America ascendant spoke English almost exclusively.
That never happened. The US probably has always had at any given time hundreds of different languages spoken by immigrants or by native residents. There's even some peculiar dialects of English that apparently aren't present in England any more.
Where's the evidence that Zimmerman was defending himself?
We have considerable physical evidence that indicates that Martin was beating up Zimmerman rather than the other way around and that Zimmerman was in enough danger of death or grievous bodily harm for self defense to apply.
but we know without any doubt that Zimmerman stalked Martin after he was told not to by a 911 operator
Actually, that wasn't a 911 operator so I understand, but a police dispatcher on the regular police line. The operator in question did not instruct Zimmerman to do what you claimed or have legal authority to do so.
As to stalking, since when has stalking been a case for self-defense? Even if one is an aggressor in that sense, it doesn't mean that they forgo their right to self-defense.
If you can't imagine how someone could retain possession of a gun through a beating then you're not very smart.
Whatever. It's still a significant complication in a story you're making up.
For example, they could be on top of it.
Then Zimmerman might have a gun-shaped bruise on his back.
Or, it could have a trigger guard, which usually improves weapon retention.
Where's the corresponding body injury or clothing damage that would correspond to the trigger guard looping onto something like a finger?
The point is that these sorts of alternate stories leave evidence of their own. Now it is possible that law enforcement simply didn't look for them. But at this point, you don't have that evidence.
If that were true, then how did Zimmerman manage to retain possession of the gun throughout his beating? These sorts of stories don't have any evidence for them and a bit against them.
I don't know if you're serious or just trolling, but here's a different narrative:
Dershowitz said the second-degree murder case should never have gone to trial considering the flimsy evidence against Zimmerman. He also does not believe it was strong enough to be submitted to a jury for deliberation.
âoeIf the judge had any courage in applying the law, she never would have allowed the case to go to the jury,â Dershowitz told Newsmax. âoeShe should have entered a verdict based on reasonable doubt.â
Dershowitz singled out special prosecutor Angela Corey for âoedisciplinary action.â
He criticized the stateâ(TM)s probable-cause affidavit for not including evidence indicating Zimmerman could have been acting in self-defense, including graphic images of blood streaming from his scalp and nose.
âoeThe prosecutor had in her possession photographs that would definitely show a judge that this was not an appropriate case for second-degree murder,â the Harvard professor told Newsmax. âoeShe deliberately withheld and suppressed those photographs, refused to show them to the judge, got the judge to rule erroneously this was a second-degree murder case.
âoeThat violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations that prosecutors have. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team,â he said.
Dershowitz described the prosecutionâ(TM)s attempt late in the case to add a third-degree murder charge by asserting the shooting constituted child abuse âoeso professionally irresponsible as to warrant sanctions and investigations.â
Dershowitz said various legal and bar association organizations could investigate how the state handled the prosecution. He added it could warrant a federal investigation as well.
âoeI think peopleâ(TM)s rights have been violated,â the famed attorney told Newsmax, âoebut it was the rights of the defendant and the defense team, by utterly unprofessional, irresponsible, and in my view criminal actions by the prosecutor,â he said.
What evidence is there of this ice? The ice no longer exists.
As I noted, the ice is still present in the Grand Tetons.
So you see a valley. Well there are valleys near the equator where no ice ever went. The Grand Canyon was caused by the river running through it, not ice.
It's not enough to have a valley, the valley has to have a particular shape. The Grand Canyon is not a U-shaped valley. Also, many of these U-shaped valleys have remnants of large landslides at the base of the valley, indicating that the valleys are currently unstable. One way to have a stable U-shaped valley is to fill the valley with some sort of solid, such as ice, so that the walls of the valley are supported and don't collapse.
Other than by inference and measurement of consequential effects of the hypothesis "There was a Global Ice Age". Just like AGW.
You totally missed my point. I can hop into my car and see directly evidence of the last glacial period in my region (though obviously showing global extent will require much more traveling). You can't do that with evidence for AGW. I can't hop in the car and take my own independent measures of temperature for the last 150 years even for my region.
