I'm sure this will play well in Peoria. Arizona, that is.

https://twitter.com/ComfortablySmug/status/1052322401915207681

This will also end well.

The Minnesota Democratic Party has suspended a spokesman for calling for violence against Republicans even as two GOP candidates have been assaulted in suspected politically motivated attacks.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/two-gop-candidates-assaulted-minnesota/

Questions, there are questions:

Riddle me this: Why does the United States have has 3.5 million more registered voters than it has living adult citizens? That’s impossible after all the Democrats say there is no reason for Voter ID laws or purging the voter rolls.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2018/10/why-do-we-make.html

Just found it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/opinion/letters/trump-climate.html

To the Editor:

Re “Is Climate Change Man-Made? Yes” (Fact-Check, Oct. 16):

President Trump very possibly may be correct when he says: “I think something’s happening. Something’s changing, and it will change back again.”

Climate change is likely to lead to wars for limited resources and, quite possibly, the extinction of mankind. But then, after a few million years following this extinction, the earth could recover and the climate would return to the condition that existed before the Industrial Revolution, making Mr. Trump’s statement accurate.

See, you doubters: We just have to give Mr. Trump a little time to see his great wisdom.

Price T. Bingham
Melbourne, Fla.

Eventually the sun will expand and consume the earth. This is inevitable and undebatable.

It also has nothing to do with humans.

So how is that an excuse not to do all we can to slow down the rise in sea levels, the number of horrible hurricanes, etc? Like polluting less (even poor people might do that on a daily basis, in little ways, while rich people go on cruise ships, which are big polluters) and demanding that corporations pollute less?

How is it not wrong to ignore the plight of those who have just been born and could be facing catastrophic conditions before they're even old enough to marry?

From a 2017 thread:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2017/08/29/advice_goddess_225.html

Me: ...even if it's eventually proven that rising sea levels, increasing drought, and other long-term environmental changes are only 5% due to human influence (or not at all), how does that change the likelihood that at the least, humans everywhere need to have fewer children, since the increasing disappearances of good habitats for humans means more and more crowding, fewer resources to go around, and likely fewer jobs? Especially with increasing automation?

This is on point about intrasexual competition and fairy tales

https://twitter.com/GamingAndPandas/status/1052834196178251776

The number of hurricanes hasn't increased. The sea level has been rising for ~20,000 years. In fact it largely slowed down over the last 6,000. Your predictions of doom are incorrect. How is it moral to starve people out of fear and ignorance? As for your concerns about exhausted resources, limited human habitat, and finite jobs, that is also false.

You are making a false assumption that there are no costs associated with what you want. As one wit put it 'What if we don't save the world and only make it a better place?' But those aren't the only choices. There are significant costs associated different policies. Neo-ludism isn't a solution.

In all honesty if you aren't willing to embrace full human driven teraforming on the earth then you aren't taking the expressed concerns seriously. The climate has been changing for millions of years. If you want to hold it static then you need to act to cause that to happen. Refraining from acting doesn't get the job done.

State Department provided 'clearly false' statements to derail requests for Clinton docs, 'shocked' federal judge says

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-department-provided-clearly-false-statements-to-derail-hillary-clinton-doc-requests-federal-judge-says

Besides, that would demolish Youtube's "safe harbor" protections.

“I can think of no better way of doing this than excising the entire alt-right from YouTube.” Sorry, but that means you’re not thinking. If your response to aggrieved people is to add some entirely legitimate grievances to their list, it’s time to reexamine your strategy.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/310746/

George Orwell on NPCs -

http://magaimg.net/img/6hpc.png

So how is that an excuse not to do all we can to slow down the rise in sea levels, the number of horrible hurricanes, etc?

Let me know when the Usual Suspects stop jetting around the world, going to Cannes and not even plane pooling. When they start behaving like it is an actual problem I might start taking them a tad more seriously.

Again: I don't want to hear one damn word about my carbon footprint when those fools burn more carbon in a week than I do in a year.

The actual cause of climate change? it'll be something huge, big, enormous, something on the order of the sun.

Further, as I posited in another thread, there has been no conversation about what would constitute the optimum climate for life on this planet. The Neo-Luddites have wedded themselves to this notion that 270 parts per million of CO2 is the gold standard. I don't know what the optimum is, but I'm fairly confident that it isn't 270 ppm.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/12/sea-level-shock-satellite-imagery-shows-coral-islands-expanding-results-challenge-existing-narratives-of-island-loss/

And one more

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kathleen-brown/noaa-says-its-record-no-major-hurricane-has-struck-us-mainland-10-years

This is just the New Religion: the high priests and priestesses get to do what they want, whilst us peon make the actual sacrifices.

lenona re: Global Warming

The most dire temperature increase predictions still leaves the global mean temperature LOWER than the the average of the last interglacial period of the Ice Age we are now living in at this very moment

Funny how you didn't say anything about why polluting less would be a bad thing...

And I don't quite know what you mean by "embrace full human driven terraforming on the earth." Does that mean it's a good idea for people to have and use air conditioners as much as they want because they can't stand any indoor room that's over 75 F and falsely think they'll die if they don't use it? Or what? How would that help control climate change?

"Do Fewer Men Want Children Now —?"

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/do-fewer-men-want-children-now/

It's written by a childfree woman.

