Forcing with a box-cutter at least gives the user the knowledge they've been compromised, so not realyl the same thing.

Do you really think Trump is going to appoint a top climate scientist considering the situation where the GOP controls everything?

Even without the article it is fair to expect some radical changes for the worse in climate and energy policy in 2017...

This fucking forced march into a new Cold War is fucking stupid. The clowns that have been pushing for it since the collapse of the Soviet Union need to be imprisoned at the very least.

Its quite the opposite from a march to a new Cold War, what the stories are implying (and we'll see from January onwards how much meat there is to it) is that Trump and Putin will passively work together to cover eachothers asses. Putin hacks and flamewars the opposition in the US, Trump will let Russia do what it wants. Not stating this is as a fact but based on the events we've seen this looks like the direction we're heading.

Better would be to go one step further and get rid of any district system as it is the main cause you are always ending up with two main candidates. Until you get rid of this system there is a strong disincentive to vote for a third or nth party

This is simply not true, as you can make the reversed case as well that has a much larger impact: Voting fraud with an electoral college can imply that a state gets completely flipped from one party to the other. Especially in states that are close, those fraudulent votes can have an extrapolated effect!

The electoral college with the winner takes it all concept also means you are forever stuck with two main parties. I do not envy your countries system at all.

Stein has some good points but her science related topics are quite worrysome (this coming from a Euro greenie)

Until you abolish your winner-takes-it-all system though third parties are counterproductive for a voter. No idea how you can fix that mess though.

But its relatively expensive to drill there still, more likely it'll be cheaper by then as solar gains more and more energy marketshare lessening the need of oil

The main problem with nuclear is simply that it is fairly expensive if you calculate in the all the costs outside of operating costs. You see almost no commercially funded nuclear power plants and that is for a reason.
With the rapidly increasing efficiency of solar panels and subsequently lowering price per unit of energy, even though sources like solar are not optimal to provide baseline power. the costs are coming down so rapidly that it becomes feasable to just transform solar into stored forms of energy or simply plant so many of them that a significant portion of your base load is guaranteed

There are limits to being reasonable. Consider a pilot that is a flat-earth-believer, and refuses to fly certain routes because he believes the 'edge' is there. Similar to these nurses, it is perfectly reasonable to question the professionality of a person if such a person ignores basic scientific facts in their duties.

There is a difference between calling your opponent a nazi or calling your opponent a 12-year old

While the point you're making is correct, AGW is not 'the most single most tested scientific theory in the history of science'. This honour remains and probably will remain for the forseeable future in the domain of physics with either quantum physics and/or the Standard Model (probably the latter) of which billions of tests are done every single day.

If you hate science, why are you even on this website?

Arrogance would be assuming stuff to be true without scientific validation, you know, things like Gods and so on.

Why not is luckily not good enough for our modern society

"In 2010, Iceland only contributed about 2% of the worldâ(TM)s aluminium smelting production (780 thousand metric tons)."

https://arcticecon.wordpress.c...