J.C.MacSwell

It is exactly the same argument exaggerated in hopes you might recognize the validity. Let me ask you this: Would you make the same arguments if "no change" was somehow the threat to our habitats, and warming was innocuous?

Again. Even if it misses the trend direction...it can be a better model. (and may be a better candidate to be tweaked and improved) For purposes of illustration only...a model predicting no change in the next 20 years is clearly better than one that predicts a 100C increase... The one predicting the 100 degree increase is obviously crap, even if it got the direction of the change correct. The other may or may not be salvageable.

You are making assumptions about the "no change" models. They could fully incorporate as many or more mechanisms while "getting the rate wrong". If they are more accurate they are more accurate, even if they don't capture the obvious warming, if the comparative model overly exaggerates the trend. To not recognize that (when or if it is the case) is poor science, and to refuse to on principle is a turn toward "religion". What we need are models that are sufficiently accurate and the political will to "err on the safe side' which in this case is clearly preparing as best we can for faster warming. I think I should add that I believe most independent scientific reports on this, the vast majority indicating the truth in global warming. But at the same time I don't believe the "12 years to Armageddon" predicted by some. Unfortunately those predictions don't help IMO, even if they have at their base a reasonably scientific "tipping point"...good science should not get hijacked to make political arguments...no matter how well intended.

I think climate change and global warming are pretty much undeniable. But if say you use a model that predicts that it will happening 3 X faster than it later turns out that it actually does, I would argue that you are further off the mark than someone who predicts no change, regardless of whether their prediction is based on better data or better science. I think it is fair to attack their arguments if they are not scientifically based, as we have to use best evidence, and I think it is fair to consider the effects of changes greater than we might suspect, given the greater threat they represent, but if you feel compelled to argue that is more correct interpretation then you are straying from best science...if you do so far enough the religious analogy is getting closer to being on the mark. I don't think we should be shouting down scientific skepticism we don't agree with. Make a counter argument rather than hit the demerit button. Attack the argument not the poster We don't know the future, but we can see the trends. Here is a link to concerns with regard to one species alone. https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/videos/gallery/how-canadas-polar-bear-house-helps-us-understand-whats-at-stake-for-the-bears/sharevideo/6106803220001/most_popular It doesn't fully explain why the Polar bear population in Canada is suffering but it attributes it to global warming and ice field melting and reduction. I would have difficulty thinking of reasonable counter arguments, and though I am far from well informed, I accept their results, predictions and concerns. They seem to be consistent with what I believe I know.

Let's "first law" this into the dumpster...

That clarifies. Your answer was inconsistent with what I asked. Note the sentence with the question mark. I didn't ask about the Russian meddling. I asked about what you meant by the cheating you referred to. I honestly was after simple clarification (now provided, and thanks)

Sure. But any augmentation of the cooling by evaporative cooling, on its' own, will use at least as much water as it will increase the condensation unless you have some other source of drier and cooler air, some other heat sink below the temperature of the rocks, or some other refrigeration cycle, all of which could be done more directly unless I am missing something. The main benefit of the rocks would be from nocturnal cooling and diurnal water harvesting by condensation...a concentrated version of dew on the grass in the morning. I've seen this effect inside sea cans that have been opened up on foggy mornings after cooling overnight (or if snow on the roof)...literally raining inside the containers as the roof is flat. Only on (somewhat) rare conditions, but it can get pretty wet inside.

You want to use evaporative cooling to provide the heat sink for condensation? To the degree you do that you won't break even.

Exactly how is this cheating in the election? You claimed he was cheating, did you not?

@INow There was apparently some Russian meddling in the 2016 election. There is no evidence that Trump or his organization was cheating (in that regard). Or are you suggesting something else?

Observations on debate: I think Yang did well considering minimal time (again least time allowed to speak). He'll do better as the field gets smaller. I think Buttigieg and Klobuchar did especially well. Booker did well. I don't agree with much of Sanders policies (except allowing everyone 18 and older to vote) but he did fairly well. Biden and Warren did okay. Biden simply has easier policies to defend IMO. Warren seems to be starting to sound a little more moderate in approach. Wasn't impressed by Harris but others might be. Gabbard minimal time but was solid. I think she needed more than that though, short of Hillary giving her another boost. Steyer was so so. The self professed "only one on the stage for term limits" obviously hasn't read up on Yang's Policies.

