Alan Zweibel

Have you tried addressing the issues with facts rather than personal comments. It's the mark of the intellectually resourceless that they resort to personal comments.

This is so dumb it's hard to know where to begin. This article is about a planet that allows for maximum diversity of life. It's not about human beings. It doesn't mean that homo sapiens, the product of evolution on earth would thrive in such an environment. Human beings have evolved in a different environment. So, it's not about what would be favorable for humans. Only that diversity of all life would be even greater on this theoretical planet than on earth.

I don't understand why you are even concerned whether or not someone is an American. I care only for the quality of what they post.

And you and Dinsdale are hopelessly and mathematically clueless. And by "mathematically" I mean "arithmetically". Trump did not win a majority of voters in the 2024 election. Dinsdale classified this victory as a "landslide.".

Actually, when Project 2025 was revealed, Trump had to quickly signal his lack of support for it because of its great unpopularity. Of course, once he was elected he put most of it into effect. And, as had been noted, his supporters took him seriously but they didn't take him literally.

It's clear where you get your information from. The anthropogenic climate change denialists typically claim that climate scientists used t believe that the earth was cooling. Even in the early days of climate science there was far more research favoring global warming than global cooling. THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS "An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests." https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml

The statisticians/economists who work for the Federal Reserve statistics division are the same people who tell you all this? This sounds like the kind of angry empty comment that would come from some politician campaigning for the Ignorant Party.

The current ice age is about 2.4 million years old. Homo sapiens have been on the planet about 200,000 years. In other words, we emerged as a species during the current ice age. And human beings have evolved over the millennia to cope with a range of climates. We definitely don't fare well when temperatures rise above that range. Yet you believe that is a desirable outcome.

An appropriate deflection?

And what's your point? That it achieved these goals before Oct 1. How does this in any way contradict the observation that recruitment is stronger when the labor market is weaker?

unfortunately, the higher temperatures associated with such high levels of CO2 would be quite catastrophic for humans who dwell in the tropics. ANd your understanding of evolution is ridiculous. Evolution is mostly a response to changing conditions. To claim that conditions millions of years ago are suited to the various forms of life as they exist today is obviously massively wrong.,

The difference between you and me is that I didn't deflect when my error was pointed out.

Despite or because of CO2? The scientific consensus is despite.

You're the party who claimed that all DOD chiefs were soldiers not me. There may well have been others. I couldn't bother to check. But you're right about McNamara. I was wrong. You might try once in a while to quote that small 3 word phrase when you are called out on your errors.

First off, what has this got to do with the crops most important to human welfare? The evidence I already cited shows a net minus for those crops.

Trump claimed that the Canadian ad was dishonest. It wasn't.

It's clear you don't have a clue about what constitutes evidence. Rah-rha-rah is not evidence. These are links to what constitutes evidence. You'll note that the first article linked to is from the DOD https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/SR05_Chapter_2.pdf https://www.businessinsider.com/jump-in-us-military-recruiting-numbers-job-market-other-factors-2025-6 https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/04/navigating-a-changing-military-recruitment-environment.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Dick Cheney? James Schlesinger? Robert McNamara? There were probably others as well.

A blatant and sad deflection.

Military Met 2024 Recruit Contracting Goals, Plans for Repeat https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/4151948/military-met-2024-recruit-contracting-goals-plans-for-repeat/ The rise in recruitment began during the Biden Presidency. Maybe improved pay and working conditions had something to do with that?, Also, historically there is a direct inverse inverse correlation betweeen a weakening labor market and military recruitment

It's clear you don't see any important difference between commanding some soldiers in a battlefield and running a department that encompasses 3.4 million people? You should be writing cliched screenplays for Hollywood.

The problem is that sometimes it's bribery.

What has any of that got to do with running a huge organization like the Pentagon?

It's no wonder that not just most but the majority of voters voted for Biden over Trump. He was just the better option.

If you believe that the crops gardeners raise has much relevance to the issue of grain production then you have a point. Otherwise not so much. And I see you have nothing to post in reply about the issue of soil fertility.