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.

@newtboy,
" Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome"

Here we disagree. When you have a high degree of unknowns in your modelling, you don't always just go off the worst case. Let me argue from the extreme to demonstrate that in principle.

If we are looking to mitigate the risk of an extinction level asteroid strike, we don't solely look at the worst case. The worst case is at a minimum assuming another KT extinction level asteroid out there on it's way to us. Space is big enough that it's still possible one is out there undetected on it's way here in our lifetimes. The probability of that may be low, but it's still a worst case not impossible outcome.

With that known worst case, should we bankrupt the global economy building either a defensive capability to detect and destroy/redirect it, or the capability to abandon the planet in our lifetimes because of this worst case risk?

The answer to me is of course not, you must ALSO take into account other variables like the probability of it happening, the unknowns in the equation that prevent us picturing the problem with full accuracy, and other factors.

What a disgusting piece of shit and outright liar.
Her achievements already outweigh his by miles...he's only managed to get himself kicked off Fox, impressively hard to do if you're right wing. Fox has apologized for his disgraceful ad hominem attacks against a child who he couldn't factually contradict....but Laura Ingram has also personally attacked her on her show, as has Trump on Twitter.

Being on the autism spectrum, she says she has aspergers, is a developmental disorder NOT a mental illness.
Being a pathological liar, that's a mental illness apparently now shared by an entire political party.
Being a fecal golem is a personality disorder he clearly has in spades.

The Carnegie Mellon study he sites said no such thing, and it's authors have stated that it's a total misrepresentation of their findings....repeatedly.
The study actually said certain produce at it's worst might be more ecologically harmful per calorie than some kinds of white meat eating by comparing things like bacon vs lettuce on a calorie to calorie instead of serving to serving rate, so 4 strips of bacon were compared to > 40 cups of lettuce. Get real.
To compound the confusion they chose a calorie poor produce like lettuce with high greenhouse gas emissions instead of kale, broccoli, rice, potatoes, spinach and wheat (just to name a few) which all rank lower than pork in terms of greenhouse gases.
The same argument holds for water usage...they chose lettuce, with high water requirements, instead of things like corn, peanuts, carrots and wheat which all use less water than all non-seafood meat.
It's also assumed the produce will be wasted at exponentially higher rates than meat, which can be preserved more easily. That may be true, but they don't include the preservatives or energy to refrigerate and/or freeze meat on the bacon side of the equation.

Of course the lettuce takes more resources if you eat 40+ cups instead of 4 thin bacon strips, just like when you compare a single fish stick to several giant pumpkins.

*rant over*

Firstly I didn't quote you, I didn't assume anything about you, I didn't mention you or your previous comments at all.

Secondly the second amendment doesn't specify guns and doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use. It's funny how many gun rights advocates don't care if their knives, tasers, knuckle dusters and pepper sprays are regulated and controlled.

Thirdly Gun control doesn't equate to taking all your guns away.

Lastly constitutional amendments can be repealed and changed.

*Heavy sigh*
No. They don't say that. The science has evolved in the last 5 years. (Edit: Might check how old and out of date that ipcc report is, btw. Please note you ignore all science done since the 2014 IPCC report you reference that used melting equations and extrapolated rather than measured data sets, data and models they admit are incomplete. They have not updated their sea level estimates since the fifth assessment, which itself raised them approximately 60% over the fourth, which raised them significantly from the third...... Other nonpolitical scientific groups have adjusted the findings to include up to 6.5' or higher rise by 2100 under worst case conditions, the path we're firmly on today.)

Even if you were correct, and I don't agree one bit you are, is just under a 3' rise not bad enough for you in the next 70 years? That's at least 140 million people and all coastal habitats displaced, with more to come. I and others expect worse, but surely that's disaster enough for you, isn't it? The world couldn't deal with one million Syrians, 140 million coastal refugees, and whatever number of non coastal climate refugees fleeing drought or flood sure seems an unavoidable planetary disaster. That doesn't consider the two billion people who rely on Himalayan glaciers for their water, glaciers in rapid retreat.

