Thanks. Did you know your account is banned and all your comments are flagged dead? Most people can't see them unless they've changed their settings to show dead comments.
On a planet with a surface ~3/4 covered in water, I've always just assumed since I was young that hotter weather would just mean more intense water cycles. Anywhere not landlocked on the wrong side of a watershed could stand to benefit from the extra humidity. Hopefully California can actually make use of this. There was recent rainfall the past couple years, but they have a long way to come in terms of infrastructure and also dealing with their eco laws at arms with building more reservoirs and other means of avoiding the fluctuating seasons of dry and wet.
It reminded me constantly of John Steinbeck on the drought cycle in the Salinas Valley, “During the dry years, the people forgot about the rich years, and when the wet years returned, they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way.”
For anyone who hasn't, I highly recommend checking out the drone footage of the Oroville dam. The scale of destruction was massive, and rumor has it even sparked a tiny gold rush after so much bedrock and sediment was churned up.
That was my thought as well... I've even heard statements that a 2 degree raise in temperatures globally could be great for food production by pushing the good growing zones outward toward more land mass...
-- edit
I'm not denying climate change, or that humans are a factor (even if relatively small).. I'm against pollution in general, And current projections to my understanding are about 50 years of minor cooling, followed by 150 years of warming to about 2 degrees hotter. It's not a "solved" issue. And I'm fine with anti-pollution stances and policies. I am not okay with using alarmist propaganda to sell anti-pollution, and then setting up systems to reward that behavior.
> 2 degree raise in temperatures globally could be great for food production...
Bear in mind that the 2-degree figure is 2-degrees celcius __average__ global temperature, not two degrees maximum. The oceans are much cooler than land, and the further inland you go the hotter it gets, so at about 2-degrees average warming you've got maybe +3 degrees in Britain, and about +7 degrees Celcius in central USA, which would have catastrophic effects on food production.
Now add in the pressure of vast numbers of people migrating North away from the equator because they're all literally starving, and you've got a formula for civilisation-ending instability.
[EDIT] Also, bear in mind it's two degrees Celcius, which is about 3.6 degrees Farenheit, I've seen American friends get mixed up on that point, misjudging the severity by a factor of almost two.
This is the comment that takes the middle ground and explains to both of you that nothing is black and white and there are bad and good things about Trump's immigration agenda. His plans could actually be philanthropically motivated, but they are undeniably being prematurely spun into action without reasonable consultation from an array of experts and this is the source of most of its flaws. These flaws may or may not be too big to ignore, but without a panel of unbiased experts assigned to investigate the matter we are making an immature decision to support his impulsive strategy of setting policy.
Don't say "There's no false middle ground" ... That is extremely assumptive and cocky.
Say what you really mean: "I only see this issue in black and white as a byproduct of my nascent understanding of the various forces at play in American politics and the motivations behind them."
You do understand that the average person sympathizes more with middle-ground attitudes, right? That speaking in extremes, except when necessary, can have the unintended effect of polarizing people? Affirming the beliefs of proponents and strengthening the resolve of opponents.
There is a reason that social disrupters who use Persona Management software aim for the middle ground when they speak. They use moderate voices that give a "balanced" view of both sides, before concluding one way or the other. Why? Because it has been shown to be a lot more effective and a greater number of people will be willing to digest the argument presented to them. Most people are on the fence and just need a little push in the right direction. They are more inclined to listen to a voice they sympathize with and less inclined to automatically become defensive and closed.
But keep up your strategy and we'll see how it goes. I'm sure your extremist "Everyone in the White House is xenophobic" argument is doing just fine.
Only if the status quo you are referring to is the political, which was the same as TPTB, and not the social. This country did not want more of the old administration and took option B.
I am distinguishing the TPTB from the masses. The TPTB failed and Trump was chosen. Now they need to ensure that a similar thing does not happen again in the future.
And the TPTB exceed the political leaders. I mean the ones that really run the country.
