"Climate Emergency" has zero science involved in it, and is a propaganda term. Science is a method to test a hypothesis, the results of which can be repeated. "Climate Emergency," if it were "science," would suggest that computer models and untested theories are cause for everyone to panic, and -- for some reason -- to cede control to a socialist world government.
Is there cause for panic? I think, if one assumes that *nothing* is being done in the real world to find clean/renewable energy sources, and human beings are the major cause of climate warming, sure; panic. However, there is plenty being done in the free market to find clean/renewable energy sources (including the latest nuclear technologies); and, it turns out that this "97% consensus" statistic being thrown around is synthesized from a UN-cherry-picked set of scientific papers regarding climate change from a much larger sampling of scientific papers regarding climate change. These were cherry-picked because they emphasized humans as contributors to climate change. So, 97% of climate studies that include humans in their *theories* of causes of climate change is where that means.
So, no thank you to panic, and no thank you to the socialist world government propaganda.

Companies bad, Government good. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which.

I feel like those who are trashing low frame rates are making an argument similar to saying photography is way better than a painting.

I understand that analogy, but the audio analogy that makes sense to me is the manufacturer sticking a bunch of crappy equalizer presets in your car stereo, then picking an aggressive setting as the default and burying the ability to defeat the preset system.

As far as video, I remember years ago when Netflix was still mostly DVDs but launching their streaming, a guy I worked with argued that nobody would ever settle for such low quality streaming video... He seems like the kind of guy who would be arguing whether 60Hz is divisible by 24.

If I wanted to look at real life, I would do the opposite of watching a screen.

>> U.S. law exists largely to benefit the immigration officials who decide whether or not to admit or deny entry to travelers

Oh really? I would love to see one piece of evidence to support this moronic claim. The ambiguity of the circumstances in this story is so blatant, I don't even understand why it is a story at all.

I am forced to weigh the likelihood that the immigration officers A) greedily wrung their hands as they embraced their natural racist instincts to abuse their US-sanctioned Denial of Entry Super Powers and randomly harass a poor innocent young brown man, or B) followed protocol and made their best judgment.

The thing is, regardless of whether or not you are a climate alarmist, the private sector in the civilized world is always looking for cleaner and cheaper energy. The US are leading the world in carbon emission reductions because of better energy practices. This makes it possible for average people to give zero sh*ts about smashing the like button, which is a good thing.

They better not spend my yet-to-be-delivered $2 million on their lawyers. This is their problem, not mine.

I see lots of pedantic bickering in this discussion by people wanting to cherry pick semantics and prove "orange man bad," but I think there's a simpler issue here:

Are the benefits of US citizenship truly a "human right" for every single person in the world? Why should US citizens accept that proposition? Because otherwise they're "racist"? That catch-all accusation has gotten old and, unfortunately, become meaningless.

Being a US citizen is awesome because our government uniquely protects the human rights of its citizens. This is what attracts so many, who are escaping *truly* oppressive governments, and/or extremely poor living conditions fostered by ill-conceived systems within terrible cultures. As a sovereign nation, the US has the right to decide who we let in, and the criteria upon which we base that decision.

If we are unable to enforce such policies, and everyone in the world has a *right* to the benefits of US citizenship... well, the results are a matter of speculation and opinion. My sense is our system would become overloaded and incapable of accommodating any immigrants, and likely incapable of offering assistance to citizens in need. Read about the Cloward-Piven strategy. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

Which is more inhumane: Housing illegal immigrants in these border facilities, or failing them by promising them extra-legal status (for future votes) then failing to modify our existing immigration laws?

I'm a long-time Dropbox user. I was recently invited to fill out a Dropbox survey. The thrust of it was to determine my interest level in, and how much I would pay for, the "enhancement" of automatic facial recognition for photos stored on its platform. My interest level could only go as low as zero in the survey answers, when in reality I am repulsed by this idea. It would have been much more accurate if I were able to choose "Please don't do that." It also would not let me choose "$0" for the "now how much would you pay" questions, as they described more and more invasive features.

Why the heck would I *pay them* to collect private data about me? I wanted cloud file storage, not spyware.

Luckily I don't use Dropbox for photos, but if/when they implement this "feature," I'm done with Dropbox.

You lose lots of credibility with: >> Finally the act put _far_ too much money into the hands of the rich

It's such a superficial and meaningless thing, I hesitate to use the word "point" because that connotes that it's the building block of an argument. I can't help but recognize you're using generic language that sounds important but is just echoing propaganda and not reality, and arrogantly suggesting how people should vote.

--> What are the "solid policies" you're referring to related to Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren?
--> What are the "protections of the Affordable Care Act" you're referring to?
--> Are you aware that, when people get to keep more money they earn, more money circulates back into the economy in the way *those people were FREE to choose*?
--> What are the things that have made Trump's presidency a "disaster"? Non-NPC non-CNN non-propaganda answers would be more credible than all of the Orange Man Bad "racist" "__phobic" etc.

People like you have talked me out of voting for any Democrat, at least in the near future, until they can sort out their socialist and progressive problems and hold a consistent platform for at least *some* issues (e.g. why the heck did they turn so swiftly on the immigration issue?). Until then, why would I ever entrust a Democrat with the power to spend my money?

Translation: Believe in my fictitious politically motivated propagandistic science or you are stupid.

>> You know he's holding those kids

Who is "holding those kids"? Do you actually mean "the enforcement of America's immigration laws" (invented and shaped by decades of life-long politicians, who-- get this-- passed those laws because they championed American sovereignty, then did a complete turnaround now that Bad Orange Man is in office)?

Or, are you actually an NPC parroting the mainstream media's ridiculous Orange Man Bad talking points?

At any rate, progressives are more and more overtly pushing open borders, something they sheepishly denied for a long time. If anything, this work between China and Big Tech is a trial run for future elections in the US to ensure the staying power of the Orange Man Bad propaganda. You sure you want to support that *literally authoritarian* agenda?

>> However, 500 simulations of different scenarios pointed to it losing stability. This increased uncertainty about future sea level rise but made the worst-case scenarios more likely.

Is it ignorant to question how *simulations* have a causal affect on the likelihood of worst-case scenarios? Is 500 a big number? What did other simulations show? Did any simulations take into account the likelihood of near-future technological advances that clean up the air and generate energy more cleanly?

Perhaps there is no "proof" of a cohesive agenda (if you discount the blatant climate data manipulation that has been characterized as a "conspiracy theory"), but for some reason these alarmist predictions cause the Church of Climate Change to advocate globalist administrative central planning as a solution without accounting for the ever-present ingenuity of human civilization.

I propose that the willful ignorance exists with those with blind faith in spurious scientific prophesies who ignore legitimate questions about them.

>> caused by the tax cuts

Caused by SPENDING.