What we got was a fighter that can't dogfight, a strike aircraft with a pitifully small payload, and the political impossibility of starting over from scratch.
What is unusual about Greece is that the GDP per capita has fallen for the past 6 years, under the fiscal policies imposed by the IMF.
That's one hell of an assumption -- if you're claiming their policies are the reason Greece is suffering such a fate, why didn't all the other countries that had to implement similar policies to receive loan backstops also go in the tank?
Isn't that exactly how women gained the right to vote? It wasn't the immediate interpretation of the amendment, but that's what the eventual ruling was based on.
If that was true, it wouldn't have required a separate Amendment (19th).
how does life, liberty or property equal marriage? not just gay marriage. Marriage for anyone?
The liberty to marry.
And what about the liberty to drink and drive?
Or the liberty to gamble as a teenager?
Or the liberty to build a giant blockade in the middle of a major freeway?
There is literally nothing in your hand waving statement there that would prevent this ruling from invalidating all state laws and devolving us to anarchy.
And it's because you're interpreting the Constitution wrong. The "liberty" clause doesn't mean the Constitution grants you the right to whatever the hell you want. It means the govt can't lock you up and throw away the key without cause.
This was a poor judicial decision -- marriage is not a fundamental right of the Constitution and the only reason this was passed was because of a previous bad decision in Loving. Precedent is a dangerous thing was an early decision was the wrong one.
Nope. Still wrong. If something is a "right" then how can a state government (or a city government) declare that it is NOT a right?
Even if the majority in that state/city says so?
Your Rights are not subject to majority approval.
Except they are. And that's why you can't own a cruise missile. And why you can't drink and drive. If marriage was enumerated as a fundamental right in the Constitution, it would be a different conversation, but it isn't. Which means the States have every right to pass law on the issue.
You might learn that our Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of our GOVERNMENT. It was NOT written as a list of the "fundamental rights" of the citizens.
You have it BACKWARDS. The citizens grant the government certain rights. NOT the government granting the citizens certain rights (such as who can marry whom).
You're very confused. The Constitution is a check on federal power. The _federal_ powers are supposed to be limited (leaving whatever remains to the States, and then the people). If this wasn't true, anarchy would be the result. The manner in which the 14th is currently being applied would make all manner of things illegal: why aren't rich people entitled to Welfare? Why can't childless people get child tax credits? The Equal Protection clause is meant to ensure the same laws apply to everyone, nothing more. So no matter who you are, you're entitled to Welfare if you meet the criteria. And you're entitled to child tax credits, if you meet the criteria. There was no law on the books, federal or otherwise, granting carte blanche marriage. Marriage is not an enumerated Constitutional right. It's cut and dry. It was the wrong decision. And so was Love.
It would be really, really bizarre if the deniers are right, as they simply can not explain the warming. They have no models, no data, nothing. If they are right, water stopped behaving as we've known it to for centuries, right about the time of the industrial revolution. That means we'd need to figure out why water only misbehaves when it is part of the world's climate or in politically sensitive areas, as it's still behaving precisely as we'd expect it to in every other instance. That water has a grasp of politics and economics would be quite a shake-up!
What an ironic statement, considering that until just recently, all those 100% certain scientists were completely oblivious that water would act as a giant heat sink for the planet's heat. Gotta love those models.
Just about everyone? No one likes the complexity of the tax system, but very very few people support the flat tax when they understand the ramifications.
What ramifications? Are you assuming that the only possible flat-tax that could pass is a vanilla regressive tax with no prebate? FairTax (which I believe is the most widely supported flat tax proposal) accounts for the regressive nature of flat taxes in its model.
Paul's belief in creationism I believe is also tied to his views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. If he is president when a bill comes across his desk to legislate things like that, I don't think he's going to represent my views.
Except that he already proved otherwise. In votes. For 30 years. He's going to leave it to the states, where it belongs, his own opinions on the issue be damned. Doesn't it mean anything to you that despite being staunchly pro-life and likely anti-same-sex-marriage as well, he won't actually support federal legislation to try to force those beliefs upon voters? That means a great deal to me and makes me respect him as a politician. I'm tired of people that try to legislate based on their view of what the world should be rather than based on what our system of governance is + what their constituents want.
