Except it's not new ideas, it's relatively old ideas backed up by new nonsense...from both sides of this debate but more consistently from vegans. After decades of food shaming non stop from various vegans, usually using fake or misrepresented science, all trying to change people's behavior with what I consider lies, I maybe lose patience faster than is warranted, but facts matter.
Like most people, I don't respond well to shaming, it rarely works with me, and I abhor lies, especially about health or science, and I'll do the reading to be sure I can back up my position honestly.

2019 was pretty good so far, but thanks.

Thanks.
Yes, that seemed like seriously uncatlike behavior to me.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1179935210445647882?s=20

So, from "No collusion!" to 'I have every right to collude!  It's actually what I should be doing!'

Do us and the rest of the United States of America a favor and read your old comments defending him saying he never colluded with a foreign power back when we were on the same page that colluding with another country was against the law. Do it BEFORE you try to justify this treasonous behavior.


WHAT
THE
FUCK

The President is proud of asking China (a declared enemy of the United States and a communist power that has insane human rights violations who is currently trying to crush a democracy in Hong Kong) to harass a private citizen in the United States.

I thought we didn't like them and that's why the tariffs or some bullshit about it helping the economy.

If you can't denounce behavior like this don't worry about arguing with me anymore. Like a lot of you so-called patriots, I'll understand I'm wasting my time.

@newtboy,

"bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system."

That's precisely my point though, bankrupting the global economy to reach negative net emissions tomorrow isn't the only way to plan for climate change either.

"the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations.

And the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hit sometime in the future is near 100% too, it's just a question of how many millions of years Earth's luck holds out. Nor has every prediction or projection underestimated future warming so far, your flat wrong on that.

More to the point, the timing and severity of the changes we face is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the actions we need to take. Similarly, knowing the benefit of reducing our emissions by X% by a particular date is also extremely relevant to the actions we need to take. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that we have a lot of gaps and uncertainty in our knowledge on those points.

At minimum base level, we know changing global temperature on the whole will impact us negatively, that our CO2 emissions will make things warmer than they otherwise would be, and thus can easily conclude with certainty that the science dictates policies to reduce emissions are a good idea.

Now, you seem to be hell bent on demanding those policies take the shape of staring down the face of disaster 2-3 times worse than the IPCC AR5 reports absolute worst case scenario. I've got to tell you, that the uncertainties involved with that kind of prediction are too great to warrant an honest dictate that the facts support a need for economically devastating action being taken today. It's just not the case.

Even if green tech never takes over, if the next century sees us final solve fusion power and adoption of electric cars, we already get our emission outputs off the worst track scenario the IPCC projected in AR5. I honestly do believe that we will see non-fossil fuel electricity generation and electric cars as the norm in my lifetime, so I'm hopeful for a future that tracks better than the IPCC worst case. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it's more like we should take a similarly rational/practical approach to it like you see us doing with asteroids.

Ahhh....but bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system. What we haven't done is just say "It not certain we'll be hit, so wait until it's a certainty to make any preparations."

In this case, the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations. We aren't just driving our Cadillac off the cliff, we're accelerating as if we hope to jump the canyon. Even Evil couldn't pull that off with a rocket.

I say it's both.
It's appeal on an emotional and moral level to get people to listen to the facts that she presents more clearly and honestly than the U.N. scientists or that other less political scientific organizations have published.

Not true. Using an emotional delivery to get people interested enough to listen to the factual science is basic psychology, and could be considered the science of selling science to humans....or applied behavioral science.

There's also what's known as psychology of science - The psychology of science is a branch of the studies of science that includes philosophy of science, history of science, and sociology of science or sociology of scientific knowledge. The psychology of science is defined most simply as the scientific study of scientific thought or behavior.

I didn't call you dumb. I warned you that if you were to do something (future tense possibility) then the result would be that you were being dumb.

Do you get how that works? There are multiple future possibilities, I don't want one to happen so I warn against it. This is not a difficult concept so I am at a loss as to why you don't understand it.

There was nothing in your previous correspondence to suggest that it would be a statement referring to a past tense behavior. You unfortunately assumed it to be referring to past tense behaviour. If you had doubt as to what I was referring to you could have just asked. I.e. if you read it and went "does he mean past tense or future tense? There isn't any past tense behaviour he could be referring to, so logically it must be future tense. I'm still confused though", you could have just asked which it was.

I believe any restrictions on the 2A have been justified by the supreme court. So they believe it was within the scope of what the founders intended. That is how.

"Hazard a guess" and "assume" are two different things.

Hazard a guess means to admit you don't know what is true but that with the given information you will gamble on an outcome (with full disclosure that it could be wrong).

Assume means to presume something is true, without any proof that it is.

You're welcome.

Yes, we're overpopulated. That doesn't invalidate my arguments.

I gave examples of multiple cultures that do what you claim is impossible. I never implied Americans would accept a lower standard of living, only that it's the right thing to strive for, and coming like it or not.

I grow 75% of the produce for two people on 3/4 acres.

Masses of people are going to die unnecessarily. Period. This could be avoided, but won't be. Our choice is accept less now, or have nothing later.

