Don Edwards

I've never seen that argument offered, except for from some extreme religious fundamentalists who deny a bunch of other science as well. Well, over the past 600 million years, global temperature has dropped dramatically during periods of high CO2 level, and risen dramatically during periods of low CO2 level. Also, we're currently in a period of low CO2 level - and the rise that we're assured will mean the destruction of everything is far less than sufficient to get it up to its average over that period. http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/global-temperature-and-co2-levels-for-last-600-million-years/ But how about a shorter term? Well, for one thing, the atmospheric CO2 level began rising about 7,000 years ago, when global temperature was rather warmer than it is today; in contrast, for the first half of that period the overall temperature trend was downward - then it spiked up for some unknown reason, after which it returned to a descending pattern. And before those 7,000 years? About a 4,000 year trend of generally rising temperature and declining CO2. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/ (Scroll down to the second graph for that time scale.) Closer looks at some longer time periods reveal that rising temperatures can cause the CO2 level to rise, with a lag of several hundred years - which lag is too short to be visible if you're looking at really long time scales and not at sufficiently fine detail. However, other longer time periods don't necessarily support that correlation. I won't argue against that because it's a valid concern. Now let me tell you why I do not trust the scientists that argue for climate change: it is because they are doing so in a manner that gives the impression that they are guarding the interests of very powerful people who want to be even more powerful. And I note that a very large share of them are funded by the main seats of power: governments. What do they propose we do to fight this climate change? Grant more power to governments to more heavily regulate - if not take over - more and more of the economy. Reduce prosperity overall, increasing the advantage of those who control the reins of government spending (or have friends or allies who do, or work for them) over those who do not. Restrict innovation outside their preferred channels, which would reduce risk of unexpected challenges to their power. And have we seen these proposals before? YES! In fact, they are the proposed response to pretty much every crisis, real or imagined, local or national or global, since Herbert Hoover became President, including the Coming Ice Age scare of the early 1970s. Sometimes even in detail - we (I was there for the Coming Ice Age) were supposed to fight the global cooling trend, or help prepare for it, I forget which, by reducing oil consumption for transportation and home heating. Which would have had all the effects described in the previous paragraph. But, if the CO2-causes-global-warming theory is right to a functional degree (in simple theory, it is, but real planets aren't simple, real planets with atmospheres are less simple, adding oceans and/or clouds removes simplicity, and biospheres, hoo boy!), would have been just the wrong thing to do about an actual Coming Ice Age. (About the same time, we were also Running Out Of Oil, and obviously needed to have the government ration it.) And then we get to data adjustment. There are legitimate reasons to adjust data... but it's strange that practically every adjustment of the data in government-sponsored databases is in the direction that supports the global-warming thesis. In fact, an interesting correlation has been discovered in some databases: the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more they have to add to instrument temperature readings in order to get the "official, adjusted" temperature. In a linear relationship. This was found in both USHCN data and, somewhat less strongly, in some Australian data gotten from NASA: https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/adjustments-vs-co2/ This seriously smacks of "we know what the answer is, fix the data to match."

And I was thinking more along the lines of masculopathy - she hates men. Not fears (so not a phobia) but hates. Gay men are (I'm guessing she thinks) a bit less manly, so a bit less hated.

This is relevant...

Insufficiently creative in building a backstory. The closest thing to a seriously minmaxed character I had was a two-blade Ranger who was all about mobility and multi-attacks. D&D 4E gives a character 3 actions during his turn: a movement, a major, and a minor. He'd move on all three of them and between the major and the minor would get in at least three attacks - routinely. Backstory? Temple dancer. With a lot more going on as well - the name he goes by honors a murdered lover, and he won't name his family, his country, the temple he trained in, or the gods he once worshiped. (And I know why. I could write quite a long story leading up to his beginning his adventuring career - at one point I had about the first five pages of it written, but it got lost somewhere along the years.) Insufficiently intelligent in building a character and backstory that makes sense. There's a place for the adventurer with minimal adventuring skills: a campaign deliberately designed for PCs who are beginners and forced by circumstances to become adventurers, rather than choosing it from among other viable options and properly training for it before setting out. But other than that -- sure, a 7th level fighter might also be a gourmet chef, either left over from a previous career or chosen as a hobby and a way to get something more interesting than purple-worm-and-ochre-jelly sandwiches again... but he also needs to have been effective enough often enough as a fighter to reach 7th level, so there's no way for him to plausibly be worthless as a fighter.

I personally never saw a conflict between gamist and immersionist styles in RPGs. I usually did both, simultaneously. A character doesn't have just a class, he also has a particular role in the party which may differ from character to character and party to party, even if the classes and levels are identical. A minmaxer will maximize certain abilities available to the class, and define the character's role to fit; an immersionist will let the role develop and maximize the abilities needed for that role - the result is about the same, with a character whose abilities are well tuned to his precise role in the party. Where I saw a conflict was when the player had one idea of their character's role in the party, and another player tried to push them into a different role. (Note: D&D4E categorized classes into roles - but that isn't what I mean as those roles are FAR too general. As becomes apparent when one considers a large party. Your two Wizards will both be effective but in different ways. Your two Rogues will have different specialties. And so on. Your two Leaders, a Cleric and a Warlord, will be vastly different.)