This data is further obscured by various massaging of the data to eliminate things like the urban heat island effect, movement of temperature stations (they don't always stay put over the decades), other systematic errors (like maybe improper maintenance of the weather station in question), and maybe contrary evidence that doesn't fit the current "climate change" narrative.
Finally, I can provide a reasonable defense of the theory of ice ages without referencing a single scientific paper. Can't do that with AGW aside from describing the basic radiative model.
One you accept without qualm the other you fight tooth and nail because your politics is jilted by it.
Yep. Looks like it. But it's because the two aren't comparable in terms of difficulty of independent verification.
Well, suppose they have a bag of air attached to equipment that feeds pressurized air so as to maintain the bag at standard temperature and pressure (STP which is 20 C and 1 atmosphere) and the bag is suspended in a vacuum. The speed of sound at that temperature for air (which also is the average velocity of molecules in air) is roughly 340 m/s.
For a millimeter sized hole leaking into vacuum (let's say that the hole is a square millimeter in area), that means that in the absence of friction and turbulence, roughly 3.4*10^-4 cubic meters of air leak out every second (average velocity of air times the area of the hole(s)). At a density of 1.2 kg per sq meter, that's roughly 4*10-4 kg per second of mass lost through that hole. In other words, a gram of air lost ever 2.5 seconds or so.
But mass loss is proportional to pressure. If instead, the pressure inside the bag were one ten-thousandth of an atmosphere, then the mass loss is 1 gram every 25,000 seconds, or roughly a gram lost every 7 hours.
A micron sized hole because it's a million times smaller in area would have a mass loss a millionth the rate of this. So in the one atmosphere case, you'd be losing a gram of air every four weeks, roughly.
In the absence of perturbations or vibration, such an antenna can hold its shape under extremely low pressures. But I doubt that would be the case for a normal spacecraft. At the least, you'd have perturbations from vehicle maneuvering, temperature changes should the vehicle enter shade (say the Sun is eclipsed by the Earth or Moon in the course of the spacecraft's orbit) or change orientation (different parts of the vehicle are lit means some vibration as parts of the vehicle expand or contract).
So they have to maintain some level of pressure depending on how much vibration they expect and how long they're willing to wait for the antenna to settled down to a usable level.
Article says it can take a number of micrometeor impacts and still stay inflated. I buy that claim. It doesn't take a lot of gas pressure to inflate a piece of mylar and they have a good mechanism for maintaining that modest gas pressure (via sublimation of a particular powdered chemical) even in the presence of a bunch of micrometeor holes (low pressure gas doesn't leak out very quickly).
OTOH, they might have a problem controlling inflation of the antenna in the first place. The sublimation triggers in the presence of vacuum. And they'll have that condition before the cubesat leaves the payload shroud.
Why is what a small minority of US residents think such a problem? I think it's more of a problem that proponents of so-called "climate change" can't make a credible argument and are reduced to spurious argument from authority fallacies. If climate change is really as bad as claimed, then your rhetorical incompetence is endangering us all.
However, people studying climatology (call it bunk or pseudoscience if you will) are measuring similar values regarding climate. As they don't have as much geologic data to use, they can only trust their data back as far as it was recorded, which puts a completely different time window on it.
And a much weaker reliability on it.
Maybe I misunderstood you and your giggling was due to the whole issue being inconsequential on the geologic timeframe; but to dismiss something that may be affecting us now because it doesn't match up with what has happened during the period in which HSS isn't even a blip on the timeline is to miss the point -- if you're driving a car and it's going through all sorts of dips and turns, all it takes is a bit of over-correction and you're off the road. Messing with climate COULD move us from being in an Inter-glacial period to being at the end of the last glacial period this world ever sees (unlikely, but possible).
So what's the point of overstating our confidence in climatology data and modeling while simultaneously claiming considerable uncertainty to the chicken little level in what happens? Both can't be true.
