Isn't every crime involving a firearm in the US already punished with far more severe penalties than crimes without? Doesn't seem like that's been a very effective disincentive.

Police certainly complete many hours of training in "how to deal with people who don't immediately comply." I'd hazard to guess that subject comprises the majority of their mandatory training.

When your model for fighting back is Sisyphus... yup!

So you're seriously going with "some scientist in 1978 warned Exxon that sometime in the upcoming CENTURY there will be an increase in CO2 that'll have a major impact on core business"? OK then...

I never said I thought it was impossible to screw with the climate. It'd be easy. Want a temperature decrease? Drop a few nukes in Siberia. That'd throw a ton of matter into the atmosphere, causing dramatic global cooling. Sure there'd be radiation poisoning to those who lived around there and global famine, but we'd solve that whole global warming thing for a few decades.

Bad solution there. But it would ACTUALLY have a significant cooling impact on global temps.

Switching to windmills (which have a huge carbon footprint in their manufacture) and solar (ditto, plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths) won't have any significant cooling impact, ever. Those "solutions" are bunk. Better to go whole-hog on fracking - natural gas burns much cleaner with minimal environmental negatives compared to its energy density. But then the same people who cry "global warming" cry "no fracking." The perfect is the enemy of the good.

In the end, I have faith in the species to adapt or to invent technologies that actually will be helpful. We're not there yet. Band-aid solutions in the short term are meaningless. So are gotcha-type articles about Exxon.

Where am I wrong?

So then the article is effectively meaningless. It's about as damning of Exxon as if some scientist for them had predicted within 5 or 10 years pigs might sprout wings and fly to adapt to increases in atmospheric CO2.

It's silly to be fanatical when there are no viable solutions. Even the most extreme proposals to cut CO2 would have an impact of around 1/10th of a degree temperature reduction. It's laughable. The second someone comes up with an effective, viable solution to drop 2 degrees, I'm on board.

"Still might come to pass" in 2050 is far different than "5 to 10 years" from 1978. But keep moving the goal posts and you may eventually figure out a way to prove them right.

There hasn't been the "major impact on the company’s core business" that the scientist warned. It's #2 on the Fortune 500. So the scientist was wrong. Unless you're going to try to argue that some scientist in 1978 was predicting the doom of Exxon more than 5 decades in the future. That's ludicrous.

So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades. Or did I miss the great, impactful Exxon global warming crash of 1988?

How do you exclude Trump while including Lawrence Lessig? Was Ross Newland unavailable?

Or you can set up your own, as I and the members of the Pennsylvania Star Wars Collecting Society have done. Through our 501c3 we choose a local charity each year and conduct a fundraiser.

http://pswcs.com/charity.cfm

I agree, pretty much. I think she'll get backers that keep her relevant because the money understands there's an advantage to having a woman in the primary who can take shots at Hillary without getting slammed as sexist. I doubt she'll get on the ticket as VP, and I doubt she's vying for that role.

I also agree Walker looks like the front runner. He's still developing, but he starts from a very strong position. If he can avoid any major flubs that the media can run with, he has a real shot.

The patient's options are certain death or slim chance at life, with risk of extreme pain and suffering. I don't fault him for choosing the latter, and I don't fault the surgeons for offering him that choice.