swansont

Growing bigger runs into overlapping with other plants, so not only competing for water and nutrients, but I would imagine that sunlight is also a limiting resource, since you can only have a certain surface area getting direct sunlight.

And he wasn’t running for reelection. Teddy Roosevelt lost his attempt to get nominated after getting shot. Ford and Carter lost their reelection bids after assassination attempts. It’s just sheer speculation how this will play out, and we’re not doing it in this thread.

I don’t see an image.

Is there evidence that too much CO2 — in the ranges we could have on earth — is bad for plants? The levels we’re seeing are lower than what you’d typically have indoors unless you have incredible ventilation, so is there evidence indoor plants suffer? ”good for plants” is a reach, as if it balances out negative aspects, but it also needs to be quantified. Is CO2 a limiting factor in plant growth? Going from ~320 ppm to ~420 ppm in the last ~60 years should have already been quite a boon if “good for plants” had validity.

Has that ever worked before?

Why?

Here’s a link https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3gw58wv4e9o

! Moderator Note Speculation and no links. Exactly what I said not to do.

Perfect? Bernie's not a Democrat. You speak for everyone? Just more hyperbolic propaganda

Could be a “get tough” tactic, sending a message. I wonder if the house minority leader will be visiting with his colleagues, telling them they are causing damage, and now is the time for unity. And that if they don’t fall in line, they will be shunned when Biden wins.

! Moderator Note Normal disclaimer of not speculating about factual issues; wait for news that has been confirmed. Early reports are often quite wrong. And please link to your sources.

I think what you need to do is make a compelling case for whatever you think the answer is. An alleged failure of science does not mean a particular alternative is correct. (i.e. not knowing the identity of a creature does not mean it’s Bigfoot. You need positive evidence to support the latter)

Reminds me of the attitudes in the Washington, DC area regarding snow plowing. A lot of people complain that it takes so long to clear roads after a big storm, because there isn’t a huge team of plows and drivers waiting to do the work. But they don’t consider the cost of having such infrastructure, which would be underutilized — the big storms don’t happen every year. I wonder how many people complaining about snow removal or road repair also complain about their taxes being too high, and voting for the people who promise to lower taxes — and don’t see the connection. I saw it in Oregon ca 1990 when they passed property tax reform, and then people were mortified in subsequent years when government cut a whole bunch of services. Studying engineering would not solve these issues. It’s a political problem.

Really?

I expect you'd get similar defections from voters not ready for a woman president as you got with H. Clinton.

It was sarcasm, which you apparently missed. So when you said you weren't arguing science, you were...lying? That's a hand-wave, not a scientific proposal. A field is a mathematical construct and in the case of the Higgs describes interactions. You've presented no math and no description of an interaction, much less any reason to think that a field is responsible. Your words remain and you can continue to post. So "silenced" seems more like rhetoric and hyperbole. It's not a tactic that endears you to the moderators.

You should ask for your money back I think Luc needs to decide if they’re going to present a scientific argument, a philosophical one or a mystical one, make an actual argument and provide answers. Starting with: if the mind is not located in the brain, where is it located? The big toe? I think you need to look up “silenced” in a dictionary.

A false dichotomy and a strawman. And now you’re begging the question. The strategy is only dishonest if they’re hiding something, which you are assuming. This does raise the question of why they’d agree to a debate (and a debate before the convention) if they were hiding anything.

But what you propose is not science. You said it yourself - what you’re discussing is not science. It’s not particularly coherent, either.

No, that’s one take being offered up by spin doctors, people asserting opinion as if it were fact, and/or people hoping to sabotage the democrats.

Mixing metaphors like a banshee

No, there is very little chance of that. A new candidate will have less support and no election infrastructure (unless it’s Harris). Less name recognition, no federal-level accomplishments to point to, a new set of personal priorities and new skeletons to uncover. It’s a fantasy that some candidate will step in and be instantly widely popular. They will have their detractors, and at the very least the media will latch on to some issue and it’s “but her emails” all over again. Because they’ve been doing this for quite a while. The candidate that you love will be a turn-off to some fraction of the electorate, and others will be lukewarm. It’s not like the voters are some monolithic group. If there was anyone even close to being popular enough we’d know about them and they might have had this discussion a year ago when it could have worked.

What results do you get from using a search engine?

! Moderator Note Your previous thread on mesotron was shut down for a lack of science. You were told not to bring it up again. You can peddle your pet theory somewhere else. The standard, thankfully, is not whether you understand it.

Of course, subpoenas don’t have to be honored, according to GOP precedent.