If the acid of sodas matters anywhere, it'd be the teeth of the mouth. And those 32 grams of sugar would matter for much the same reason (mouth bacteria digesting sugar and generating teeth-eating acids as waste products).
If it makes you feel better, there are hundreds of Hezbollah agents running loose in the US.
If there are, then they aren't doing much. I'm worried about the group with thousands of members, a budget several orders of magnitude as large, and the backing of the only remaining superpower who happens to be doing much.
About the "ex-wives" thing - it is only 1 person per year, on average, that breaks the rules to check out a love interest and gets disciplined / canned.
And how many don't get disciplined/canned? I have a different solution to this particular problem. Don't give the NSA this particular capability, then you don't have to worry about what lovelorn agents do with that power. And local authorities can handle the cigarette smuggling.
Well, one obvious reason is to attempt to discourage Iran from actual retaliation for a Syrian strike. I suppose it could be a prelude to a US invasion of Iran, starting with a false flag attack on a US embassy or some such. But if that was going to happen, then why happen now rather than any time in the last twelve years?
My take is that the proposed retaliatory attacks are probably just an Iranian tactic to discourage US intervention in Syria and were intended to be intercepted by US intelligence. There's not much point to a threat, if no one is listening.
I think it'll be a mistake to threaten to attack Iraqi targets though. Lot of people in Iraq don't like Iran. And they can do things like invite a certain superpower in to already built military bases. Obama might have left Iraq more or less, but there's not much keeping the US under a different president from coming back.
If the study had been conducted with 2000 subjects from culturally diverse places, like NY or Tokyo, I'm sure the results would've been a lot diferent.
It's worth noting here that the data used in the study comes not from Wyoming, but from the Framingham Heart Study which apparently studies a few tens of thousands of people for cardiovascular disease over many decades. It's not a particularly ethnically diverse town so there's that going for you.
Personally, I think we'd find that there are different distinct friend-acquiring strategies out there. Picking people like you is still probably going to be the dominant one no matter how diverse the area you pick is.
It's probably just that the people who worked together ate together.
And granfallooning is a powerful mathematical technique. Surely, you've heard of the four granfalloon theorem? Or the more general property of graph granfallooning? And there's the topological result that one can decompose in non-overlapping granfalloons the sphere finitely in such a way that one can construct two identical copies by putting back together the granfalloons in different ways.
Humankind's interference in climate change is introducing a variable that, as far as we know, never existed before.
What new variable? The laws of physics didn't change. That means whatever equations describe climate change didn't either. I think this is even more of a bullshit claim than that climate change could somehow lead to the extinction of the human race.
But the truth is, we really don't know how things will turn out, because we're only beginning to scratch the surface of how it all actually works.
This is a fine time to meddle when "we" allegedly don't know how things work. What I know is that climate change is a rich person's problem. And most alleged mitigation solutions to climate change create a bunch of poor people who have much more interest in becoming less poor than they do in fixing climate change problems.
there wont really be any real space travel until we find some way to get out of the atmosphere without spending billions of dollars on fuel.
Currently, we spend on propellant at worst hundreds of dollars per kilogram of what gets into space. A billion dollars of propellant covers several thousand tons of stuff, up to around ten thousand tons for diesel/LOX burning rockets like the Proton or Falcon 9.
We now have evidence that this unarmed radio control drone can be used to kill people standing in a public place.
Well, maybe we should make killing people illegal then? I don't have real strong feelings about this, one way or another, but that sounds bad and we probably shouldn't do things that sound bad.
I rather boggle at you giggling at observed effects of human activity on our climate, while at the same time taking as fact that our planet has been in an Ice Age for the past 2-3 million years, despite not having observed this yourself.
