J.C.MacSwell

Excellent post. I guess it's a good thing land doesn't do the voting.

No disrespect intended. It just reminded me of a joke.

Reminds me of the dyslexic agnostic insomniac...he stayed up all night wondering if there really was a Dog...

How do you define this center of this universe?

I don't know. You can calculate it out. That doesn't physically remove it. Normal matter would experience a drag effect when moving wrt the CMBR. The measurable anisotropy of the CMBR is frame dependant. I know the minimum anisotropy is commonly referred to as the CMBR anisotropy. This is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the fact that Galaxies typically are at some velocity wrt the CMBR, and therefore their constituent DM must be as well. There may be no measurable effect, but like the drag for normal matter mentioned above, there could be. I'm not sure exactly what it would be if it could be measured, but we do know EMR is affected by gravity.

Isotropy means it's evenly from all directions. Only from a frame where the frame is at rest wrt the CMBR, Any Galaxy moving wrt that will measure it as anisotropic.

All DM is in a frame in which the CMBR is isotropic? That would pretty much require most Galaxies to be.

Gravitationally? DM should effect lensing of EM radiation should it not? I'm trying to think of an observable effect if any when the CMBR is anisotropic wrt the frame of the DM vs when it is not.

Just remove a couple vertebrae and fuse the adjoining ones

If they can reasonably accurately recognize and quantify the benefits and harm to the public, why should it not be within their mandate to put in place reasonable taxes and/or incentives, and allow the industries to compete on that basis, and essentially pick winners and losers on that economic market basis? Why should clean energy have to compete evenly against a dirty one barely meeting some arbitrary target, if the difference can be fairly and efficiently quantified?

As my Mum used to say, "funny peculiar not funny haha"

I'm sure they'll take them down once the statue's ready.

No kinda easy calculation for that operative word?

Might as well give an example of a "nice" apology for one. https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-staffer-jen-omalley-dillon-apologizes-gop-expletive-2020-12 Now that Biden is President elect he may even refrain from claiming Mitt Romney would put African Americans "back in chains". We can be optimistic... Disclaimer: Republicans are worse and we can't be optimistic about them changing any time soon.

What is even the average cost of the environmental damage produced by extraction, refinement, transportation, and use of 1,000 litres of gasoline?

Yes. It wouldn't be necessary that the carbon taxes go to subsidies. Simply make them appropriate to the damage they cause. (not an easy calculation, and every country or state would look at it differently, with some preferring to have the environment "subsidize" their industries with a lack of it, to give themselves a trade advantage) The problem is the political will to do it, for all 7+ and growing billion of us.

Isn't that currently still dependant on green subsidies and carbon taxes?

I really don't see that. At all. The Democrats seem to be holding their own, despite clearly shifting Left. In fact your graphic displays them to the Left of median Europe. I would take the NY times opinion with a grain or two of salt. As one should with any clearly agenda based "journalism". Or is it okay when the article comes from a Left leaning (how have they not keeled over) publication? Disclaimer: Yes. Right leaning publications can be just as egregious.

Uncivil discourse? It's probably proportional to the level of offence the propagator is attempting to imply. Like the boy who called wolf, credibility gets lost when the call is not accurate and when the level doesn't match the rhetoric. I'm not sure why that's controversial, other than it can be debated whether to focus more on the base and motivating reluctant voters within it or focusing on persuading swing voters that are likely to vote. Do you not respect Republicans more that try to keep that in balance, than those that just espouse angry rhetoric toward the Left? Or are they just wasted lives that don't deserve any consideration at all?

I read that too quickly. Centre on the left-right spectrum. So essentially I believe I used it correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate I was actually trying to find a more acceptable term when I reread it. It's not cut and dried and I'm certainly no linguist, so quite happy to be corrected and open to being convinced, but there you go.. "In recent years, the term political moderates has gained traction as a buzzword. The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology. Voters who describe themselves as centrist often mean that they are moderate in their political views, advocating neither extreme left-wing politics nor extreme right-wing politics. Gallup polling has shown American voters identifying themselves as moderate between 35–38% of the time over the last 20 years.[4] Voters may identify with moderation for a number of reasons: pragmatic, ideological or otherwise. It has even been suggested that individuals vote for centrist parties for purely statistical reasons" Advocating civil discourse? Obviously many are lamenting the lack of it. Is that not evidence of a preference for it?

Why are you asking me to cite a pundit that might agree with me?

As I suggested on page one, pages and pages ago....or one page back to be precise...a third party would make it more likely.

I googled it. My context was "a person who holds moderate views, especially in politics". I hadn't realized Americans consider it centre left. The Oxford dictionary suggests the first definition and Wiki suggests the latter for Americans but not otherwise.

As per my post above (it came at essentially at the same time as your's so you probably didn't see it) enough rejected Trump but voted Republican down ballot. I consider this evidence that moderates can make a difference. You're requesting an argument from authority?

To win over the moderates. No pass. They need to be nicer as well. Again, if they want to win over the moderates. If either side don't, and feel the ends of getting out more of their base justify their tactics, how is it not hypocritical to complain about the other side doing the same? I was also addressing INow in particular with that question. I guess I could address someone on the Right with the equivalent question, if one happens to post in a one sided manner and I see no one piling on them already, ...though I thought I covered it here generally in that very short post: Having said all that, what makes you feel the Democrats deserve a free pass from yourself? (and others on here consistently disparaging only one side) Or at least with respect to the recent election, how did the Democrat tactics work? If it wasn't for Trump's inept response to the Pandemic, it seems likely he would be getting another term. As it was, enough moderates rejecting Trump but voted Republican down ballot to allow them gains in the House, and possibly hang on to the Senate. This was not expected, even accounting for any gerrymandering that was already established and known to be in place well prior to the latest campaign. Because I believe there are enough moderates to make a difference. Again look to the recent election...enough to throw out Trump while still allowing the Republicans gains in the House. The Republicans may have felt no need to reasonably align with their voters (I think that's greatly overstated in any case)....but at least they had the sense not to espouse such misalignment as "defund the police". (note that Biden was notable in not taking that stance, but speaking up against it at least to some degree)