DJL

We can, if you'd like. You see we used to have a team of people inside China. When previous threats arose we worked closely with China to study and manage them. Those people and that relationship did not exist this time and we can only theorize if it would have done what it did every single other previous time a threat appeared since the early 2000's. So first, this is a description of our ability to sense and track possible pandemics as of December 2016: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/towards_epidemic_prediction-federal_efforts_and_opportunities.pdf It's called the "Pandemic Prediction and Forecasting Science and Technology Working Group" and it was effectively dissolved in 2018.

It's funny to see the "cancel culture" thing coming up so often as if it's a way to hit Democrats over the head while at the same time this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/business/media/tucker-carlson-fox-news-writer.html That was the fastest cancel culture I've ever seen and it's from the heart of the most right wing dingbat show on television.

I don't get that either. This is literally the most important thing happening RIGHT NOW and the director of the CDC says we could seriously knock it down in just a few months with a strong approach using masks and sanitary practices. All Trump has to do to win the election (in just a few months) is to take strong action against the most important thing happening RIGHT NOW.

Cement https://www.newscientist.com/article/2185217-the-future-with-lower-carbon-concrete/ Steel https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaner-cheaper-way-to-make-steel-uses-electricity/

There are a few people who I hope get injured just enough to learn a lesson.

This is an interesting one. You're genuinely concerned that the mere presence of guns is a threat?

I don't think that's an improvement.

I agree that you're quoting people working in fields who spoke from a perspective of theory at a point at which there was little historical data to show what's really happening and using that to make a statement about "science." It's no coincidence that your favorite go-toes are tornadoes, floods and glaciers. Edit: I should give you credit that you're references Arctic sea ice but again, you're referencing people who pushed a narrative of things happening faster than what the remainder of the scientific community agrees with.

We were talking about him earlier and he used some of those guys in his propaganda. There certainly are alarmists within the "NASA scientists" , they aren't a monolithic entity, there are even "NASA scientist" deniers.

If you do believe Bill's pardon was a "perversion of the justice system" then what do you think of Trump commuting Stone's sentence?

Yes, I am OK with that. I don't see anyone pointing a gun at someone else with their finger on the trigger while screaming that they're going to kill them. I otherwise know nothing about the legality of doing that particular thing on that particular piece of property but it doesn't seem like local authorities cared. Are you disappointed that what appears to be a perfectly legal gathering isn't getting the press you wanted it to?

From the very sources you posted, many of those people were considered to be alarmists and even in their own words described what they were talking about as the early scenario. We're not saying there were not alarmists and we're certainly not standing up for anything Al Gore said. Example; scientist said "Glaciers could be gone by 2015, Al Gore says, "All glaciers will be gone by 2015", Brenthutch says, "See, the experts said all glaciers would be gone!", everyone else says, "Most glaciers around the world are shrinking at an historic rate and no, Brenthutch, your gotcha doesn't change that."

What do you think is the scientific consensus on when these events will occur?

Sorry, but sourcing wattsup is entering the "too dumb to argue with" category again.

Notice you had to edit after reading that many of the glaciers are no longer large enough to be called glaciers. We even went over the glaciers thing like a month ago. It reminds me of this:

Your're right. You don't understand.

I agree that on a state level a popular vote is very representative but it's because there's more of a mono-culture in the needs of the citizens. * On the level of the Presidency I think that disparity is answered more with what headoverheels says so maybe it's not as important for the candidacy of the President to need the same sort of handicapped advantage. My point is that there is a diversity of needs within the country and those needs are not always represented by the most populous states. The Midwest may want a candidate that protects manufacturing, the West Coast may tend toward tech issues, the East Coast may tend toward finance. A mix of those needs ** keeps the country healthy and just because there are fewer people in the Midwest doesn't mean that maintaining our manufacturing capabilities is less important. *One real issue with even a statewide popular vote is that the less populous areas are at mercy of the more populous areas. That can be seen the most in how many public services like education, healthcare and public transportation are handled. In my state the more populous and wealthy suburban Northern Virginia dictate what kind of taxes are used and the result is that public schools in the rural and inner city areas are famously under-funded. The result is that families who cannot afford to move are stuck sending their children to bad schools, have difficulty getting basic health needs. **The counter argument is that there are some inherent needs that more populous areas also represent but are not answered because the ball swings the other direction when a population is hyper-focused, like in cities. Those tend to be issues that affect low-income and consequently minority groups the most. They have neither the representation in their state legislature nor the economic clout to bring about change and the relationship between poverty and race becomes very cyclical. Taking your two points in mind I do lean towards getting rid of it because there are other legislative branches that create a check and balance against the Presidency.

Would you mind explaining more. Do you mean that the elector votes should be counted individually instead as a state block or that citizen's votes should be counted individually? Edit: And yes I know you said to get rid of the EC but I want to make sure you mean entirely.

Yeah, I guess I'm in the wrong forum. I think we may have the ultimate test of the EC this election if there's any sort of ambiguity from mail in ballots, voter suppression or COVID issues interfering at the booth. I do agree with the EC to a certain respect again as an idealization because I don't think that the more heavily populated coastal areas should overrule the needs of the country as a whole. I also agree that the EC agent should cast their vote as the interpretation of the will of the people. That has always meant according to the popular vote and if there's any reason they don't then it needs to be for a reason that stands up in the highest courts.

I tend to agree with an idealistic interpretation of that. MOB rule vs. Democratically elected officials capable and willing to make the best decisions based upon the long term needs of the country and humanity.

I will not vote for him in a second term unless the Republican candidate is fundamentally flawed. For starters he's simply too old.

He absolutely should not run for a second term if he makes it through the first. I don't plan to vote for him after this election.

Flying in and staying on the North end of the Island? I go there every couple of years. It's not the locals you should worry about, it's the visitors packed into fudge shops.

Funny enough, the link did go straight a reference to Al Gore and glaciers, a subject that ended with your statement that you'd rather have alpine fields than ice bulldozers. So anyway, about what those Glaciers do, they actually are the water source needed for those alpine fields: WHY ARE GLACIERS IMPORTANT? Alpine glaciers, such as the glaciers in Glacier National Park, have been landscape features for thousands of years. They play integral roles in the ecology of the region where they exist. They are essentially frozen reservoirs of water which release cold water in late summer when streams might otherwise have low flows or no flows. Adding water to streams and cooling streams is a function that several known species of aquatic insects, such as the meltwater and western glacier stoneflies, have come to rely upon. Native fish species, such as cutthroat trout, have evolved in the presence of sustained cold water inputs from glaciers and are threatened by hybridization facilitated by warmer stream temperatures . In some places, glacier meltwater provides drinking water for communities. Glacier meltwater also contributes to agricultural practices and recreational uses like boating and fishing. Local economies and livelihoods are connected to glacial input in these ways. As glaciers disappear, there will be a reduction in water input at the same time the demand is going up. Wildfire, and it’s multitude of devastating impacts ecologically and economically, is more likely when the landscape has less water.

Just the fact that your only angles are food production right now in this year and digs at Al Gore shows a lack of depth. I have no idea what Al Gore is up to or was up to, I find him to be an opportunist for his personal agenda and at best a spokesman who only vaguely understands his own material. You did a better job with "gotchas" when you were talking about melting glaciers. Care to rehash that or maybe talk about ice volume in the Arctic Circle again?