How is that relevant? How he votes is all that matters. As politicians go, he was as consistent as they come from a libertarian standpoint. Neither religion nor Republican dogma drove his votes.
For example jumping to the instant assumption that the author is prophesying the end of the world is a classic denialist trick to distract from actual discussion, and to discredit the science by trying to discredit an unrelated argument.
Trick? What trick? Doom and gloom is the default case for these discussions (See IPCC report "2.2.4 Risk of catastrophic or abrupt change"). We're already moving in a renewables direction. Since 2007, renewables have slowly been eating into fossil fuels and becoming more cost-effective with every passing year. Of their own momentum. As are hybrid/electric vehicles. Which is why there needs not be a discussion, unless the adoption rate isn't occurring fast enough. That very concept of "not fast enough" implies urgency, which implies "end of the world/catastrophic" type scenarios. It's not like it's a huge derailment of logic. Between the dialogue and the agenda, in light of what's already occurring in the sector, it's a reasonable conclusion.
I see the opposite. Alot of conservative opinions are knee-jerk simplistic stances.
To use your example, raising the minimum wage will cost jobs. Anyone can follow that "logic", unfortunately, it doesn't hold up in the real world.
And you see the same simplistic breakdown on the liberal side. The assumption is that that "minimum wage == more wealth for the poor person", as if money grows on trees. In reality, the additional expense has to be dealt with. A liberal just assumes the company owner is going to eat the loss out of their profits. In the real world, these expenses will either be pushed through to the consumer via increased product costs or pushed through to the workforce via reduced benefits or labor reductions. And that says nothing of the macro-level effects (such as inflation, or the ripple effect on other jobs). The end result of minimum wages is actually very heavily debated among economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Debate_over_consequences) and far from the "automatic win" advocates pretend it is.
Too many people either can't or won't analyze things, they are more interested in a catchy argument that "sounds" right, but breaks down in the real world.
That I'll fully agree with. I see it on both sides, quite frequently.
Or maybe they cheat 20 different ways, and they only got caught on one. Maybe they really suck when they stop cheating entirely.
There's some truth to that. For instance, the "grey territory" that is exploiting the wide receiver eligibility reporting is borderline cheating as well (http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/Owners-Pass-Ban-On-Patriots-Ineligible-Receiver-Trick/aa52588d-47ff-4b0b-9bf5-65d759694c93). Although not explicitly illegal in 2014, it was shady enough to warrant a ban this year.
Keep up with the story. They've already released the type and size of the knife, and that knife is not illegal in Baltimore. The arrest was almost certainly illegal.
Not sure you've been following the story either, because the legality is still up in the air (http://www.wbaltv.com/news/officer-files-motion-contending-gray-arrest-was-legal/32824182). And "grey-zone" territory like this has come up before in Maryland, so this is nothing new:
The difference is that there is well-documented evidence of climate change and its damage, and not of your made-up example.
Not true. None of the claimed very expensive fallouts of climate change have come to fruition. So they remain mere speculation. Even if you can prove global warming is occurring, you can't prove the damage. For all you know, the beneficial outcomes could outweigh the negatives. It's all speculation.
The thing is, people rarely identify themselves as SJWs. As a rule, it's a term used to define others as a way to shut down debate. You see this on./ all the time - someone takes offence at some group of other that's trying to change the status quo, so they label them a SJW, implying negative connotations, and effectively shutting down debate. It's a shitty tactic.
Stop being a denialist. We have a consensus about SJWs already.
This means that your "nutritious" smoothie has the equivalent of 4 teaspoons of sugar, so I am not sure that you have a full grasp on the nutrition aspect.
To be fair, that smoothie is loaded with fiber, particularly from the banana. Sugar aside, having a stomach full of fiber goes a long way towards staving off hunger and ultimately cutting calories.
Eh, that's stretching it a bit, at least in the Senate. It's bipartisan in the sense that it got more than 0% of the Democrats to vote for it, but not much more: 20% of the D caucus voted for it, 80% against.
These days, 20% is incredibly bipartisan, if you go by typical voting percentages over the past decade or so (in our hyperpartisan era).
Nope. Capitalism and socialism are both incomplete. Calling one more important than the other is like suggesting that your car's axle is more important than its pistons -- both are needed for the car to work.
