There are three problems with your small-words explanation. First, CO2 formation most definitely follows temperature rise in core samples, it doesn't precede it. Second, a rise in temperature induces cloud formation because water is the main component of our atmosphere, and clouds reduce temperature, they don't increase it. And third, a rise in CO2 induces a greening of the planet, because plants are made of CO2.

Because of these issues, I personally don't think it is ever correct to apply a simplistic model to something as dynamic and adaptive as the climate of a water world.

See, this is the problem. You have been led to believe that global warming is so absolute, so immediate, and so rapid, that you'll literally be able to observe its changes from farm land to crusted desert. That is just not so. Were you aware, for example, that what is now the Sahara Desert was once filled with lakes, rivers, and rich vegetation? The reason you aren't aware is because there is a cycle of dry/wet in that part of the world that has a period length of 15,000 years. You can drill core samples from the Atlantic Ocean and see direct evidence. But you won't see them with your own eyes. Human civilization has only even been a thing for just a fraction of that period length.

"Regardless, the issue isn't what the past was like (except as a method for predicting what nature had in store for us), the issue is not making things any more uncomfortable for us than we can avoid. I don't care if some dinosaurs had it worse, I care about maintaining the nice climate I was born into."

You can't figure out how to maintain your nice climate unless you can isolate human-induced climate change from naturally occurring climate change. And to do that, you must understand the geologic record. That's why it's pertinent.

A question that cannot be answered without being able to compare it to the past, because you need to isolate human-induced changes from naturally occurring ones. So far, I have not seen any study which has been able to do that. Natural variation is so large, that the human component is too small to isolate with what we know so far.

The geologists in the room are laughing at you, not with you. Deservedly so.

Bah. Hardly a right vs. left effect. Spend 10 minutes on MSNBC on 5 consecutive days and you'll see what I mean. It's all FUD.

These days you can't get very far trying to convince people to vote for your team. The sides are already locked in. You can get somewhere by asking people for specifics, such as when they say, "Candidate X is [some generally negative thing here]", you can just ask them to name one specific example of it, and they typically won't be able to. That's enough to make them stop and at least think.

But flooding social media with AI generated crap? Yeah, good luck with that.

Some very good ideas in there, with just one exception.

- "Watermarked ballots": Already being done if using scantron ballots. In fact, scanner can be physically set to accept only special ballot paper.
- "All ballots hand-counted": Terrible idea. Humans are lousy at counting repetitively. Scantron is thousands of times more accurate.
- "Mail-in by exception only": Excellent idea. Even further, mail-in only if voter will not be physically present.
- "Mail-in received and counted before election day": Yes, very good.
- "Mail-in must be witnessed, both provide image of ID": Yes, very good.

I am willing to pay a fair price for the content I consume, just as I do for everything else I purchase. What I am not willing to do is trade my time. They say time is money, but that's not correct; time is much more valuable than money. You can always make more money. You can never make more time.

What I now require is the ability to purchase access to your content without advertisements. No ad-free option, no subscription.

We have licensing firms that already provide blanket global licenses for specific reproductions of content such as lyrics and music. If there were an ad-free licensing agency where I could pay a fee that would be distributed to content creators globally, I would buy into that. There's no reason we have to rely on Alphabet or Meta to handle such licensing tracking. In the music world, this is handled by third parties, which provides some independence and audibility.

But in the meantime, each content platform will have to provide consumers like me an ad-free route if they wish to remain profitable.

No. There are no countries like that. Because TNSTAAFL

This makes no sense. Citation neded.

Everything the artists are saying about not diluting the experience of listening to actual musicians applies 100% to the current trend of "correcting" vocal performances with auto-tuning, pitch correction, and especially not with playing back a recorded vocal, and having the singer mime singing it "live". That hardly qualifies as live!