Which would accomplish this much more, scientifically, than robots: 0. But let’s plan for future human habitation on a planet without a strong magnetic field, that’s dryer than the Atacama desert, and colder than Antarctica.

They’ll increase funding for Mars, then cut it from climate research.

Rae: your article was interesting, and, unlike most of the commentariat, as somebody with basic English comprehension, I was able to intuit that Matt Damon was not actually the author of the movie or responsible for the plot. I don’t think Andy Weir is hyperventilating at this point. Carry on.

Yeah, because every reader of the article, especially those who read The Martian, might be confused by that.

What a weird take on something totally innocuous. You’re not Andy Weir, are you?

If you’re smart enough to like the book, you’re smart enough to know that a) there was a movie made, and b) it’s not beyond the pale to reference the movie and c) no, the star did not think this up. It’s not a legal brief...

She never implies that Matt Damon wrote the book. Comprehension fail.

“Are Humpback Whales Plotting to Take Over the World?”

You lost. Get over it.

2000 years of German heritage != white. Got it.

Whites, colors, towels. That’s it.

Sock laundry? How many damn pairs of socks do you have?

Because the Latin prefix “in-” can mean “not”, but also “extremely.”

No. A law is a an observed pattern in nature. Kepler’s third law, for example, identified the relationship between a planet’s orbital period and distance from the sun, but it couldn’t explain why. A theory is an explanation: Newton’s theory of gravity provided an explanation for Kepler’s laws.

Laws are not “really well proven theories”. A law is a regular pattern in nature. Kepler’s laws are laws: they’re a mathematical definition of some phenomena. A theory is an explanation. Newton’s theory of gravity provides an explanation, or logical basis, for Kepler’s laws.

“Unfortunately, they are pretty bad at it.”

They think that their millions will protect them. And they’re right.

Why doesn’t he say “I’ll get the opinion of our top EPA climate scientists?” He’s basically denying the findings of his own department.

But they cut NOAA. Which was running the latest climate monitoring satellites.