No, it's like comparing brake fluid and washer fluid. Without one, you're doomed to disaster. Without the other, you'll probably eventually get into trouble at some point when your windshield clouds up and you collide with some obstacle. In short, the unfettered version of socialism is by far way worse than the unfettered version of capitalism. And it's not even close.
But you are correct that some amount of both is the ideal.
No, your definition is not correct.
Capital is only stuff that either *is* money or can be converted into money on a very short term basis.
I'm sorry, but no. His/Her definition is correct. ArmoredDragon specifically stated he was referring to economic capital, defined here, which is very different from what you're referring to. That's financial capital, defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
And the program he's referring to is "Cash for Clunkers"...it's in the original post you yourself responded to. It was a highly touted "green" incentive launched in the US during the recession to both grow the economy and help the environment. When in reality it likely did neither. The program quite literally spent taxpayer dollars to incentivize people to destroy their perfectly functional older vehicle and replace it with a newer one. There is no better example of the broken window fallacy than that program.
In short, you're arguing semantics, mainly because I suspect you lack an economics background.
The question is not who or what caused it. The question is whether it has some negative impact and if so, what we can do to counteract it.
Except that the people claiming that they know what caused it (CO2) have already assumed a substantial negative impact and have already announced a course of action (drastically reduce CO2 at any economic cost). That makes it hard to discuss any of those topics.
We are not yet in a single-payer system, which means the market remains in the driver's seat.
No. For the same reason the market isn't in the driver's seat when I mandate lightbulbs with technologically unreachable efficiency levels or coal scrubbers that jack the cost of energy by 20-30%. Don't claim a free market where a free market does not exist. It's like me tying one of your arms behind your back, bashing your knees, then handing you a sword and having you defend yourself against a trained swordsmen -- fate is entirely in your hands, right? Until the consumers of healthcare (aka the people getting the care) can see transparent prices PRIOR to the actual care given and can competitively bargain shop for doctors/hospitals/procedures, there is no market. Ask yourself how this kind of thing can happen and you'll very quickly understand why it's not a market: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Note that in a free market, the consumers would flock to the cheaper option, with the "invisible hand" forcing the higher prices down through basic supply/demand. It doesn't happen in reality because healthcare is a shell game between a bunch of "price negotiators".
The market's treatment of pre-existing conditions is a known black mark against those that argue that free market forces will fix everything.
Again, no. You're conflating health insurance and healthcare, which are two entirely different things that this country insanely links. The _insurance companies_ are the ones who abuse pre-existing conditions. And that can be readily handled with legislation. You don't see life insurance companies dropping people when they get sick or old, do you? There's a reason it doesn't happen: because it's fraud.
Free market sees the uninsured being denied access to emergency rooms
EMTALA guarantees everyone access to emergency rooms. No one is denied.
You're going to need to explain the FU bit about cost controllers. It forced an administrative/medical care ratio on insurance companies. That means that insurance companies can't pile on administrative costs forever.
You seem to think that administrative costs are the primary drivers of rising healthcare costs. I suggest further research. And that clause is also irrelevant as it could just as easily exacerbate costs by having insurance companies push for useless tests to drive up the ratio.
It also increased the minimum requirements of insurance so that what "insruance" is isn't $25 a month feel-good, get-sick-and-die policy.
You think this is a cost control??? It's in fact the exact opposite. And that red herring of "insurance that isn't real insurance" is bullshit. Tons of people with perfectly valid non-garbage HDHP HSAs (myself included) had their costs skyrocket when all sorts of minimum standards they didn't want or require (ever) were forced into their plan (such as childless families and/or men in general paying for maternity care in their insurance costs)
We don't necessarily need more doctors (just allow nurses to practice within the scope of their training, that's one of several quick fixes) or more hospitals. Just because you cannot see or understand the difference doesn't mean the difference isn't there.