The difference is that you can observe for yourself that our planet has been in an ice age for the past 2-3 million years. Glaciers leave plenty of evidence behind. For example, I currently live by the shore of Lake Yellowstone which is a considerable alpine lake in the heart of Yellowstone National Park in the western US. There's plenty of evidence of glacial activity such as glacial erratics, U-shaped valleys, lake shores about a hundred meters above the current level of Lake Yellowstone, low diversity among forest plants (most of the park is covered by monolithic stands of lodgepole pine), and even a few glacial remnants in the Grand Teton mountains to the south.
The fact that the planet is perfectly capable of getting really hot and cold on its own cycle is of no comfort to HSS when we realize that through our own efforts, we can quickly (geologically speaking) make this rock uninhabitable for HSS in a way that would take MUCH longer if left to itself.
This "realization" is a non sequitur. Sure, I could make a zillion nuclear weapons or an efficient microscopic von Neumann weapon and target humanity with it, but that's a different quality of threat than merely producing a modest excess of CO2.
Moreover, the NRA and apparently you think that you have the RIGHT to have arms. YOU DO NOT. Read the constitution, "For the safety of the state, an armed millitia...".
Here's the real Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There's no question there of a right to bear arms. They didn't say a "militia" or the "National Guard" had the right to keep and bear arms, they said "the people" had that right. Further, the first part of the amendment is clearly an explanation.
I find interesting both that you failed to quote the relevant part of the amendment in question and that you misquoted the bit you did bother to quote. What is "safe" for a state depends on what sort of state it is. Starving a few million Ukrainians to death might have been "safe" for the USSR back in the 1930s, but it wasn't for the people who died.
Suppose the amendment had said, "Because tigers are bad, the right of the people to carry tiger-repelling rocks will not be abridged." Does the amendment no longer apply, if someone decides tigers aren't bad or thinks the whole amendment is based on a particularly bad logical fallacy? Not as I see it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because the power never really changes. It stays in the hands of the businesses and their lobbyists.
So where do the real powers like the various US intelligence agencies fit into your scheme?
America ascendant spoke English almost exclusively.
That never happened. The US probably has always had at any given time hundreds of different languages spoken by immigrants or by native residents. There's even some peculiar dialects of English that apparently aren't present in England any more.
Where's the evidence that Zimmerman was defending himself?
We have considerable physical evidence that indicates that Martin was beating up Zimmerman rather than the other way around and that Zimmerman was in enough danger of death or grievous bodily harm for self defense to apply.
but we know without any doubt that Zimmerman stalked Martin after he was told not to by a 911 operator
Actually, that wasn't a 911 operator so I understand, but a police dispatcher on the regular police line. The operator in question did not instruct Zimmerman to do what you claimed or have legal authority to do so.
As to stalking, since when has stalking been a case for self-defense? Even if one is an aggressor in that sense, it doesn't mean that they forgo their right to self-defense.
If you can't imagine how someone could retain possession of a gun through a beating then you're not very smart.
Whatever. It's still a significant complication in a story you're making up.
For example, they could be on top of it.
Then Zimmerman might have a gun-shaped bruise on his back.
Or, it could have a trigger guard, which usually improves weapon retention.
Where's the corresponding body injury or clothing damage that would correspond to the trigger guard looping onto something like a finger?
The point is that these sorts of alternate stories leave evidence of their own. Now it is possible that law enforcement simply didn't look for them. But at this point, you don't have that evidence.
I would expect to pay more if I rode during peak times than when the train was almost empty.
Seeing how deadly force is explicitly allowed, I really don't see how blunt trauma to the skull wouldn't fall under that.
Where's the evidence that Martin was defending himself? Without that, these tales are just fantasies.
If that were true, then how did Zimmerman manage to retain possession of the gun throughout his beating? These sorts of stories don't have any evidence for them and a bit against them.
Dershowitz said the second-degree murder case should never have gone to trial considering the flimsy evidence against Zimmerman. He also does not believe it was strong enough to be submitted to a jury for deliberation.