I guess you dismiss the science from NOAA based simply on it being presented in Forbes without reading it then....so I should just dismiss the IPCC, another non scientific economically focused group discussing science?

Here's some more science then. Edit: Seems most CURRENT projections using up to date data are more in line with my expectations than yours.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-metre-sea-plausible.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48337629

https://time.com/5592583/sea-levels-rise-higher-study/

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5056

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Note the updated chart near the top showing more current projections compared to ipcc predictions.

*my content?*

"there's got to be more to the equation than just nuttiness times membership."

Absolutely agreed.

Regarding white supremacist killings and violence, and classing right/left and tada the left is less violent is something I don't agree on.

Now I don't say that to disagree with any particular fact you present, I just reject the methodology of creating 2 categories(left/right) and lumping everyone into one or the other and drawing conclusions. I think it oversimplifies things to the point of being a problem of it's own. It makes it easy to be apathetic(clearly the problem is the 'other' guys) and even dehumanizing("they" are clearly evil or in bed with evil).

The two camps thing is way too easy to get pulled into(I'm imperfect staying out of it too), but it just ends in horrible divisive garbage like refusing to vote Democrat because they are "left" and antifa is left, so can't promote them...

Kinda gonna disagree with YOU here.

So, you think nuttiness directly correlates with violent tendencies? But you then admit the nuttiest Christian group is Westborough, who has not been violent, just outrageously disgusting. You seem to think these democratic socialist people are nuttier than the moronic right, yet you admit they have yet to become violent, unlike many on the right. Even if it's also a function of numbers, there should be some violent acts if not murders coming from both outrageously nutty groups, right? But there just isn't.
Remember, Manson's family only had a few members, but a ton of nuttiness. They murdered many trying to start a race war.

Today, the left has more members than the right. Why, then, is the right so much more violent and terroristic? Simply because the far right has more members than the far left? That still doesn't jibe.

Granted, the lunacy on display here is over the top, but less so than the disgusting and divisive dehumanizing rhetoric coming from the right's leaders, spokespeople, and splinter groups. Indeed, this groups nuttiness is based on not upsetting others, antithetical to mass murdering.

There's FAR more crazy anger on the right. For every triggered democratic socialist or ANTIFA there's a dozen seething right wing white supremacists itching for a race war. Look at the numbers here, 500-1000 active democratic socialists?...how many right wing neo Nazis were in Charlottesville?

It follows to me that group murder rates come from not just the level but the type of nuttiness, number of members, uncontrolled anger/rage/hatred, group acceptance of violence, and access to weapons capable of murder. The right is miles ahead on every count besides membership. That's why, imo, there's got to be more to the equation than just nuttiness times membership.

Anyone else wonder why they equated respect with winter, considering how terrifying that is in Westeros?

Not the Wild Turkey I normally equate with long haul truckers...

It's part of common core. Supposedly it makes it easier to understand the theory behind math so later in higher level classes (algebra, trig, etc) they can easily break the harder equations down.

Beats me, I learned the old way and it worked for me through algebra 1/2, and geometry.

What the fucking fuck is that all about?
That's ridiculous. All she's doing is spreading the equation apart.
Turning a compact process into a Gordian knot.

1) Because they didn't succeed in a vacuum, they benefit from civilization, so are obligated to support it to at least the same extent if not more because they are able while others aren't.

2) swap dumb with rich and Trump is the bazillionaire he claims to be. You can't just swap dissimilar unrelated concepts and say "see, proved it" without looking like a braying moron.

3) Yes it should without question, our best and brightest don't come from the privileged class as a higher percentage. Actually the opposite because they don't have to do their best to survive, poorer people do, and drive matters immensely. If we want to compete internationally, we must educate the uneducated and undereducated, even those who can't afford $500000 to fake a crew history or SAT score. That education needs to be better than the countries we compete with, and it is all too often simply not.
That is a conservative stance, not a liberal one.

