winsor

Well, "control over climate" is a strong phrase. What we have 'control' over is how much damage we choose to do. For example, we really don't have "control" over the ozone layer. But we do have control over how much CFCs we release into the atmosphere. By strictly limiting that, we have significantly reduced how much damage we are doing to the ozone layer. And we've seen results. In a similar vein, we don't have control over rain. But we have control over the crap we spew into the air that affects the rain (acid rain). By limiting sulfide emissions, we've seen a huge decrease in acid rain, and an equally huge recovery in the ecosystem. Both of the above happened in a relatively short time. Both of the above were dismissed by those who were negatively impacted by the restrictions. Whether or not we can stop damaging the climate by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is a challenging question. There are places in the world where deforestation is happening at an alarming rate. If you tell those people that they have to stop doing that because their grandchildren will pay the price, they will tell you that they have to do this to survive today. It's not that they don't care about the future, it's that they need to care more about the immediate future than the distant future. And their short term solutions for survival often mean disaster for the distant (or not-so-distant) future. And therein lies the conundrum.

I take issue with 'the answer' here. It's more like they actually took one more question into consideration. With my modest background in Heat Transfer, Chemical Thermodynamics, Physical Chemistry, Physics and sundry other disciplines I concur that humanity is a significant factor in climate at the moment. Having said that, I strongly dispute the supposition that we have CONTROL over climate. I also am equally concerned about the buffering effect of bodies of water (oceans in particular), whereby CO2 emissions do not remain in the atmosphere but achieve equilibrium in the CO2 + H2O H2CO3 system, thus lowering the pH of the ocean. Since a great deal of the food chain is dependent upon the oceans being habitable, you could achieve some sort of climate stasis and wind up starving anyway. I admittedly find the Left to be generally as repellent as I do Trump (which is saying a lot). My frustration lies with such pea brains as Gore being the mouthpiece for the movement (and making hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, while zipping around in his personal jet), knowing full well that he and his sycophants have no idea about what they are talking. Even when Gore's right he manages to be full of shit, at least as much as does our CIC. At least the dumb sonofabitch (Gore) doesn't have a constant, unfiltered Twitter feed...

Irony score 10/10. I can give you a list of historical references that refute the supposition that 'this time it's different!,' other than the scale involved. I could be wrong, but I'm not. (Eagles)

Not hardly. I am dedicated to conservation and sustainability, but recoil at simplistic 'solutions' that address the concern du jour and shift the focus away from practical policies related to the most dire threats that we face. In systems analysis, there is a tendency to want to manipulate a particular variable that seems to 'obviously' prevail. Viewing the various parameters of concern together, there are often other terms of a magnitude that the pet parameter can be ignored in the short term. Often, the issue initially of concern is a self-correcting problem in the grand scheme of things. With regard to the National Debt, World Population and so forth, there is no viable Plan B. The best we can hope for is to fly as far through the crash as possible. Perseverating on 'climate change' to the exclusion of the problems of which it is a symptom is both delusional and counterproductive, on a par with rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. Should it be addressed? Yes. Is it the be-all end-all? Would that it was. BSBD, Winsor

I did not say that both sides are equally bad. My point is that they both suck out loud, though for different reasons. The Climate Change (tm) orthodoxy is a kind of a kumbaya, we-are-the-world, it's all about us movement, where the climate would be fine if we could agree to fix it. To that I say bullshit. Do we have an impact on our environment? Most assuredly. Is much of anything put forth by Al Gore of merit? Not a fucking chance. Will increasing our dependency on finite fossil resources improve our energy security? Are you kidding me? On the right you have short sighted dunderheads, agreed. On the left you have sanctimonious bugwits of the first order. Neither group has a handle on achieving a sustainable future, for different reasons, though each is convinced that they do. Climate change is more of a symptom than a problem, and the underlying issues are largely insoluble for a laundry list of reasons. In the end, we're all doomed. Like any religion, the climate change alarmist movement has taken a basic thesis and morphed it beyond recognition. It is analogous to Marxism; the ills that spawned Marxism were both real and horrific. Marxism, the ideology committed to addressing these ills, turned out to be significantly worse than the problems it claimed to solve. I think the 'drill baby, drill!' crowd is delusional. Retards like Al Gore are every bit as bad, if not worse. Your analogy that 'doctors are crooks...' is inapt. Physicians have a vested interest in their approach to a problem, and significant disincentive to deviating greatly from the standard of care. The fact that the standard of care is subject to vast changes from generation to generation does not mean that I am likely to smoke cigarettes if it is contraindicated or to drink wine even if I know it would be associated with a longer life. Medical specialists are often oblivious to the big picture, and a great deal of medical treatment is counterproductive. My point is not that it is necessarily bad, but that a certain amount of skepticism is warranted and doing one's homework is a good idea. Whether regarding a Senator of an Oncologist, one should be sensitive to the constraints of the position and conflicts of interest that may come into play. BSBD, Winsor