âoeIf the judge had any courage in applying the law, she never would have allowed the case to go to the jury,â Dershowitz told Newsmax. âoeShe should have entered a verdict based on reasonable doubt.â
Dershowitz singled out special prosecutor Angela Corey for âoedisciplinary action.â
He criticized the stateâ(TM)s probable-cause affidavit for not including evidence indicating Zimmerman could have been acting in self-defense, including graphic images of blood streaming from his scalp and nose.
âoeThe prosecutor had in her possession photographs that would definitely show a judge that this was not an appropriate case for second-degree murder,â the Harvard professor told Newsmax. âoeShe deliberately withheld and suppressed those photographs, refused to show them to the judge, got the judge to rule erroneously this was a second-degree murder case.
âoeThat violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations that prosecutors have. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team,â he said.
Dershowitz described the prosecutionâ(TM)s attempt late in the case to add a third-degree murder charge by asserting the shooting constituted child abuse âoeso professionally irresponsible as to warrant sanctions and investigations.â
Dershowitz said various legal and bar association organizations could investigate how the state handled the prosecution. He added it could warrant a federal investigation as well.
âoeI think peopleâ(TM)s rights have been violated,â the famed attorney told Newsmax, âoebut it was the rights of the defendant and the defense team, by utterly unprofessional, irresponsible, and in my view criminal actions by the prosecutor,â he said.
What evidence is there of this ice? The ice no longer exists.
As I noted, the ice is still present in the Grand Tetons.
So you see a valley. Well there are valleys near the equator where no ice ever went. The Grand Canyon was caused by the river running through it, not ice.
It's not enough to have a valley, the valley has to have a particular shape. The Grand Canyon is not a U-shaped valley. Also, many of these U-shaped valleys have remnants of large landslides at the base of the valley, indicating that the valleys are currently unstable. One way to have a stable U-shaped valley is to fill the valley with some sort of solid, such as ice, so that the walls of the valley are supported and don't collapse.
Other than by inference and measurement of consequential effects of the hypothesis "There was a Global Ice Age". Just like AGW.
You totally missed my point. I can hop into my car and see directly evidence of the last glacial period in my region (though obviously showing global extent will require much more traveling). You can't do that with evidence for AGW. I can't hop in the car and take my own independent measures of temperature for the last 150 years even for my region.
This data is further obscured by various massaging of the data to eliminate things like the urban heat island effect, movement of temperature stations (they don't always stay put over the decades), other systematic errors (like maybe improper maintenance of the weather station in question), and maybe contrary evidence that doesn't fit the current "climate change" narrative.
Finally, I can provide a reasonable defense of the theory of ice ages without referencing a single scientific paper. Can't do that with AGW aside from describing the basic radiative model.
One you accept without qualm the other you fight tooth and nail because your politics is jilted by it.
Yep. Looks like it. But it's because the two aren't comparable in terms of difficulty of independent verification.
It's only a "factual post" because we both happen to agree on the claims made in my post. Normally, agreement just isn't there.
Well, suppose they have a bag of air attached to equipment that feeds pressurized air so as to maintain the bag at standard temperature and pressure (STP which is 20 C and 1 atmosphere) and the bag is suspended in a vacuum. The speed of sound at that temperature for air (which also is the average velocity of molecules in air) is roughly 340 m/s.
For a millimeter sized hole leaking into vacuum (let's say that the hole is a square millimeter in area), that means that in the absence of friction and turbulence, roughly 3.4*10^-4 cubic meters of air leak out every second (average velocity of air times the area of the hole(s)). At a density of 1.2 kg per sq meter, that's roughly 4*10-4 kg per second of mass lost through that hole. In other words, a gram of air lost ever 2.5 seconds or so.
But mass loss is proportional to pressure. If instead, the pressure inside the bag were one ten-thousandth of an atmosphere, then the mass loss is 1 gram every 25,000 seconds, or roughly a gram lost every 7 hours.
A micron sized hole because it's a million times smaller in area would have a mass loss a millionth the rate of this. So in the one atmosphere case, you'd be losing a gram of air every four weeks, roughly.
