Well, the big problem with the scale in the context of this discussion is that there's no relative comparison.  We can't say "it took humanity 50 million years to get to .9 on the scale, but the Klingons got to .9 in 80 million years, so we're doing good relatively."

Without any comparison, this thread really boils down to a general "could we have done better?"  Answer?  Well, duh!  There's no such thing as a society which didn't make mistakes, and it would be laughable to imagine any society ever did EVERYTHING correctly.  However, saying "we could have done things better" doesn't really help much because we're essentially Monday Night Quarterbacking human history... we know without a doubt the consequences of, for example, the Versailles Treaty, but would not know the effects of changing that equation (any time travel movie would tell you this). 

NBC just reported that 3 independent Romney campaign sources said Paul Ryan's the pick.

Hmm... actually, an interesting preliminary question (I think this could be refined to better show what xeno is trying to illustrate).  But this isn't an unrealistic question.  Actually, there was a very near example of this in the Nazi concentration camps, which is why I suspect xeno used the Nazis in their example.  (Yay!  I actually took a course and wrote a paper about this particular subject... never knew it would come to use!)

There were at least some people who were placed in this type of scenario: the Sonterkommando in Auschwitz and other similar Nazi camps.  Essentially, a group of Jewish prisoners were selected to facilitate the mass execution process... for example, by cleaning a gas chamber after an execution or removing gold teeth and other valuables from bodies.  In effect, these prisoners would actually take part in the extermination of their kin, whether they liked it or not.

These prisoners were in no way guaranteed longevity in exchange for their service.  At Auschwitz, Sonterkommando units were generally replaced every 3-4 months, with the first task of the incoming unit to be the execution of their predecessors.  Considering that normal prisoners at Auschwitz were not deliberately chosen to be executed in a fashion similar to the Sonterkommando executions, if anything, this position actually reduced the prisoner lifespan.

What did the Sonterkommando receive for their work?  Material comfort.  They were generally given more food and amenities than the general population at Auschwitz.  Among the prisoner population, these people were considered the wealthy high class of society.

That being said, remember what a lack of "comfort" means in this context.  This wasn't a question of living in a studio vs. one-bedroom apartment.  Being outside the Sonterkommando or another similarly privileged class in Auschwitz meant months of slow starvation and unending manual labor, with even suicide denied as a means of escape through various tactics (even the electric fences were made to be high enough voltage to incapacitate, yet low enough voltage to prevent death, of anyone trapped).  So when I say "comfort," I mean "lack of perpetual torture, ended only when your captors chose to end it."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but perhaps a good way to make this question understandable is to put it in the historical context on which it actually did exist in real life.  Given the choice (and I am not exactly sure that choice existed for most), would you be willing to spend your days as a Sonterkommando, as opposed to a general member of the Jewish prison population at a death camp which existed at the time?

(Disclaimer: I don't in any way mean to degrade the people who worked in the Sonterkommando units.  In fact, the last Sonterkommando unit in Auschwitz actually organized the last major prisoner uprising against the Nazis in Auschwitz, although it was terribly unsuccessful for a number of reasons).

Godwin's Law!  I win!

I originally felt like I needed to report myself for derailing the thread, but once xeno joined in, I felt better! 

I'm not sure why that required you to in any way quote my silliness, but... um... okay!

They're Pinky... They're Pinky and the Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain!

> Selur Ku wrote:

> Im not really sure what specific model you're talking about.

I think there are three questions two of which appear to be settled.

1) Is the Earth warming- I dont think there can be any dispute that it is.

2) Does an increase in atmospheric CO2 contribute to that? - I think that again is certain. The scientific model pedicts that if tmospheric CO2 continues to increase then global temparatures will continue on an upward trend.

3) Can they accurately predict from year to year what future temparaures will be? -  Nope  all they can do is predict a trend.

If your point is that we need to throw out everything we know because they cannot accurately predict year to year changes- I think thats a bit silly.

You might want to add to this:
4) Is the contribution of CO2's impact on temperatures sufficient to significantly explain anomalies in temperature?

This is the critical issue, because even with the scientific conclusion that molecules of CO2 attract and store heat, the aggregate amount of CO2 in the atmosphere may not be enough, despite the truth value of all 3 other questions you framed above.  Additionally, this brings in the issue of alternative causalities (the increasing number of sunspots, perhaps?) to explain said changes in temperature.

Note: I have absolutely no idea of what the right answer is.  I just like to make sure the questions are fairly represented before the answers are drawn. 

Or if you're bulemic!

*puts an arrow in banksy's knee*

No more adventuring with ice cream for you!  You're stuck with boring chocolate!

Since when did rule enforcement only apply to issues which were "big deals," particularly when you can't actually present a reason why the topic was better presented as a bump than a new thread?