You are the one who doesn't understand the difference. And this should be dead obvious to you considering the fact costs (including premiums) are still rising even against the backdrop of this bill. Total healthcare costs haven't changed and the only reason health insurance _looks_ cheaper for poor people is because it's subsidized by the more wealthy who are now paying much more (both out of pocket and in premium hi
If nothing else, it gave the market, which has long proported to be capable of self-management (an earnest lie, health is an infinite good and doctor/nurse shortages are a realistic concern) a last chance to prove it. And it was a step forward, and the only step forward that was available at the time. More specifically, it granted the federal Medicaid authority methods for managing costs in experimental programs, promulgated a form of health entity exempt from kickback and stark for purposes of experimentation, unified risk pools, and at least put the mechanism in place to incentivize large employer insurance -- even if the current fine attached to non-providing is generally less than the cost of providing (because it wasn't properly matched to an index). The Medicaid Expansion SCOTUS opinion (which is incoherent, given Medicaid's history) also complicated things, and the current SCOTUS challenge related to poor drafting also didn't help.
It also closed the authorization window for Medicare that people were using to defraud the government.
You do realize that the rest of your post flatly contradicts your leading sentence? The market is not in the driver's seat when the federal government is managing costs, forcing medicaid/medicare into the system, incentivizing certain forms of insurance while forcing companies to cancel others, etc
ACA was a huge gift to government control of healthcare and to insurance company revenue streams, and a big FU to cost controls and to middle and upper-middle class American taxpayers (who are now paying exorbitant healthcare prices for their own healthcare + for poor people's healthcare which is now effectively massively subsidized). Costs haven't changed. No new doctors have been hired or hospitals built. The buck has merely been passed, as most left-leaning programs seem to tend to do.
Another denier argument. All models are far from infallible. They're models; an imperfect representation and they always will be since, at least in this universe, since it is impossible to obtain perfect information about a system. The aerodynamic models for jet aircraft are wrong. The models for bridge and building stability are wrong. Every single one of them are wrong.
However, just because a model is wrong doesn't mean it isn't useful. All models have errors, and by accounting for those errors a model will still yield predictive skill. Error analysis is very important in modeling and is used constantly to establish everything from structural integrity limits to likelihoods of future droughts. It's a fundamental component of numerical analysis.
That's not a denier argument. It's perfectly valid to question the models. Just because our "best available evidence" leans one way doesn't make it 100% infallible proof. Not too long ago, scientists figured out they were vastly overstating temperatures over time because they didn't fully understand the heat sinking capability of the oceans (the whole "where's the missing heat?" debate). That variable alone completely rewrote the book on future projections of climate based on current CO2 numbers. Denying global warming may be dumb, but questioning the suppositions and conclusions drawn from the current level of "100% faith in the models" is another. I give different levels of credence to "string theory" and "quantum physics" and "gravity" and "evolution" for very good reasons. Some are rock solid with hoards of reproducible evidence and sustainable models. Others are borderline guesses with models changing annually. Stop pretending that the current "best guess" of scientists is infallible proof.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, you're nuts if you think we have an underpopulation problem on this planet.
Sounds about right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That's one hell of an assumption -- if you're claiming their policies are the reason Greece is suffering such a fate, why didn't all the other countries that had to implement similar policies to receive loan backstops also go in the tank?
If that was true, it wouldn't have required a separate Amendment (19th).
And what about the liberty to drink and drive? Or the liberty to gamble as a teenager? Or the liberty to build a giant blockade in the middle of a major freeway? There is literally nothing in your hand waving statement there that would prevent this ruling from invalidating all state laws and devolving us to anarchy. And it's because you're interpreting the Constitution wrong. The "liberty" clause doesn't mean the Constitution grants you the right to whatever the hell you want. It means the govt can't lock you up and throw away the key without cause. This was a poor judicial decision -- marriage is not a fundamental right of the Constitution and the only reason this was passed was because of a previous bad decision in Loving. Precedent is a dangerous thing was an early decision was the wrong one.
Except they are. And that's why you can't own a cruise missile. And why you can't drink and drive. If marriage was enumerated as a fundamental right in the Constitution, it would be a different conversation, but it isn't. Which means the States have every right to pass law on the issue.
You're very confused. The Constitution is a check on federal power. The _federal_ powers are supposed to be limited (leaving whatever remains to the States, and then the people). If this wasn't true, anarchy would be the result. The manner in which the 14th is currently being applied would make all manner of things illegal: why aren't rich people entitled to Welfare? Why can't childless people get child tax credits? The Equal Protection clause is meant to ensure the same laws apply to everyone, nothing more. So no matter who you are, you're entitled to Welfare if you meet the criteria. And you're entitled to child tax credits, if you meet the criteria. There was no law on the books, federal or otherwise, granting carte blanche marriage. Marriage is not an enumerated Constitutional right. It's cut and dry. It was the wrong decision. And so was Love.
