What makes you think that a TWR couldn't be shut down?

So ... the globe probably ... warms ... ?

Water is a significantly stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but because the atmosphere has a limited carrying capacity for water humidity levels tend to stay relatively constant overall. i.e. excess CO2 sticks around for a very long time, excess water gets rained out much more quickly.

On it's own, yes. I just found the juxtaposition amusing.

And as far as I can tell you're basing this solely on the fact that it doesn't pass your own personal laugh test. That's not a very solid foundation for the claim.

Actually, your posts are much funnier. First, "Without [CO2], all plant life on earth would be impossible.", but in your very next post you mock people who believe that "a trace gas at 0.04%" could have any effect.

I'm sorry to say this, but you sound like a poe - "it's so small it's can't possibly have any effect our lives, but for God's sake don't lose it or WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" or "She couldn't have killed anyone, she only put a little bit of arsenic in that great big water tower.".

Except you don't really need any of that. It's fairly straightforward to calculate (and then check by direct measurement) how much less infrared radiation is being emitted by the earth at various wavelengths. And like any physical system, if less energy is leaving then changes will take place to restore equilibrium - it might be higher temperatures, it might be a higher albedo (as through cloud cover), it might be a reduction in some other heat-trapping gas, it might be people pulling CO2 back out. But something, on a rather large scale, is going to have to change, just because of basic thermodynamics.

So even if I didn't know anything else about the subject you're going to have to give me some alternative for what happens to the excess energy, or I'm stuck with the only answer available to me - climate change.

In the same way that automatic garbage collection lets anyone program like a pro, yes.

Because I can't tell the difference between actually getting harassed more and our biases coloring things to look that way.

So you want to talk about harassment - but your opening move is to split people, not into harassers and victims, but by birth group according to your own biases, and insist on that being the framework for the discussion. To me that says that you care less about ending harassment than maintaining your worldview or identity as the 'guy who get it'. (When you say "admitting this doesn't make me less of a man" you're essentially bragging about how you're better than those other guys.)

So try this one:

Sure, women abuse the most vulnerable in our society more than men do, but is focusing on that the right way to make progress? Should I base part of my ego on "admitting that women are part of the problem"?

Yes. It might not have been obvious, but the post I was replying to stated "I hope my daughter does not read this.", which is why my post started with "Me neither." and went on to refer to her (my daughter's) brother.

Sure, and I'm glad people still stand up for each other. What disturbs me is that you (and much of the media) either can't see it when men are targeted by much of the same kind of abuse, or simply don't care. Dozens of men were doxed during #GamerGate, why are they being left out?

Maybe because men, as a group, are blamed for it? Maybe because people can't just talk about harassment in general without the 'boys-vs-girls' political BS?

Woops. Too early for sarcasm, it would seem. :)

I believe the point was that they're being left out of the discussion because they're straight while males. You can't keep the focus on women if you admit that men are a large fraction of the victims, and that's more important to some people than ending the bullying.

I'm very careful to be just misogynistic enough to ask for evidence.

No.

Apparently not you. As for myself, about half of the people I love are men, so...

You sound like a parody of a clueless, narcissistic feminist. Good thing I know some kindhearted, open-minded ones.

And I would suggest the same of you. But that doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.

Stabbing women doesn't make you a misogynist, but stabbing only women (or specifically targeting them) might.

Can you show me any evidence that these people would treat men they disagreed with any better?

I'm not so sure about that. But more importantly, aren't women defended for being women more than men are defended for being men?

Nope. Just because you aren't oppressed doesn't mean you don't have problems that need to be addressed.

Using words like 'oppression' to describe how women are treated in modern western countries is just a cheap political tactic - it defines the situation in terms of 'us vs them' (if someone is oppressed, someone must be oppressing), while exaggerating the issues women face and downplaying the issues that men face. That broken model is why you think that people who disagree with you must think than men are oppressed - you assume that other people are using the same framework, but are merely on the 'other team'.

There's no pigeonhole in that mindset for people who just want the world to be nicer for everyone.

I don't think they're oppressed, but I don't think "straight white females" are either.

Citation needed.