Excerpts:

...“I’m not really sure anyone has looked at intentions or desires for kids when it comes to men**,” says Dr. Karen Benjamin Guzzo, Bowling Green State University Associate Professor of Sociology and Associate Director of the BGSU Center for Family & Demographic Research.

Family research is usually directed at those who already have children and is concerned with whether those children were wanted, Guzzo explains. Women are easier to survey because they always know whether they’ve had a child. Not all men will know they’ve fathered a child, and some may decline to answer questions if they’ve been absent from a child’s life or neglected to pay child support...

...Daniel R. Norwood first became aware of the concept of choosing one’s best life at four years old, even if he didn’t quite understand what it would come to mean for him. His aunt and uncle had no children, and he asked his aunt why. She said it was because they didn’t want any.

Young Daniel’s shocked response was, “You mean you get a CHOICE?”

Even so, as a teenager, he thought he wanted to grow up and have two children. It wasn’t until he was 21 that he realized his desire for children wasn’t a desire, at all, but a reaction to societal expectations. At the time of this discovery, he was involved with a woman who wanted children, and when Norwood told her he had decided to live a childfree life, that — combined with other problems — led to the end of their relationship.

The responses he’s received from veritable strangers to his choice to be childfree have ranged from the threatening — “You never know. Accidents happen!” — to the offensive — without children, his life is meaningless; he’s selfish.

“Some estimates put the cost of raising a child at over $200,000,” Norwood says. “If I spent $200,000 on an extravagant sports car, everyone would say how irresponsible and selfish I am. They’d point out how I could never afford that, even if I paid it off over, say, the next 18 years. But they can’t see the hypocrisy in telling me to have a child.”...

Let me know when the Usual Suspects stop jetting around the world, going to Cannes and not even plane pooling.
_____________________________________

Ralph Nader doesn't do that, for one.

And since scientists are seldom affluent, I doubt they do that either, as a rule.

Those who ARE doing that may well be just selfish, non-scientist celebs who want points on the left - and more publicity. They get the most attention because they're already famous.

It IS true that people like Al Gore and Dr. David Suzuki have more children than is socially acceptable these days. But Gore was born in 1948 and Suzuki was born in 1936. Even someone of Gore's generation was likely not raised to believe that there was anything unethical about having as many children as you can want and can feed - let alone the idea that childfree (as opposed to childless) people are just like everyone else and should be respected as such.

MAYBE there are environmentalists born post-1970 who have more than two kids - but they are very likely in a tiny minority.

"Funny how you didn't say anything about why polluting less would be a bad thing..."

Because I agree with you there. Of course there is a cost associated with polluting less. And that cost may be unaffordable. Or excessive vs. the benefits. It's a cost benefit analysis.

"And I don't quite know what you mean by "embrace full human driven terraforming on the earth.""

I don't know how you got from this to air conditioning. But from a technological and engineering perspective if you want a stable mean temperature on the earth you need to take control over the atmospheric albedo. That means pumping chemicals into the upper atmosphere in order to regulate the temperature. CO2 is horribly inefficient for this. There are numerous alternative that are far more effective. We do have the technology to intentionally set the global average temperature and at an affordable price. Of course doing so is an act of war against every other nation out there. So some level of cooperation would be advisable.

For your second piece, I actually support most of it. Men should have an equal choice on reproduction. Or not as the case may be. And I also support the woman who ditched the guy who didn't want kids. She did and he didn't. That's an irreconcilable difference in a relationship. If the two of you want different things then ending the relationship and looking for partners who do want the same thing is the responsible thing to do. The 'accidents happen!' thing is totally irresponsible and offensive. To both genders. Same with secret birth control.

But “Some estimates put the cost of raising a child at over $200,000,” is pure bullshit. That is the average cost but since child spending isn't a Gaussian distribution this isn't a useful piece of information. The median cost of raising a child is far far less. Also this is how much people chose to spend on kids, not what they have to spend. The US has a per capita annual consumption of 74.8 liters of beer. No one forces you to drink that beer. People want to. Same with kid spending.

Ah, the New Democrat Man.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/soros-backed-group-fires-operative-after-arrest-over-alleged-battery-against-gop-campaign-manager

Ralph Nader doesn't do that, for one.

Good for him. Now, about the rest of them? oh, and I see Ralph is still opposed to that one source of reliable power that is mostly carbon free: nuclear.

And since scientists are seldom affluent, I doubt they do that either, as a rule.

Oh, they just fly commercial. You do know that travel expenses are often included in research grants? in case you doubt me:

https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2018/future-meetings/

Two AGU (American Geophysical Union) meetings in December, one in DC the other in San Fran. And that's just one such group. American Meteorological Society will have their annual meeting in *search* ah, Phoenix in January. National Hurricane Conference will be held in New Orleans in April.

That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Other such professional groups host meetings, seminars, conferences and workshops. Often in exotic places so as to allow the participants to have a little vacation.

That all can be done via the internet, dontcha think?

What's funny IRA is the internet may not be less carbon intensive than flying. It takes a fair amount of energy to push all those bits around. I've seen the analysis go both ways depending on the assumptions taken.

NASA has a page on climate change, if anyone's okay with data-supported science:

https://climate.nasa.gov/

Skeptical Science has a useful page on the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change'.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

NASA has a page on climate change, if anyone's okay with data-supported science:

I would be if they didnt keep getting caught changing stuff

You lack history Gog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

The earth didn't form in the 1980s. (or even the 1890s)