What an ironic statement, considering that until just recently, all those 100% certain scientists were completely oblivious that water would act as a giant heat sink for the planet's heat. Gotta love those models.
What ramifications? Are you assuming that the only possible flat-tax that could pass is a vanilla regressive tax with no prebate? FairTax (which I believe is the most widely supported flat tax proposal) accounts for the regressive nature of flat taxes in its model.
Except that he already proved otherwise. In votes. For 30 years. He's going to leave it to the states, where it belongs, his own opinions on the issue be damned. Doesn't it mean anything to you that despite being staunchly pro-life and likely anti-same-sex-marriage as well, he won't actually support federal legislation to try to force those beliefs upon voters? That means a great deal to me and makes me respect him as a politician. I'm tired of people that try to legislate based on their view of what the world should be rather than based on what our system of governance is + what their constituents want.
How is that relevant? How he votes is all that matters. As politicians go, he was as consistent as they come from a libertarian standpoint. Neither religion nor Republican dogma drove his votes.
Trick? What trick? Doom and gloom is the default case for these discussions (See IPCC report "2.2.4 Risk of catastrophic or abrupt change"). We're already moving in a renewables direction. Since 2007, renewables have slowly been eating into fossil fuels and becoming more cost-effective with every passing year. Of their own momentum. As are hybrid/electric vehicles. Which is why there needs not be a discussion, unless the adoption rate isn't occurring fast enough. That very concept of "not fast enough" implies urgency, which implies "end of the world/catastrophic" type scenarios. It's not like it's a huge derailment of logic. Between the dialogue and the agenda, in light of what's already occurring in the sector, it's a reasonable conclusion.
And you see the same simplistic breakdown on the liberal side. The assumption is that that "minimum wage == more wealth for the poor person", as if money grows on trees. In reality, the additional expense has to be dealt with. A liberal just assumes the company owner is going to eat the loss out of their profits. In the real world, these expenses will either be pushed through to the consumer via increased product costs or pushed through to the workforce via reduced benefits or labor reductions. And that says nothing of the macro-level effects (such as inflation, or the ripple effect on other jobs). The end result of minimum wages is actually very heavily debated among economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Debate_over_consequences) and far from the "automatic win" advocates pretend it is.
That I'll fully agree with. I see it on both sides, quite frequently.
There's some truth to that. For instance, the "grey territory" that is exploiting the wide receiver eligibility reporting is borderline cheating as well (http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/Owners-Pass-Ban-On-Patriots-Ineligible-Receiver-Trick/aa52588d-47ff-4b0b-9bf5-65d759694c93). Although not explicitly illegal in 2014, it was shady enough to warrant a ban this year.
Not sure you've been following the story either, because the legality is still up in the air (http://www.wbaltv.com/news/officer-files-motion-contending-gray-arrest-was-legal/32824182). And "grey-zone" territory like this has come up before in Maryland, so this is nothing new:
http://www.mdshooters.com/show...
http://forums.officer.com/t513...
Not true. None of the claimed very expensive fallouts of climate change have come to fruition. So they remain mere speculation. Even if you can prove global warming is occurring, you can't prove the damage. For all you know, the beneficial outcomes could outweigh the negatives. It's all speculation.
Stop being a denialist. We have a consensus about SJWs already.
To be fair, that smoothie is loaded with fiber, particularly from the banana. Sugar aside, having a stomach full of fiber goes a long way towards staving off hunger and ultimately cutting calories.
These days, 20% is incredibly bipartisan, if you go by typical voting percentages over the past decade or so (in our hyperpartisan era).
No, it's like comparing brake fluid and washer fluid. Without one, you're doomed to disaster. Without the other, you'll probably eventually get into trouble at some point when your windshield clouds up and you collide with some obstacle. In short, the unfettered version of socialism is by far way worse than the unfettered version of capitalism. And it's not even close.
But you are correct that some amount of both is the ideal.