You excoriate the Right for putting their short term concerns over the future of America, but give the Left a pass for putting their short term concerns over the future of America. The Left and Right are standing across the aisle from each other, each side pointing at the other and screaming what assholes they are. You agree with one side. I agree with both. I'd like to see some elaboration on that view given China has signed on. In addition the US is now the sole non party to that agreement. er trump and his base. This map shows which states are vowing to defy Trump and uphold the US' Paris Agreement goals http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-uphold-paris-agreement-2017-6 I see US governors, democrat house and senate members standing up for the accords. Where are the republican leaders? Please explain your moderate middle of the road view. Reading comprehension time. My point was simply that BOTH sides of the aisle are incompetent morons. That's it. If you want to discuss the Physics and Politics of Climate Change, that has nothing to do with what I said. As you were.

Given that the threat of attack on Hawaii is purportedly a thermonuclear device, there is not a lot one can do about it in the way of protection. SOP for preparation for a tactical nuke < 5 kiloton is to estimate the likely point of impact and get below the surface, with > 7 meters of soil to absorb gamma radiation. After the flash (same TOA as gamma), and following blast, it is deemed 'safe' to emerge with appropriate gear to protect from alpha and beta radiation. Assuming a thermonuclear warhead survived reentry and targeting was satisfactory, the effects are a whole different ball game. If Honolulu was hit squarely, it would instantly turn into a huge, very deep, circular lagoon. A crater depth > 50 meters means that there is no way to get deep enough fast enough to avoid being vaporized. You also can't go far enough fast enough to avoid being roasted; the likelihood of being within commuting range of downtown and surviving is zero, to significant digits. I grew up within the blast radius of a Nike base, so 'duck and cover' really didn't apply. Preparation for an incoming warhead consisted to putting your head firmly between you legs and kissing you ass goodbye. What they expect to accomplish with the 'warning system' is beyond me. Why not let it be a surprise? BSBD, Winsor

You excoriate the Right for putting their short term concerns over the future of America, but give the Left a pass for putting their short term concerns over the future of America. The Left and Right are standing across the aisle from each other, each side pointing at the other and screaming what assholes they are. You agree with one side. I agree with both.

Politicians lie! Gasp! Whoa, where am I? I must have swooned.

Of the 613 Mitzvot, there is nobody to whom all apply. Some are specific to men or women, some are specific to Kohanim (Priests), some to butchers and so forth. In practice we cherry pick amongst the others. Where stoning people at the drop of a hat appears mandated, we are closer to using the Bob Dylan interpretation. We also tend to gloss over those Mitzvot mandating genocide. Given the combination of redaction, lack of original texts, cherry picking of texts (see apocrypha) and questionable translations, accepting verbatim any variant of the 'New Testament' is a stretch. "The Passover Plot," despite its title, is a remarkably dispassionate review of the Christian Scriptures, and actually lends credence to much of what "is written." As best as we can tell, Cousin Jesus was an observant Jew who was the son of Joseph per the criteria for the 'Messiah' laid out in Isaiah, as specified in Matthew and Luke. The 'Virgin Birth' story line is European in origin, and did not enter the narrative for some hundreds of years after he left the building. There is nothing to suggest that he was born on the Winter Solstice, and his 'birthday' was selected to coincide with the Pagan Yule festival for political reasons. The Tannenbaum is of purely Pagan origin, 'Santa Claus' as we know him was the brainchild of Thomas Nast. All that regardless, Merry Christmas!

Tradition, I suppose. When you consider the assortment of rogues, scalawags and ne'er do wells that swarmed over this continent after Columbus 'discovered' it (Hey, I discovered Europe! Got off the plane and damn, there it was!), it is no surprise that we have been represented by people that, had they not been in elected office, they would have been in prison (or on the gallows, as the case may be). In some cases we have elected people who were incarcerated during the election (see Mayor Curley et al.). I have a tee shirt regarding the four stages of tequila. 1) I'm rich. 2) I'm good looking. 3) I'm bulletproof. 4) I'm invisible. It seems this would apply to political office as well. BSBD, Winsor

Without looking it up, I recall 'a myriad of' (noun) being 10^1,000 and 'myriad' (adjective) being too numerous to count. Thus, myriad as a noun has a specific numerical value, while myriad as an adjective simply indicates a mind-boggling number. Using it to indicate 'lots' is hyperbole.

