It sounds a lot hippie.

How is it helping to never have any consequences when a nation deliberately, repeatedly and blatantly violates everything the UN stands for? It is a slave state, where the population is callously used up as so many food powered robot slaves. Those born with disabilities are still put to work in the fields most suited them, guinea pigs in testing the lethality of their chemical weapons research program. That's right, an escaped military officer explained how watching a fellow officer struggle with giving up one of his children to the 'cause' was a major reason he eventually fled the country.

Aside from how North Korea treats it's own people(which is unforgivable enough of itself), there is also it's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and it's continued assaults and attacks against South Korea's assets and people as well.

You ask what good can come from shunning North Korea? I demand what justification you think there is for dignifying a nation acting so horrifically by welcoming them as diplomatic equals. Our differences are not just cultural or regional disagreements, it is about the most widespread human rights violations and war crimes our world has seen since Stalin.

Clinton's goodies included offering them 2 nuclear reactors and enormous supplies of oil bought and paid for with American money. Basically, offering billions of dollars of aid and 2 nuke plants for their previous bad behavior. Isn't the lesson that threatening and bullying America is a good way to get paid handsomely?

Are you serious or just trolling? Once again, Mann's own comments on his reconstruction:
The EIV reconstructions suggest that temperatures were relatively warm (comparable with the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period but below the levels of the past decade) from A.D. 1000 through the early 15th century, then fell abruptly.

So, in 1500 absolute temperatures were comparable to those from 1961-1990. That means over the intervening 400 years temperatures cooled and warmed back to where they started around 1500. The cooling after 1500 was no more or less abrupt than the warming leading up to the 1960-1990 comparable temperature range.

Get your head on straight and accept that Mann's research clearly shows that cooling after 1500 was just as abrupt and anomalous as the warming that brought temperatures back to what they used to be in 1500.

I know, it makes it harder to persuade people to believe AGW is real and important, but denying what the basic evidence says does that too.

Right, I'm the one misreading the paper. Here's a direct quote:
The EIV reconstructions suggest that temperatures were relatively warm (comparable with the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period but below the levels of the past decade) from A.D. 1000 through the early 15th century, then fell abruptly.

I said the last century's temperatures where found to not be anomalous over the last 2k years, as opposed to Mann's earlier work which found that they were. So, which method does Mann endorse?
we find in these experiments that the EIV reconstructions are significantly more skillful

So, the new EIV set is endorsed as the more accurate recreation by Mann himself.

I stated that the last century was shown in this paper to have been matched in temperature previously over the last 2k years, and I've quoted where Mann stated such about the period from 1000 through 1500.

I additionally stated, and now quoted that Mann declares ONLY the last decade to be an anomaly over the last 2k years. The SOLE extrapolation I make beyond what Mann has openly and unmistakably declared is to comment on the last decade of data available to him. I made the observation that proxy data was absent for that decade. It is noted repeatedly in the literature, if you're familiar, that proxy sources frequently have sensitivity limits. What does that mean? Simply that proxy records for the last decade could very easily be in line with the last 2k years, we don't actually know. What we DO know is that for 100% of the proxy data that Mann DID have access to, NONE of it showed anomalous warming...

Oh, and if your truly out of touch with the science, make the additional note that Mann's work is a poster child for the most pro AGW crowds out there and by nobody's imagination any form of 'questionable' nutty skeptic.

Please, point out where I misrepresented the basic science here. I haven't, and crying it's too complicated for you is evidence of nothing but your own ignorance of the matter.

Go read Mann's paper I linked to yourself. His EIV method, which he admits is the more accurate, clearly shows a recreation of historic temperatures that exceeds the warming for any modern proxy data. The entire warming from 1850 through to 1990 had been seen or exceeded previously, on multiple occasions over the last 2,000 years. Take your head out of the sand and examine the actual paper.

Reading seems to be hard for you, so I'll repeat myself for you:

You keep talking about the scientific consensus. What is that exactly? Is there are a secret cabal somewhere? Perhaps a divinely inspired holy book only available to the acolytes of the one true science?

If you can explain what this 'consensus' you speak of represents than your question might make a lick of sense.

You keep talking about the scientific consensus. What is that exactly? Is there are a secret cabal somewhere? Perhaps a divinely inspired holy book only available to the acolytes of the one true science?

Mann is one of the pinnacles of the AGW supporters movement. Your 'consensus' minded folks all hold Mann up as one of their heroes. If I was gonna cherry pick my sources, I'd choose a paper by someone that wasn't a strong and vehement AGW advocate. You don't need to read his conclusion, read his graph of historic temperatures, the green line of his updated reconstruction shows CLEAR AS DAY that the warming from 1850 through 1990 has been repeatedly exceeded over the last 2k years.

Mann's prior paper is also upheld by the IPCC(another 'consensus' body) as a pinnacle in their analysis. The idea of unprecedented warming since the industrial age began around 100 years ago is the lynch pin of the catastrophic AGW crowd. Incidentally, it is strongly contradicted by Mann's own corrections to his work here, science in action.

This paper is the follow on to Mann's previous one where he concluded the last century was anomalous.

If you read closer, you'll find multiple references where Mann notes that warming similar to the 1980's is observed over the previous 2000 years:
The EIV reconstructions suggest that temperatures were relatively warm (comparable with the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period but below the levels of the past decade)

The bigger truth is to just look at the graphs. His new(EIV) method graphs show repeated peaks much higher than the current proxy data. The last 'decade' he keep referring to is PURELY instrumental data, as the proxies don't come up that recently.

You are a brilliant little troll, aren't you?

I pointed that out twice, it was my OWN point when I previously told you"
"Mann's own conclusion at the end of this paper is to observe that only the last decade is an anomaly, a far step down from his conclusion in his prior paper observing that the last century was the anomaly."

