Incorrect. The article clearly states that they do.

More detail: The article clearly states that Scotland is on track to produce 100% of the electricity that it consumes via renewables, some time before the end of 2020. What Scotland exports to other countries is irrelevant to what the article says. Maybe the article is wrong, but there's no evidence of this.

And please stop telling people to "please apologize". It's patronizing.

The article seems to pretty clearly indicate that they are indeed generating over 76 percent of their power (the power that they, as a nation consume, rather than what other nations they export to consume) from renewables, and are on track to hit 100%.

But with those gas plants they are building, they won't be consuming 100% renewable all the time. Probably those are peaker plants used when demand exceeds supply, and are idle a good part of the time. But they're not going to hit 100% renewable for the whole year (unless they do some funky "grid accounting").

From the report: "we also implement an alternative version for AIS [Antarctic Ice Sheet] loss (20) that captures the higher sensitivity to future global warming from additional nonlinear processes related to Marine Ice Cliff Instability (MICI) (21). We use the MICI version to identify the potential for risk from higher sea-level rise not covered by our main results, but emphasize that the understanding of MICI and its triggers is still limited"

As usual, the actual scientists put in disclaimers that are missing from the press reporting. The projections are definitely based on predicted nonlinear climate sensitivity. That's usually the case with catastrophic projections. The most dramatic ones I've seen usually assume or reference some non-linear positive feedback loop or tipping point. We should definitely study this more, but not be surprised if further research adjusts our understanding of the sensitivity, and the ultimate prediction.

According to the world bank, china's fertility rate is about 1.7 children per woman https://data.worldbank.org/ind...

Wish I had mod points. This is the most concise, accurate explanation I've seen.

Giving money to people who have demonstrated poor financial management skills is not going to stimulate the economy in the way you think.

Tax revenue doesn't just materialize out of thin air. Investments will be taxed. A lot of people have investments, including me. Your assertion that others wouldn't being penalized by this program is naive in the extreme.

I someone started singing "Happy Birthday", I wouldn't interrupt them, because they wouldn't be implying that I don't care about their birthday.

No. I can't. That's why I said it was implied, and asked him to clarify what he thought.

Two points: First, you might be right about Notch's motives. But I think there are also other motives he could have, such as defending against perceived racism against whites, that would in my mind be legitimate

Second, I think the distinction between opposition and refutation of "Black lives matter" is very important. You can oppose the "black lives matter" movement and still believe that black lives are important and police should do better. "All lives matter" as a response can mean several different things. I think a common one is "yes, black lives matter because all lives matter and you don't get special recognition as a group" (Many people interpret "black lives matter" to imply that people don't believe that already, which can be received as quite insulting by those who already believe that black lives matter). I think your assessment that "all lives matter" can be interpreted to mean "black lives don't matter" is incorrect. I just don't see how you could reasonably interpret it that way. These groups often just shout past each other. It's like one group is shouting "we want to be equal", and the other group is shouting "you already are equal", and they never hear each other.

I'd be happy to have a civil conversation with you. I disagree with the following points you made, for the reasons listed:

The problem I have with this statement, is that you seem willing to label Notch a white supremacist or allow him to be labeled one, when there is, in my mind insufficient evidence that he actually is a white supremacist. You and I might disagree on whether merely uttering the phrase "it's OK to be white" would constitute sufficient evidence that someone is a white supremacist.

The problem I have with this statement is that it assumes that Notch is using the phrase "it's OK to be white" to troll, or as a meme. He might be, which is something I'd disagree with. Looking at his other tweets, though, my assessment is that he's not really a provocateur. In one of his other tweets that sounds bad (much worse than this one), he was clearly responding to a provocation, and parroting words back to the person provoking him. I would have to have more context for the situation immediately preceding this tweet to make a judgement. I haven't been able to find out if there was some discussion going on before this or not. But I've seen examples where, in response to some racist comment about whites, retorting with "it's OK to be white" would be a nice way to highlight the racism of the other person.

With regards to "doing stuff that makes life difficult for people with actual problems", I have some issues with this also. Notch is a human being with actual problems, even though he's a billionaire. It is true that his money solves a big set of problems that other people have to deal with, but it's not a panacea (and introduces its own set of problems). I realize he'll get little sympathy, but he's been public about some of the issues of extreme wealth. And I don't think saying "it's OK to be white" actually makes life difficult for anyone. I hesitate to put words in your mouth, but maybe you think this phrase marginalizes other people's problems by refocusing an argument about race and oppression on white people and the problems they might have? Could you clarify what you meant?

With regards to "repeating the shit those people say", I think this is a just a shorthand way of dismissing the actual concept of what Notch tweeted, using guilt- by-association. It seems to me to be a logical fallacy, and a form of ad hominem response. Even when a white supremacist says "it's OK to be white", they are saying something true as a standalone statement (or at least I believe so). If you believe they are conveying with the statement some additional message (the "dog whistle") that is unpalatable or unreasonable, you should state that. I can imagine some ideas that a white supremacist would have that would go along with the saying, that I and many other people would object to. But I don't think it's fair to attribute those ideas to Notch, unless he states them himself. This is because he may have other motives for saying the phrase than the ones you are thinking of.

And finally, how do you know that all Notch is doing with his life is spouting on Twitter. The problem I have with this statement is that it seems like a caricature of the man's life, with no actual knowledge to back it up. What percentage of Notch's life is spent on twitter? And what percentage of his twitter presence is spent spouting stuff you consider "shit"? What percentage is spent building orphanages in third world countries? What do you know about Notch? I've seen literally hundreds of Notch's tweets over the years (my sons and I are big Minecraft fans), and I've only seen a few tweets that I would consider controversial. So again, in terms of evidence, I don't find what you're saying supported by the evidence I've seen. But if you have additional evidence, I'd be happy to look at it and reconsider my position.

Regards.

Your reasoning and evidence are not compelling. I mean I know that Slashdot is not the paragon on intellectual discourse, but one can hope for some level of discussion above "is so!".

Well it's nice to see you admit it. You're happy to smear someone in service of your narrative whether they deserve it or not. Nice job!

This won't get modded up, so I'm addressing this just to you. How can you think like this? How can you possibly say that these two phrases have the same meaning? You honestly think that a declaration of aggressive hatred toward an individual is equivalent to a generalized statement of defense of a group? I've read your argument about context. But you have no justification for applying that context to Notch's statement. I think you're judging his heart, wrongly, based on your own projections of hate. You're free to do it, but I think you are categorically wrong. I wish you well.

You seem to think Notch is an asshole. Why?

Thanks for that link. Jack Moore (the author) has the audacity to call Notch a racist for tweeting "It's OK to be white", while defending his own tweet of "Fuck White People". Wow! For all we know Notch was responding to this idiot and people like him. If I had to identify the racist between these two, I know which one I would pick.