DJL

Moderators. Ban.

I read a couple of stories also and the overriding theme is that if you're comparing winter and summer then more people die during cold weather because that's the season during which there are more cases of things like the the flu. However, when it comes to comparing flashes and extremes, many many more are killed during a heatwave than during a cold snap.

If there's not a statute of limitations it's not a bad idea to use the time to put together the case while waiting for the complications of dealing with a sitting President to be through.

I think we can just boil this down to say that it's decreasing as a percentage of use while overall the usage is still on the rise.

Well, $500 car seats didn't lead to societal collapse so I'm not worried about the AGW crowd either. If their worst outcome is that it wasn't the most cost effective way to keep my stomping ground, the shorelines of the Chespeake Bay, from being a hot dead bog in 50 years then I'm OK with that.

You're the kind of driver who the rumble strips on highways were designed for.

I'd like to say that after all of this that the Democrats can field a candidate who can beat the worst President we've ever had. If not it says something about their ability to represent all Americans, something they should have learned in the first election vs Trump.

A solar array went up in a local rural county near me where I like to go for some weekends. I'm on their facebook page and there was much gnashing of teeth over it as it was such an unsightly thing to be installed. I suggested that if the biggest issue they had with it could be fixed by planting a hedgerow then we're probably talking small potatoes.

This forum is really in need of the facts as to how abortions are performed and why they're performed that way at various stages.

In case I'm missing the joke, we all know that fetuses do not develop in the vagina, right?

Are you telling me this happened without bread lines, starvation, draconian laws and with no weeping and gnashing of teeth?

Right after this (9/11) happened I was talking with a coworker, an immigrant from China. He said that the US would never forget about this and it would always shape what we do. What congress needs to do is not listen but do.

And that's the take of most people who feel like they need to be armed all the time. Don't get hookers, don't buy drugs, don't associate with criminals and you're statistically going to be OK. All that's left is the threat of robbery or assault and I can easily enough scan the street and walk to my car with no real concern. I can have a gun in my office or I can just wear one because I live in Virginia. I don't and most people don't and we do fine. I'd rather not have to deal with keeping the gun safe while not in use and even more so I'd rather not have to deal with how easy it is for anyone else to get gun. There's an inherent irony to the idea of wanting a gun because it's so easy for other people to get guns. And I know I'm entirely hypocritical because I like shooting and I'm looking forward to the day when that mint condition M1911 is sitting there and I have some money burning a hole in my pocket. I just can't legitimately argue a point that just because it's in the Constitution that it should be so easy to get a gun.

I think I said it earlier but I work in a very high crime area, there are murders, drug deals and prostitution all around the block. The parole office that went in down the street is actually an improvement because then at least there are more eyeballs around. My eye and some common sense do just fine, I'm Ok leaving my guns locked up where they are.

But what am I going to do, wave my gun every time I see scary people walking around near me? Or do I pull my gun out once I see they have a gun out and now hopefully instead of just shooting me they decide to run away?

No. You're peers and student/teacher. This isn't a tipping situation.

That's a pretty lame one, do you really need to go 50 years to find an example? How about the whole damn Vietnam War courtesy of JFK and LBJ?

Except for the severity of the attack, the capability of the attacker, that ability of the victim to run or defend themself. Think about what you're saying, they're back to using Bronze Age technology. Edit: We've actually been over this before but the issue is that the UK dropped its police budget a while back and there has been a corresponding rise in crime. It actually says that in the article you posted. Edit2: When this came up before it was because the headline was "UK Knife Crimes equal to New York Murder Rate". Of course what you had to dig to find out is that New York is having a record low in crime at the same time as London was having a record high after substantial cut-backs in their police. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/theresa-may-police-cuts-margaret-thatcher-budgets

That's exactly it, there are many options before you need a gun. Locked doors, choice of neighborhood, not buying drugs, big air theory, security in your office. I work in a VERY shady part of town and will not walk to my car from my office at night until I've looked up and down the street. If I DID see some people and I had a weapon I still would NOT walk out the door because I still don't want to have to draw a weapon. A 100% ban could go into effect on firearms and it would do nothing to make my world more dangerous.

My Grandfather and Uncle put together some of that information. My grandfather's life work was to establish the material composition of the surface, lake bed and bedrock within the Great Lakes. https://www.amazon.com/Geology-Great-Lakes-Jack-Hough/dp/0252724410 What took him decades with a drill rig on a research boat could probably be done in about a year with today's tech.

You know, that one made my head hurt so I didn't even address it.

Even with your face in front of the information, the actual data that refutes your posts, using the same sources that you think make your point you fail to understand the narrative. What point is there in continuing to discuss anything with you? A. The positive effect of CO2 in the atmosphere has a negligible effect upon crop yield. In any scale of measure our increase in food production has much more to do with the economy and modern methods. B. Any increase in plant life because of CO2 does not create an equal ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Plans still only removes about 25% from the atmosphere and we're still building more and more power plants. Edit: These are the researchers that your sources have been pointing at for this information about greening, etc: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth Next, are you going to again use them as sources but refute the things that you don't want to hear? How about simultaneously saying that there's no way that scientists can predict or model this climate change research yet but come back a day later and point at the same source to validate your (extremely myopic) points?

Now we're talking. A half degree difference in something the size of an iceberg is pretty significant. How about something the size of the air in the atmosphere, or the water in the ocean?

So what degree is of any value, because you're still pointing at the 1998 temperature vs other values in the last 20 years for that hundredths comparison. The recent high temps are actually tenths of C differences from the 100 year average but that's because they are an average against themselves (Each time the temp rises, the average rises). The change from the beginning of that data set is nearly a full degree C of that full data set.

Um.....you know you're talking about a formula regarding a relationship between mass and temperature right? What holds more energy, a warm bath tub or a hot cup of coffee.