In the absence of perturbations or vibration, such an antenna can hold its shape under extremely low pressures. But I doubt that would be the case for a normal spacecraft. At the least, you'd have perturbations from vehicle maneuvering, temperature changes should the vehicle enter shade (say the Sun is eclipsed by the Earth or Moon in the course of the spacecraft's orbit) or change orientation (different parts of the vehicle are lit means some vibration as parts of the vehicle expand or contract).
So they have to maintain some level of pressure depending on how much vibration they expect and how long they're willing to wait for the antenna to settled down to a usable level.
Article says it can take a number of micrometeor impacts and still stay inflated. I buy that claim. It doesn't take a lot of gas pressure to inflate a piece of mylar and they have a good mechanism for maintaining that modest gas pressure (via sublimation of a particular powdered chemical) even in the presence of a bunch of micrometeor holes (low pressure gas doesn't leak out very quickly).
OTOH, they might have a problem controlling inflation of the antenna in the first place. The sublimation triggers in the presence of vacuum. And they'll have that condition before the cubesat leaves the payload shroud.
Why is what a small minority of US residents think such a problem? I think it's more of a problem that proponents of so-called "climate change" can't make a credible argument and are reduced to spurious argument from authority fallacies. If climate change is really as bad as claimed, then your rhetorical incompetence is endangering us all.
However, people studying climatology (call it bunk or pseudoscience if you will) are measuring similar values regarding climate. As they don't have as much geologic data to use, they can only trust their data back as far as it was recorded, which puts a completely different time window on it.
And a much weaker reliability on it.
Maybe I misunderstood you and your giggling was due to the whole issue being inconsequential on the geologic timeframe; but to dismiss something that may be affecting us now because it doesn't match up with what has happened during the period in which HSS isn't even a blip on the timeline is to miss the point -- if you're driving a car and it's going through all sorts of dips and turns, all it takes is a bit of over-correction and you're off the road. Messing with climate COULD move us from being in an Inter-glacial period to being at the end of the last glacial period this world ever sees (unlikely, but possible).
So what's the point of overstating our confidence in climatology data and modeling while simultaneously claiming considerable uncertainty to the chicken little level in what happens? Both can't be true.
If the acid of sodas matters anywhere, it'd be the teeth of the mouth. And those 32 grams of sugar would matter for much the same reason (mouth bacteria digesting sugar and generating teeth-eating acids as waste products).
If it makes you feel better, there are hundreds of Hezbollah agents running loose in the US.
If there are, then they aren't doing much. I'm worried about the group with thousands of members, a budget several orders of magnitude as large, and the backing of the only remaining superpower who happens to be doing much.
About the "ex-wives" thing - it is only 1 person per year, on average, that breaks the rules to check out a love interest and gets disciplined / canned.
And how many don't get disciplined/canned? I have a different solution to this particular problem. Don't give the NSA this particular capability, then you don't have to worry about what lovelorn agents do with that power. And local authorities can handle the cigarette smuggling.
Well, one obvious reason is to attempt to discourage Iran from actual retaliation for a Syrian strike. I suppose it could be a prelude to a US invasion of Iran, starting with a false flag attack on a US embassy or some such. But if that was going to happen, then why happen now rather than any time in the last twelve years?
My take is that the proposed retaliatory attacks are probably just an Iranian tactic to discourage US intervention in Syria and were intended to be intercepted by US intelligence. There's not much point to a threat, if no one is listening.
I think it'll be a mistake to threaten to attack Iraqi targets though. Lot of people in Iraq don't like Iran. And they can do things like invite a certain superpower in to already built military bases. Obama might have left Iraq more or less, but there's not much keeping the US under a different president from coming back.
If the study had been conducted with 2000 subjects from culturally diverse places, like NY or Tokyo, I'm sure the results would've been a lot diferent.
It's worth noting here that the data used in the study comes not from Wyoming, but from the Framingham Heart Study which apparently studies a few tens of thousands of people for cardiovascular disease over many decades. It's not a particularly ethnically diverse town so there's that going for you.