But see, THIS is the kind of discussion I want to see happening - and I don't. Or, very rarely. What I see far more often is one side saying "yes, there has been global warming, but there's nothing abnormal about it, and here's the science behind that" and the other side replying "yes there is too global warming, why won't you anti-science idiots admit it?" Which makes the latter side look like they are both anti-science and anti-constructive-discourse.

But isn't it more of a hypertetrakaidecahedron?

And I wish people would shut up about those idiots, and instead sincerely address the scientists who point out that this bout of global warming looks rather similar to the bout that ended a thousand years ago, and the bout that ended a thousand years before that or the prior dozen or so at thousand-year intervals (with a slowly-declining trend in just how warm things get), and that the evidence that humans EITHER contribute significantly to the cause OR can do anything to slow it is really weak... ... and that if the climate continues to repeat its past pattern, this warming is about over anyway...

That fits what I was thinking: that the cat wasn't really eating the french fries, he was eating the salt and maybe the grease - and the french fries just came along for the ride. Cats have no interest in sweets as such. They can't taste "sweet". Which of course doesn't mean the sweets can't contain other things that cats DO like, such as fats and milk proteins.

Therapists in general, yes. Therapists assigned to help the personnel of organizations specifically constructed to deal with magic, no.

Our cat had no problems with "the vet"... it was the "going to", i.e. getting the critter into the carrier and retaining our hearing and sanity while he yowled his demands to be let out, that was the problem.

For some reason, the expression "not that simple" is bouncing around inside my head... My guess is that some settings enlarge one thing and shrink something else. Possibly on the same person.

And I've driven through the intersection of Woodcock and Kitchen Dick.

1. Grace has told Sam that she knows about magic marks, and that she (somehow) got powers without needing a magic mark. If Sam thinks about things a minute, he'll know that Grace knows someone who has or had a mark. Either that, or she's had some conversations with Immortals. 2. Similar to what? There has been no comment on what power Sam has.

A majority of US states have provisions in their state constitutions doing that - for all legislation. So not only can they not combine issues on ballot referenda, they cannot combine issues in acts of the state legislature. Also, typically, the subject of the legislation must be stated in the title of the bill. It can be taken oddly though. The Washington state supreme court ruled that cutting three taxes and limiting the legislature's ability to raise taxes was more than one issue. The people who sponsored that initiative (which had passed by a wide margin) then sponsored another initiative that just cut two taxes, which (after it also passed by a wide margin) was ruled to be two separate issues and not adequately described as "an initiative to cut taxes". So then they sponsored a third initiative which changed one word of state law...

Hm... Grace could write two notes. 1) Sam: I'm pretty confident that your secret won't bother Sarah. She has secrets of her own that are different but relevant. 2) Sarah: Sam has a secret which he thinks will be a problem when you find out. It won't. But give him time. Now I'm trying to decide if it would be better (and, separately, more amusing) if she delivers them correctly, or if she mixes them up.

Actually, since Nanase says she's going to go get Sarah's clothes, it seems reasonable to assume that Sarah still hasn't gotten her clothes back yet - let alone gotten any of them on.

Roswell, N.M. Boy does THAT explain a lot!

Sam still has to spend lots of time presenting as female. He'd probably buy those products during that time, as it's rather unusual for a male his age to be buying them. Unless, of course, he has an immediate need and forgot to bring some... but then Grace is hardly more of a threat to him because of that than anyone else. Alternatively... if he has an immediate need and forgot to bring some, he could have been looking for Grace in hopes that he could get one from her, and is avoiding this other girl who is with Grace at the moment. (Or just didn't want to interrupt.)

If the discussion of the financial side of paleontology in the book Boundary (Flint/Spoor) is a useful guide, $6M would be somewhat above average for an archaeologist's non-teaching budget... for life.

It does seem like Elliot is the only one who's even considered that other Immortals could mark people, and that was only to think of asking them to help transgender people, not to wonder if they've been marking others the way Pandora had. However, Noah's reaction to the idea of an Immortal marking someone without asking or telling them makes it seem like such behavior is very much outside the norm. Noah's information is - at best - second-hand through Adrian, who had no communication with his mother for most of Noah's life. And I got the impression that such extended separations are not unusual. Noah may not know what is really normal among immortals. Marking someone definitely qualifies as empowering them. Is there any obligation to guide those whom one empowers? Pandora never got in trouble (that we saw) for neglecting to ask people's permission before marking them or even tell them they're marked. And she had done it often enough to know, or at least to think, that people usually discover their mark-powers pretty quickly.

As for making Camdin "less hot", in my opinion he wouldn't be hot if you doused him in gasoline and threw a lit match at him. Which I wouldn't approve of, but would sympathize with the desire.

And if you go to an underground cheese store, you might encounter a wandering muenster.

Regarding the author's comments: Don't worry, Dan, I don't think you're old.

I did once make an 18" piece of yarn from a cat's fur - from just one brushing. (Part Maine Coon without guard hairs. Pretty much the dictionary definition of a soft & fluffy cat.)