The dependence on fossil fuels for agriculture could be quartered with some minor changes with little drop in output. The western world won't make the investment needed to make that a reality. Also, the fossil fuel needed to make fertilizers is not a significant amount....maybe as little as 3%of natural gas produced.

There are millions of hungry people now without access to the artificially supported agriculture system who relied on natural sources that no longer exist. Aren't you concerned about them?

Name one I listed not supported by science.

Food shortages are preferable to no food.

The 3' estimate is old, based on estimates already proven miserably wrong. Like I said, Greenland is melting as a rate they predicted to not happen until 2075.

When tens of millions must flee low lying areas, and all low lying farmland is underwater, and much of the rest in drought or flood, what do you think happens?

By 2100, all estimates show us far past the tipping points where human input is no longer the driving force. Even the IPCC said we have until 2030 or so to cut emissions in half, and we are not lowering emissions, we're raising them. 50 years out is 75 years late....but better than never.....but we aren't on that path at all. Investment in fossil fuel systems continues to accelerate thanks to emerging third world nations like China and India making the same mistakes the Western world made, but in greater quantities.

The IPCC report said if we don't immediately cut emissions today, by half in 11 years and to zero in 30, then negative emissions for the next 50 that we're on track to hit 3-6C rise by 2100 and raising that estimated temperature rise daily....4C gives the 3' sea level rise by 2100 with current models, but they are woefully inadequate and have proven to be vast underestimation of actual melting already.

We may develop the necessary tech, we won't develop the will to implement it. Indeed, we're at that point today....have been for decades.

Yep, sure, no sacrifices needed. You can have it all and more and let the next guy pay the bill. What if we're the last guys in line?

Funny, isn't that what the Paris climate accord is? Sane leaders giving such stupidity serious consideration, because they understand it's not stupidity it's reality. Granted, they don't go nearly far enough, but they did something more than just claim it will be fixed in the future by something that doesn't exist today and ignoring human behavior and all trends, because using/having less is simply unacceptable.

We need a nice pandemic to cull us by 9/10 and a few intelligent Maos to drive us back to sustainability. We won't get either in time.

Only you, Bob, could read what I wrote and claim "she was in the wrong" means she's displaying "correct behavior".
*facepalm

A great job done by the police.

Horrible girl lacking all manner of respect and decency toward police.

Where did she learn these bad manners?
Why do some people think they can disrespect the police.


Once again Newt you see wrong behavior as correct behavior.

With the constant flow of proof that cops lie, cheat, and steal daily, and the complicit nature of their superiors allowing them to hide the proof of their crimes, they have forced society into requiring douche reporters chasing the douche cops to capture independent proof of their criminal behavior....proof they can't erase or deny exists.
Notice how easily this douche cop comes up with multiple lies to detain the videographer, intentionally interfering with his job, to protect his cohorts ability to lie to citizens without a record, because undoubtedly all their body cams are turned off.
Also notice how, when those body cams are replaced secretly with cams that only appear to turn off, but keep recording, they consistently capture abuse of power if not outright falsification of charges, like the one just caught framing over 120 for drug possession in a single year.

Cops have made their own job tougher by insisting on being able to legally lie, and being a cadre of criminal liars who think they're above the law, and are all too often right about that thanks to apologists and those willing to turn a blind eye.

1) I'm not opposed to suicide. If life makes you unhappy, I don't insist you suffer through it. People who judge themselves unworthy of life fall into that category.

2) I've been at it for 45 years+-. It has nothing to do with strength, it's about a compulsion to work towards fairness, knowing it won't ever be reached, at least in my lifetime. I'm strong enough to never condone or excuse clear racism as long as I draw breath.

3) ? You would catch the arsonists before the home owner and their children and not lay blame at their feet. I would let the arsonist burn, locking them inside the house they ignited after saving the family. He's the one with the gas can and lighter if you can't identify who is who.
Calling out wholly inappropriate behavior/speech is never a waste of time. Gaining the trust of racists at the expense of their victims and society as a whole is worse than a waste of time, it's supporting racism.

4) My point. Let them get it, while not allowing your gift to be stolen or misused for harm or other things they get judged harshly for. No judgement, no opportunity for misuse, not just throwing money at a problem, helping a person.

That ends-means stuff has been used to justify some pretty awful, disturbing behavior. By that same argument the ICE officer, using your mores but from a different perspective, would be justified in ignoring the words, forcing open the door, and arresting the illegals. Violation of rights, sure, but it got the job done, right?

I don't disagree one bit. I just meant to point out that, while he has fully supported, excused, even canonized racists, he might not be one, at least not to the extent he appears....if he's been honest in private conversation. I can't explain further without exposing private conversations, which I don't intend to do.

That said, 50% of the time I'm leaning towards the conclusion that he's really a group of people working at a Russian troll farm, because of the behavior you outlined paired with worse than bad English skills and an inconsistent personality.

I can't say I disagree, but the public shaming is less for them and more for bystanders who might think twice now before repeating her behavior, lest they get a repeat of his.