Personally, I think we'd find that there are different distinct friend-acquiring strategies out there. Picking people like you is still probably going to be the dominant one no matter how diverse the area you pick is.
It's probably just that the people who worked together ate together.
And granfallooning is a powerful mathematical technique. Surely, you've heard of the four granfalloon theorem? Or the more general property of graph granfallooning? And there's the topological result that one can decompose in non-overlapping granfalloons the sphere finitely in such a way that one can construct two identical copies by putting back together the granfalloons in different ways.
Humankind's interference in climate change is introducing a variable that, as far as we know, never existed before.
What new variable? The laws of physics didn't change. That means whatever equations describe climate change didn't either. I think this is even more of a bullshit claim than that climate change could somehow lead to the extinction of the human race.
But the truth is, we really don't know how things will turn out, because we're only beginning to scratch the surface of how it all actually works.
This is a fine time to meddle when "we" allegedly don't know how things work. What I know is that climate change is a rich person's problem. And most alleged mitigation solutions to climate change create a bunch of poor people who have much more interest in becoming less poor than they do in fixing climate change problems.
there wont really be any real space travel until we find some way to get out of the atmosphere without spending billions of dollars on fuel.
Currently, we spend on propellant at worst hundreds of dollars per kilogram of what gets into space. A billion dollars of propellant covers several thousand tons of stuff, up to around ten thousand tons for diesel/LOX burning rockets like the Proton or Falcon 9.
We now have evidence that this unarmed radio control drone can be used to kill people standing in a public place.
Well, maybe we should make killing people illegal then? I don't have real strong feelings about this, one way or another, but that sounds bad and we probably shouldn't do things that sound bad.
The question now is: will we be wiped out by global warming before the next ice age hits?
What's this mechanism for "wiping out" humanity by slightly getting warmer? Are we going to forget to take off our jackets and turn on the AC?
I rather boggle at you giggling at observed effects of human activity on our climate, while at the same time taking as fact that our planet has been in an Ice Age for the past 2-3 million years, despite not having observed this yourself.
The difference is that you can observe for yourself that our planet has been in an ice age for the past 2-3 million years. Glaciers leave plenty of evidence behind. For example, I currently live by the shore of Lake Yellowstone which is a considerable alpine lake in the heart of Yellowstone National Park in the western US. There's plenty of evidence of glacial activity such as glacial erratics, U-shaped valleys, lake shores about a hundred meters above the current level of Lake Yellowstone, low diversity among forest plants (most of the park is covered by monolithic stands of lodgepole pine), and even a few glacial remnants in the Grand Teton mountains to the south.
The fact that the planet is perfectly capable of getting really hot and cold on its own cycle is of no comfort to HSS when we realize that through our own efforts, we can quickly (geologically speaking) make this rock uninhabitable for HSS in a way that would take MUCH longer if left to itself.
This "realization" is a non sequitur. Sure, I could make a zillion nuclear weapons or an efficient microscopic von Neumann weapon and target humanity with it, but that's a different quality of threat than merely producing a modest excess of CO2.
Moreover, the NRA and apparently you think that you have the RIGHT to have arms. YOU DO NOT. Read the constitution, "For the safety of the state, an armed millitia...".
Here's the real Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There's no question there of a right to bear arms. They didn't say a "militia" or the "National Guard" had the right to keep and bear arms, they said "the people" had that right. Further, the first part of the amendment is clearly an explanation.
I find interesting both that you failed to quote the relevant part of the amendment in question and that you misquoted the bit you did bother to quote. What is "safe" for a state depends on what sort of state it is. Starving a few million Ukrainians to death might have been "safe" for the USSR back in the 1930s, but it wasn't for the people who died.
Suppose the amendment had said, "Because tigers are bad, the right of the people to carry tiger-repelling rocks will not be abridged." Does the amendment no longer apply, if someone decides tigers aren't bad or thinks the whole amendment is based on a particularly bad logical fallacy? Not as I see it.