I added some emphasis there so you hopefully won't miss it this time. Mann's previous paper declared the last century was anomalous, and upon reviewing his statistical methods, has cut that WAY back to merely the last decade. And furthermore, he doesn't note it but you can follow his data to verify, the decade that is warmer is also the decade for which there IS NO PROXY DATA. Reach your own conclusions...

Close, but you missed the point. Sadly, it doesn't appear that science is well understood on Slashdot anymore.

I provided direct scientific evidence that warming since 1850 is NOT anomalous within the last 2,000 years of history, and that similar warming to it has occurred multiple times previously. You dismissed the evidence by appealing to SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!

You see, the scientific method and process doesn't care if 99 people in 100 believe the earth is flat, what matters is the one person with a space shuttle that flies around the earth taking pictures of the fact it is a sphere.

I am NOT misquoting Mann's paper what so ever. He reanalyzed his data with a different and by his own words more accurate statistical method, and his graphs of the results clearly show that the warming since 1850 has been exceeded multiple times before. My CORRECT reading of this very simple graph is further, and irrefutably evidenced by the fact Mann's own conclusion at the end of this paper is to observe that only the last decade is an anomaly, a far step down from his conclusion in his prior paper observing that the last century was the anomaly.

Please, demonstrate that I am wrong in my interpretation or that my source is biased and wrong. Just don't pretend like declaring CONSENSUS in any way trumps hard scientific evidence to the contrary, that's the work of zealots and ludites.

So sorry to bring data to a religious debate, I'll not bother you any further.

I suppose Mann is a denier now too? You can follow my link to his last follow up on his own hockey stick graph. He stands by his work, but even his own corrected reconstructions now show that the last century of warming is NOT an anomaly over the last 2k years, but has been matched on at least 3 or 4 occasions in that time. The most he is able to observe is that the warming of merely the last decade is abnormal, of course, that is based 100% on the instrumental record since none of the proxy sets his paper uses covers that time frame.

I'll observe on my own that the only anomalous warming is entirely limited to the short time for which we have no proxy data...

But yeah, go on pretending the science is settled and decry those still researching and studying the matter as deniers and heretics to your chosen ideology.

If nuclear power were safe, it would be possible for utilities to build nuclear power plants without government indemnification.

This statement is true if and only if government requirements are rationally based...
As most people, I don't accept that basic premise, you probably shouldn't use it.

The reason that doesn't happen is that if you factor in the cost of indemnification, it is *not* cheaper than the alternatives.

Ah, but which comes first? The ridiculous costs employed against nuclear are BECAUSE of the irrational fear of it. You don't get turn around and use those high costs to justify the irrationality too, that is irrational in itself.

The reality is that coal power kills more people than nuclear power. It kills more people not by a small margin, but at a hands down terrifyingly higher rate. Coal plants even manage to dump MORE radioactive material into the environment than a nuclear plant.

Look no further than the Fukushima disaster for the proof of nuclear safety versus other power generation methods. How many people have died so far because of Fukushima? How many are projected to get sick in the future? How many have been killed by hydro dams failing and wiping out those downstream? How many coal miners die through accidents each year? How many to lung diseases from working the mines for years?

Oh, and that isn't even mentioning that the Fukushima plant had the added mark that it's disaster was precipitated by not only the most devastating earthquake in the nations recorded history, but the worst Tsunami as well.

You original point about government indemnification makes my point better than yours. Nuclear is safer, and has injured and killed vastly fewer people than any other form of cheaper power generation, and yet the indemnification conditions on nuclear is astronomically higher than that for any of the others...

I dunno about you, but I call that irrational fear.

It's true that it's difficult to model the risks of global warming, but we have pretty good models.

No, we don't. Can anyone's models even project sea level rise 30 years from now within 5cm with any degree of confidence? Nope. Good luck projecting climate averages out to 2100(let alone the impacts) where it is supposed to really start kicking in.

The main reason people fear nuclear power irrationally is that it's very difficult to model the risk of nuclear power,

And modeling the risks of global warming is easier how? Seems to me it's a much, much tougher nut to crack.

I see 2 main reasons people oppose nuclear power as a solution to carbon emissions. The biggest is that they just don't consider carbon emissions to be a serious problem. The next, and very close behind it, is how much easier it is to find problems than solutions. With electrics cars around the corner, nuclear power solves 90% of carbon emissions. It is much easier though to look at nuclear as a problem of it's own rather than as a solution to a bigger problem.

I forget who to credit it to, but people are like sheep. They fear the sheephound and wish he'd go away, right up until a wolf has them by throat.

When 100,000 people die of starvation, its said we can't feed them, or is it just that we don't want to feed them?

Or is it that the men with guns living much closer to them than us steal everything for themselves and use hunger as a weapon against those around them?

There is simply zero reason that North Koreans need to be starving so persistently that they average a full 6 inches less in height than their genetically identical, well fed Southern counterparts. Well, there is the fact their now dead God king needed to spend their resources developing nuclear weapons and long range missiles instead of feeding them...

Look at all the starving people in Africa. How many of them are locals that have been living safely in the same location for more than one generation? How many are displaced refuges who have been shot at or chased away by regional clashes and violence?

Lack of food isn't why people around the world are starving. Warfare from many levels is why the overwhelming majority are starving. They will continue to starve as well, since the people who care enough to help aren't willing or able to muster up the needed military force to ensure they are safely fed. Meanwhile the ones with the military force needed to see them fed, just can't be bothered to care. And why should they, anyone sending a military force in to 'help' would see themselves immediately blamed as a cause of any continuing suffering and starvation anyways.