I knew you would, personally. I honestly was looking for your expectation on how this is heading...your detached judgement of the effect of the process so far. Did Sondland's testimony meet your expectations? ...and as long as it's remotely plausible...it doesn't get past the Senate...Trump does a victory dance claiming 110% "exoneration"... ...and the greased pig runs free...

Unless that wide acceptance includes Trump...he has an argument against impeachment.

Then should your answer be "no", it still isn't sufficient? (due to your lilly-livered Senate) Or do you think it will be sufficient to persuade voters in 2020?

If you assumed a temperature and relative humidity of the air that would give you the dew point. The rocks would need to stay below that temperature, so you would need to know their starting temperature, mass and specific heat. The humidity in the air would of course drop from the condensation. and that of the rocks increase. You could do a calculation based on the rocks getting to the dew point temperature to get the "potential" but the airflow and surface area of the rocks would affect how long things would take to get an amount less than that.

So you expect him to get removed from office? Not theoretically but actually. Yes would mean you expect both the House and Senate to vote against him. Anything less is not sufficient unless it provides the critical difference in the election.

Just wondering. For the purpose of removing Trump from office, through the impeachment process or upcoming election... Do you feel what has been heard so far is sufficient? (not for you personally, just your opinion on the effect on Trump's potential removal) Confirmed that Trump was after an announcement on investigating Burisma? Or specifically announcing investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden?

I don't know the numbers, but I would hope there has been a substantial increase in funding for the study of climate change. Agree.

I think in this case it's on everyone. An extraordinary claim would be that the climate won't change at all over time...that's never happened. Weather of course is the noise, but the glacier and icefield melting is pretty much undeniable evidence which way things are currently going. The rate of change is the greatest threat. Organisms need time to adapt and evolve, man included. Man at least has a chance to plan based on gathering and evaluating best evidence.

Warren showing an interest in Universal Basic Income https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-universal-basic-income-option-to-consider-andrew-yang-2019-11

Facts vs opinion Public domain of course doesn't make it factual. Trump's tweets are public domain. I can't remember for certain but I seem to recall one or two of them being less than 100% factual. But seriously let's go over some of your facts from that post. I won't dispute them as I am not sure of the contexts intended, other than question they should be taken as gospel. The first: Who was "Trump's own team"? Does this refer to Hunter Biden's dealings? Or specifically Joe Biden's quid pro quo that at leats appears to have been on behalf of America and not for personal gain or to protect his Son (as Trump I think has suggested). When did this investigation take place? Did it finish prior to his call with Zelensky? Second: This is not something I would expect him to do, nor do I believe he was legally bound to do it. Given the animus and bad faith between Trump and the Democrats I really don't blame him for that. I can understand why you would, reasonably, but don't see it as impeachable. Third: Sounds like Trump, but where, when and by whom was this confirmed? Again not impeachable unless tied directly to a personal, pretty much exclusively personal, quid pro quo. Now, when I say impeachable or not they are my opinions, not my facts, but I do believe it comes down to sufficient evidence, not just best evidence (especially if and where not enough is available) Of course what is sufficient will be different for the Senate than the House...and if you compare with the coming 2020 election it will be different again. That is the gauntlet Trump must run to get back for another 4 years. The most the House can do is slow him down...which may allow him to build momentum going forward if perceived to have not been done fairly. All that of course being opinion...

Congratulations on your first post.

What you claim to be facts are in dispute; However, if they are true they should certainly come out during the impeachment inquiry. If evidence for them does not come out clearly and definitively...you really can't claim them as facts.

You act like I'm accusing the Bidens of corruption. I did not. I said it was obviously suspicious. (it is) On my original point, I said Trump's defence (not in his defence) is that he, Trump, saw it as suspicious. That is sufficient for him to ask that it be investigated. Other evidence may clear Hunter Biden, or be inconclusive, but that doesn't change the fact that H. Bidens position in Ukraine is suspicious, or was to Trump at the time of the Zelensky call. Why do you think Yang, Gabbard, and Sanders made the comments they did?

You don't find it suspicious, and furthermore, don't understand how others would see it that way? See the quotes from Yang "It certainly has a bad look to it" and Gabbard: “I think the perception is certainly a concern,” Heres Sanders reserving judgement: “I know I’m a little bit old-fashioned. I like to see the evidence before I talk about things. I read the papers and I read what I read... but I don’t know that I know enough at this point to make any definitive statement.” https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/bernie-wont-rule-out-questioning-hunter-biden-83411 I think you are conflating suspicious with certainty.