I suspect the calculus is more along the lines of what kept Clinton in office. That WJC would play 'hide the salami' with any female that came within range was the worst kept secret in Little Rock or Washington. Clinton would appear to have had greater success in his extracurricular love life than did Moore, though his enthusiastic pursuit of sex reportedly reached a felonious level upon occasion. Among major flaws with which Moore has to work are that he has none of Clinton's charm and that he was (is?) attracted to pubescent females. Clinton used his position to have a rock star's love life. Where Paula Jones responded to Clinton's overtures with 'eeeew!,' most just said 'okay.' Moore, OTOH, developed a reputation for hanging around and flirting with underage girls. I suppose people who are attracted to youngsters assume that everyone is, but the fact that this is not the case may be what enables them in the first place. You have various priests who engage in things that simply would not occur to the the bulk of the flock, who thus don't pick up on it. The nature of politics is such that selecting a candidate is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. Some candidates' flaws are enough out of sight that their nature is akin to a coprolite, while others are reminiscent of ballistic diarrhea. I think Moore is closer to the latter category. While some dung is useful as fertilizer or fuel for fires, a piece of shit by any name is still a piece of shit. So it is with politicians. With Roy Moore, it is 'hold your nose and try not to gag when you vote.' Ah, the Miracle of Democracy at work! BSBD, Winsor

A lawyer lies when there is a reason. Trump lies constantly, even when there is nothing to be gained. Trump does NOT lie. To lie, one must have some concept of what constitutes truth and, perhaps, care what said truth is and I can see nothing to suggest that Trump meets those criteria. The Donald is given to blurting out anything that crosses his mind, which results in a real dog's breakfast of garbled and misshapen thoughts winding up on the transcript. You give him too much credit.

Hey, he may be a pervert, but at least he's not a Democrat.

Worked like a champ. "We admire your personal relationship with God (tm), and we have arranged a personal meeting with him in, oh, ten minutes. Say hi for us."

And who do you think would fill the void? I recall when most of City Hall in Camden got sent up the river, their replacements started stealing as much as they could the moment they took office. The message they seemed to take from their predecessors was not so much that stealing was a bad thing as it was that their opportunity to do so was time-limited, so they had best get to it forthwith. It's like shooing flies away from a pile of shit. What do you expect to replace them, butterflies?

It's important to separate the issues. With Moore we're not talking about a court case with carefully collected evidence and a sting operation set up to easily establish the crime. The point is to keep him out of office because of what we know about him, not what can be put together inside of a courtroom. As it stands, several independent accusers or sexual assault with minors, several others with stories of him flirting with underage women, an ACTUAL ban from the mall where he used to troll for underage girls, written proof in a yearbook with one of the accusers that he was in contact with her. All of this is reason for Alabama voters to get someone else on the ballot but (as far as I know) not actionable evidence for a courtroom. The fact that Roy Moore had such backing before all this came out gave me pause. Everything that I had heard of him indicated that he is a despicable piece of shit, and these latest allegations are very much in keeping with what I would expect of him. Karma is a bitch, and I certainly hope his downfall is just beginning. Prison, where he would get free food, housing and medical care, is better than he deserves. One could only hope that he would be treated as befits 'short eyes' if he was to be sentenced like any other pedophile. BSBD, Winsor

Unless their name is Hillary Clinton...and we'll give him a pass on that one. He has been no harder on her than he was on BHO. True equality of shameful hatred well earned contempt. FIFY

When I lived in Massachusetts it was illegal to attend church without a loaded shotgun. This statute was still on the books from when indigenous people were trying to rectify their initial error in failing to enforce immigration quotas. It seems they figured out that the one time that all the European immigrants were unarmed and in the same place was on Sunday mornings. After being subject too such population control on a number of occasions, the powers that be in the Colony decreed that showing up unarmed to services was proscribed. This may have been changed in the interim, but I am sure there is other centuries-old legislation still in place. BSBD, Winsor

I didn't realize the religious nutters were competing in the biggest asshole contest. TheirTHEY'RE not, but the anti religious nutters have to blame something. So let's blame trucks then. Hear, hear! A hue and cry to end Truck Violence is warranted! Do you realize that anyone can obtain a truck without a background check or waiting period? With only a driver's license and a credit card one can obtain a truck in minutes in any one of a number of locations within minutes of where I sit. This is madness! Think of the children!

I strongly oppose killing Islamic terrorists. They are simply misguided, and appropriate therapy is in order. After sex reassignment and counseling, they can be safely sent home.

Your conscience tells you to vote for a lying, cheating, pompous, arrogant, adulterous sexual predator who defrauded students, welshed on his contractors and who is now enriching himself at taxpayers' expense. Funny conscience you have. A couple of years into Bill Clinton's presidency a talking head gushed that Hillary had her sights set on the Oval Office. At that point I swore I'd vote for Charlie Manson to keep her out of office. In 2016 Charlie was busy, and Trump was the next best thing.

"Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel." Arab saying

I have ten bucks that says you have no idea what entropy is. The Clausius Inequality is a good start.