The word "militia" comes up time and time again in those founding documents. That the citizens should have access to arms as party of "a well regulated militia."

The modern interpretation of the second amendment has done away with the idea that a citizen ought to be a part of an organized militia to bear arms.

The founders of the US said other things too:

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

I imagine that Franklin thought the republic would need defending against other monarchies, not from large corporations who, after centuries of wealth concentration would, with a few lobby organizations like the NRA, become the de-facto unelected rulers of the land.

I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either.

it's nice that the republicans picked up and carried the racist torch that the democrats put down decades ago into the 21st century.

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

Almost as stupid as holding the producers of the toxic product AND the misleading or outright false information about it's hazards blameless. Because they actively misled their customers, I give them the vast lions share of blame, but maybe not 100%. There's plenty to go around.

You don't have to live in poverty to abandon fossil fuels.
Not.
Even.
Close.
I bought solar 10+- years back...it paid for itself in 8. It's lifespan is 20+-. I get 12 years of free electricity for abandoning that portion, with no blackouts, no brownouts, and no rate increases.

True, the video could be better at sharing the blame, but it stayed on topic instead, that topic being major polluters greenwashing their mage. I didn't take it as assigning ALL blame to one source, just not allowing the worst offenders to shirk all responsibility for their products.


Every one of these is the likely outcome of any anthropogenic rise over 2-3C because of feedback loops that drive us to 6-12C rise. Only the wars are likely this century, but I didn't put a timeframe on those outcomes. 140 million + will be displaced by just a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections.
That wipes out mangroves and other fish nurseries, further impacting the struggling ocean food webs. All the while it accelerates as our ability to cope erodes like the shorelines....it doesn't just halt at 3' rise.
The natural food webs on land are also struggling, and are unlikely to survive ocean collapse.

Not just from deforestation, but diatoms are near a point of collapse from ocean acidification. https://diatoms.org/what-are-diatoms. That's over 1/2....and the base of the ocean food web.


Since the IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates) now says at current rates we could hit as much as a 6C rise by 2100, and rates of emissions are rising as fast as carbon sinks are shrinking, they're not just a possibility, they a likelihood in the near future....but granted the hydrogen sulfide clouds are far in a worst case scenario future, far from guaranteed.

@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

One can argue that Antifa are the fascist.

Antifa is the 21st Century terrorist arm of the Democrat party.

Guess Democrats moved on from the 19 and 20th Century KKK form of terrorism. Democrats do own the black vote now they are going after all the rest.

Is this what the Democrat party slogan of Move Forward represent? KKK to Antifa.

President Carter was considered the worst POTUS in a century?

To quote recently said words, "Wow pushing (a) clearly false narrative."

Total squat. Hardin was President inside the 100-year span (1921-23) and is considered one of the worst POTUS in US history. Carter isn't ever considered the worst POTUS since WWII (inside any valid polling).

Such calumny displays far more bitterness than anything seen here.

For a 'winner', y'all are hard to keep happy.

Nikola*

Due to software glitches? Are you sure it's not mechanical issues due to the fact that batteries in general still fking SUUUUCK after centuries of remaining fundamentally unchanged?

Until we can come up with a method of storing energy in a safer and more ecologically responsible manner than batteries in their current form, making everything electric can never fully take off.

But I digress.

Basic human empathy?

I can't predict the future accurately, but I can say that there is a high probability (certainly more likely than not) that climate change is going to hit humanity hard.

Now I suspect we'll get through it. We've survived ice ages and so on. It's just gonna suck for a few decades/centuries.

In fact, the only real solution I see to climate change is to significantly extend the average human lifespan. If everyone alive was suddenly going to be here for the next 200 years, you might see some actual policy change at the highest levels.

Your video, Dark Phoenix | Final Trailer [HD] | 20th Century FOX, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Dont blame "capitalism", blame humans, civilisation. Some countries, communities, families are able to create institutions and rules that span generations and centuries without destroying their livelihoods. Call it capitalism if you must, but the only way for humans to survive it is if they are allowed to make meaningful decisions and shoulder the responsibility for those decisions.

I lived in a "communist" country and I can inform you that shit was removed from rivers, sulfur from power station smoke and lead from car exhaust gasses only after it reverted to a form of constitutional democratic individualistic "capitalism".

All it takes is some basic rules about shit and rivers and a will either free, or imposed by institutions, to abide.

Some big rich countries have good rules and institutions, some dont. Most poor countries dont and that is a real problem. If you cant afford to put shit anywhere else it has to go in the river.

Read it, it said almost exactly that.

"The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a sixth century despot masquerading as a religious leader, which justifies endless war against anyone who opposes it and calls for the murder of unbelievers and apostates.
The truth is Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism, and just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance does not make them blameless.....
....Those who follow a violent religion that calls on them to murder us can not be surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kind."



He clearly says ALL who follow Islam. He says they are all fanatics. His speech did not include the words homosexual, Jews, free speech, or woman, you added that in it's entirety.

The dumb lie that no one condemns the destructive parts of islam is ludicrous. People are lining up to shoot Muslims over these usually ignored parts of the Koran, not egg them. Christianity has all the same requirements to murder non believers and apostates, the same violent prescriptions against women's rights, Jews, Homosexuals, atheists, inpious people, nonchristian people living where they want to, etc. and has actively done so for centuries, and it creates plenty of viciously violent fanatical terrorists too, obviously. Why does he not attack them as well?.....hmmmm.....since these related religions share so much of their doctrine, what's different about the average worshipper....hmmmmmmm......just can't put my finger on it.

Oh HELL no. Anyone who accepts her endorsement or worse, her "help" should be run out of the election immediately, don't pass go, don't collect $200. Go away Hillary, you already cost us 4 years of Trump, if you do it again you deserve the lynching you'll receive from his base.

Like many ideas that might have saved the planet, they only stood a chance of working if you removed any choice.
Since that's not the norm in most places, I've understood we are doomed almost since I first heard of over population exceeding the sustainable food production levels, then along came global warming and ocean acidification. I understand that most people today are not capable of long term responsibility....making decisions based on how they effect their great grandchildren. It only took one century of living for today to set up a situation that threatens to destroy the planet. I see less than no hope of staving off disaster, instead of even trying we're firing all rockets at 110% to speed up the process and arguing over possibly turning down the thermostat next year.