financial gains" a "hoax climate change campaign" might have, it is undeniable that its defining aspect is a call for sustainability & environmental friendliness. And I'm not talking about what you might perceive as "shiite environmentalism", I'm talking about structural changes for the better that are honestly long required, such as less usage of fossil fuels, more usage of nuclear energy, recycling, increase in green areas, stuff like that.