I'm sorry, but no. His/Her definition is correct. ArmoredDragon specifically stated he was referring to economic capital, defined here, which is very different from what you're referring to. That's financial capital, defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
And the program he's referring to is "Cash for Clunkers"...it's in the original post you yourself responded to. It was a highly touted "green" incentive launched in the US during the recession to both grow the economy and help the environment. When in reality it likely did neither. The program quite literally spent taxpayer dollars to incentivize people to destroy their perfectly functional older vehicle and replace it with a newer one. There is no better example of the broken window fallacy than that program.
In short, you're arguing semantics, mainly because I suspect you lack an economics background.
Except that the people claiming that they know what caused it (CO2) have already assumed a substantial negative impact and have already announced a course of action (drastically reduce CO2 at any economic cost). That makes it hard to discuss any of those topics.
No. For the same reason the market isn't in the driver's seat when I mandate lightbulbs with technologically unreachable efficiency levels or coal scrubbers that jack the cost of energy by 20-30%. Don't claim a free market where a free market does not exist. It's like me tying one of your arms behind your back, bashing your knees, then handing you a sword and having you defend yourself against a trained swordsmen -- fate is entirely in your hands, right? Until the consumers of healthcare (aka the people getting the care) can see transparent prices PRIOR to the actual care given and can competitively bargain shop for doctors/hospitals/procedures, there is no market. Ask yourself how this kind of thing can happen and you'll very quickly understand why it's not a market: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Note that in a free market, the consumers would flock to the cheaper option, with the "invisible hand" forcing the higher prices down through basic supply/demand. It doesn't happen in reality because healthcare is a shell game between a bunch of "price negotiators".
Again, no. You're conflating health insurance and healthcare, which are two entirely different things that this country insanely links. The _insurance companies_ are the ones who abuse pre-existing conditions. And that can be readily handled with legislation. You don't see life insurance companies dropping people when they get sick or old, do you? There's a reason it doesn't happen: because it's fraud.
EMTALA guarantees everyone access to emergency rooms. No one is denied.
You seem to think that administrative costs are the primary drivers of rising healthcare costs. I suggest further research. And that clause is also irrelevant as it could just as easily exacerbate costs by having insurance companies push for useless tests to drive up the ratio.
You think this is a cost control??? It's in fact the exact opposite. And that red herring of "insurance that isn't real insurance" is bullshit. Tons of people with perfectly valid non-garbage HDHP HSAs (myself included) had their costs skyrocket when all sorts of minimum standards they didn't want or require (ever) were forced into their plan (such as childless families and/or men in general paying for maternity care in their insurance costs)
You are the one who doesn't understand the difference. And this should be dead obvious to you considering the fact costs (including premiums) are still rising even against the backdrop of this bill. Total healthcare costs haven't changed and the only reason health insurance _looks_ cheaper for poor people is because it's subsidized by the more wealthy who are now paying much more (both out of pocket and in premium hi
You do realize that the rest of your post flatly contradicts your leading sentence? The market is not in the driver's seat when the federal government is managing costs, forcing medicaid/medicare into the system, incentivizing certain forms of insurance while forcing companies to cancel others, etc
ACA was a huge gift to government control of healthcare and to insurance company revenue streams, and a big FU to cost controls and to middle and upper-middle class American taxpayers (who are now paying exorbitant healthcare prices for their own healthcare + for poor people's healthcare which is now effectively massively subsidized). Costs haven't changed. No new doctors have been hired or hospitals built. The buck has merely been passed, as most left-leaning programs seem to tend to do.
That's not a denier argument. It's perfectly valid to question the models. Just because our "best available evidence" leans one way doesn't make it 100% infallible proof. Not too long ago, scientists figured out they were vastly overstating temperatures over time because they didn't fully understand the heat sinking capability of the oceans (the whole "where's the missing heat?" debate). That variable alone completely rewrote the book on future projections of climate based on current CO2 numbers. Denying global warming may be dumb, but questioning the suppositions and conclusions drawn from the current level of "100% faith in the models" is another. I give different levels of credence to "string theory" and "quantum physics" and "gravity" and "evolution" for very good reasons. Some are rock solid with hoards of reproducible evidence and sustainable models. Others are borderline guesses with models changing annually. Stop pretending that the current "best guess" of scientists is infallible proof.