4) equating wealth to gpa, like this moronic video does, means Trump, like everyone else, should start at 0 and not get a bonus from daddy. If that happened, he would be zero. He is not self made, he did not only get a small $14 million unrepaid interest free loan. He did squander the money, failing at venture after venture until only Russian gangsters will loan him money, loans he needs because he squandered the money....then he repeatedly lied about it immorally squandering billions from hundreds of duped investors too...THAT is evil, yes.

5) We make $30000 for two people and don't take a dime, even overpaid my taxes...not everyone has my opportunities, privileges, and abilities. You are just spouting nonsense straw man arguments. In a perfect world, we could all be self sustaining with equal opportunity to succeed, we don't live in that communist/socialist utopia.....no one ever has.
I believe we are better off when the least privileged don't have to resort to violent or immoral crime to survive. I believe we are better off as a nation when our best people have the opportunities to succeed that our worst but most privileged are afforded. I believe we are better off being protected from the irresponsibility of purely profit driven commerce that, by design, must walk the razors edge of acceptability to maximize profit and minimize obligations by any means necessary, usually leaving them for socialist programs to clean up/repair. I believe we do more good ensuring the starving among us are fed food humans would willingly eat before ensuring some unrepentant apocalyptic bankers get their multi million dollar bonuses and a free pass on their crimes, and before those making multi millions a year get to hoard more and pay even less of their share.

6) What you are spouting is bat shit insane, not even AOC advocates pure socialism....not even Russia had pure socialism. Your ilk, however, calls any government program that doesn't directly benefit them or their Trumpian masters "socialist"....education, infrastructure, all regulatory agencies, social security, even the fbi have been labeled socialist by Trumpists in the zeal to discredit the report they assumed would expose criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States (ps, it found exactly that dozens of times over), while military welfare programs for equipment we don't want and won't use, bailouts for banks and agribusiness, public funds for private ventures like golf courses and troll roads, (edit:Freudian slip?) and don't forget the unmentioned elephant, the military itself...all that socialism is fine, you think it's not even socialism. *facepalm

I'll say it again.

Asinine.

Are you implying the peasants would still have revolted and executed the ruling class if the ruling class were having an equally difficult time getting enough to eat?

Your one-sided view of an obviously two-sided equation is disingenuous at best, utterly moronic at worst.

Using violence, torture, and the backing of the Russian military, and after numerous failed coup and assassination attempts he took and held tenuous control. Torture hardly played a huge roll or he would have been successful the first time, or the second. He retained and increased that power in the 70-80's by spending his huge amounts of oil money on the people, mostly not by torturing them (except for Kurds).

The "others in the room" we're his forces, not random people who murdered for him out of relief. He didn't hand weapons to an adversarial group he was convincing to follow his lead by having them kill those who wouldn't. I mean...WHAT?

You use fear mongering as proof torture works? Um... ok.

Since what I've been discussing is torture working to get sensitive, useful information, not the long term terrorism and brutal oppression of a population, I'll just move on.
Yes, despots can ride nations into the ground by making the populations powerless and fearful until those populations revolt. Yes, an iron hand and willingness to make your population stone aged can allow you to hold on a long time. Yes, torture can be part of that, but only one small unnecessary part, a strong military willing to murder unarmed civilians is what it takes, torture or not.

Wow, now you think the U.S. military taking out Saddam proves torture works because ...force and violence?

Strength vs weakness is what worked, not torture or terrorism, that's why he failed, brought down by a coalition of locals and Americans with his military deserting him in droves when he needed them most.

Torture is not a functional interrogation technique nor a means to foster loyalty, only fear. Fear only works until someone adds hope to the equation.

I would like address a few things...

1. This is a game. Do you know the name of the game? We call it "Riding The Gravy Train". Once you realize you've been played, the rules will become clear. Until then you are like a child with a loaded gun.

2. I assume nothing. I know a cry for help when I hear it. And I invite you to continue to prove me wrong. I understand.

3. I did have the equation wrong once or twice. But that was years ago. Now I know the rules of the game. I was taught by best.

Love. There is no greater force. Don't be afraid to use it.

Does any of this sound reasonable enough to bring us to an understanding?

And now, a page ripped from the bible of Paul McCartney and John Lennon