I read that he can't sell those stocks for another 6 months, so that directly may not help immediately. But it clearly would provide basis for collateral. Now ... just also heard that he can use his assets to cover the 175. So, in a liberal district, trumpie just won hugely.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
I think man is a cause of warming. Didn't use to think so, but recently attended a talk where the presenter showed how the traditional, hundreds of year correlation between sun intensity/earth orbit & earth temperatures isn't follwoing the pattern this time. By the pattern, temps would be dropping now. And there's no denying CO2 is rising - now 425ppm. I recall it being 280ppm at some point in the past. 1970?
Coal is by far the biggest man caused CO2 source at ~40%. Cars & vans are 10%.
So, should we be trying to stop/lower CO2 emissions? Beats me. Should be be imposing auto power source changes that do nothing to 50% reduce their CO2 emissions from materials sourcing to end life? I say hell no till you fix the coal issue, then lets talk.
So how many court cases have failed now?
1. Colorado, and with it, Illinois and Maine ... others?
2. Big Fani is going down in flames and may face time herself (in a just world).
3. Alvin Bragg is falling apart through appeals
4. Letitia James also falling apart
5. SCOTUS has basically ended Jack Smith (?)
1. Colorado, and with it, Illinois and Maine ... others?
2. Big Fani is going down in flames and may face time herself (in a just world).
3. Alvin Bragg is falling apart through appeals
4. Letitia James also falling apart
5. SCOTUS has basically ended Jack Smith (?)
Pretty much. He is worth (on paper) 3.5 billion more than he was a week ago. I'm sure his credit is good enough to cover 175 million.
He just keeps rolling along. LOL
The most effective way to do that is to go nuclear baby!
EV's aren't the answer (yet), in fact they're exponentially worse than fuel and emissons efficient IC cars.
How is climate change a hoax if temps are rising?
Also, I ask again, do you think a) temps are rising, b) dropping, or c) staying the same? With MAY, I can't tell what the hell you think.
My first problem is with the presenter's case ... who was here to measure this a thousand, or hundreds of years ago? Should we trust that data? I think it is way too premature to tell.
My second problem is the people that demand WE give up rights show NO CARE in the world (haha) of what THEY do. It is pure rank, elitist hypocrisy.
There are many other problems (what was the effect of New Palestine OH?) , but given this is a chat, I'll stop. I appreciate your response FTR.
I'm not going to join in on a climate change debate, BUT, fossil fuels DO need to be replaced where it's practical, and can make a difference. For one thing, they're going to run out, no matter what, so...
Until battery technology makes a quantum leap, the single biggest move, mankind can make, to reducing CO2 is to go exclusively to nuclear power plants. There is nothing else even close.
Until battery technology makes a quantum leap, the single biggest move, mankind can make, to reducing CO2 is to go exclusively to nuclear power plants. There is nothing else even close.
I think the part that is a hoax is blaming it ALL on man and demanding that we give up freedoms and choices in the name of saving the planet. And these people do not hold the main polluters, China and India, accountable. Instead they verbally attack the only country that allows its citizens to verbally attack it. A pretty convenient truth.
How much closer to nuclear are we today compared to 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 1 year ago?
The liberals ignored nukes and even fought against nukes for year. They give them lip service today. But, when is the earliest we could get nukes on line so that we could shut coal down?
This is why I don’t believe people really believe there is an imminent threat with regard to warming.
I'll say this though. The US is the least of the globes worries, when it comes to net CO2
(well, maybe not the LEAST, but we're aways down the list.)
(well, maybe not the LEAST, but we're aways down the list.)
Last edited:
We're NO closer. That's why I ignore all of the alarmists. Go all nuclear, and then we can start to talk about other measures. Until you do that, you're adding to the CO2 with all of your hot air, meaningless blather. NOTHING will ever come close to the CO2 reduction that we would see by replacing fossil fuel electic plants with nuclear.How much closer to nuclear are we today compared to 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 1 year ago?
The liberals ignored nukes and even fought against nukes for year. They give them lip service today. But, when is the earliest we could get nukes on line so that we could shut coal down?
This is why I don’t believe people really believe there is an imminent threat with regard to warming.
It's science...
Theres the issue I have with all the climate change bs. If they are so concerned, why are they not making a bigger stink with China and India? And who are the biggest polluters of our oceans? It’s not the USA.
No, it's NOT the USA, but like I said, it's clearly NOT about seriously reducing CO2. If it was, well then... nuclear.
Until they do that, it's all just economy manipulation as far as I'm concerned.
IOW - put up or STFU about it. Just governments and government funded researchers engaging in a circle-jerk.
Until they do that, it's all just economy manipulation as far as I'm concerned.
IOW - put up or STFU about it. Just governments and government funded researchers engaging in a circle-jerk.
I think climate may be doing this or that, and I don't really care much either way.
The hoax part comes from the lunatics like Kerry and Greta chirping how the world will end in 10 years, etc etc, and the MSM amplifying that rubbish.
Marley - Just don't even engage on it. Nobody is willing to do what is necessary so all of their piffle is meaningless until they ARE willing. It's a circular meaningless debate.
The climate change alarmists would rather pop pimples, and ignore the tumor.
The climate change alarmists would rather pop pimples, and ignore the tumor.
Is thick headed samshinbone paying attention? He never intended to fix the border with that bill. It was only meant to give more power to the state and not change a damn thing. We need a revolution, now.
I’d like to have drinks with Cal, but he wouldn’t make it past the 1st round.
ouch!! poor piece of pig dung murderous scum Muslim terrorist
would’ve been released without bail in nyc
would’ve been released without bail in nyc
CO2 rising is true, as far as I can tell. However, it's still <.5% of the atmosphere. And, in Biology 101 I was taught that plants need/live off of CO2. So, how is higher CO2 levels 'killing' the planet? Certainly there is a point of diminishing return but much of what I have read suggests current CO2 levels are not dangerous and actually lower than they have been in previous geologic ages of the earth. One would certainly expect that CO2 levels would have been significantly higher when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and more of the earth was extremely fertile and significantly lower during Ice Ages, right?
1000% agree on replacing coal as an energy source. What you left out is which countries are hellbent on firing up coal-fired generators? China and India. Not surprising, which 2 countries are absent from any admonition by this administration as they get on their rhetorical high horse about what America needs to do to save the planet. And, by the way, why are those two countries so committed to building coal-fired energy plants? Because, they're POOR and cheap, clean energy has been the fuel to Western civilization's higher standard of living.
As others have just stated, the cleanest (from an global warming standpoint) alternative is nuclear which the climate crusaders are adamantly opposed to. So, that begs the question: if they're against the best and cleanest alternative energy source to replace what is considered the dirtiest, what, exactly is the agenda they're promoting? Is it really cleaner energy to 'save' the planet or it is something completely different?
It's pretty well agreed upon that you can't run today's society depending wholly on solar and wind - they're too inconsistent. Using them as supplementary supplies and backups - absolutely (although they are not without environmental impact to flora and fauna and mining operations and disposal and, and, and). The airport shuttles at Houston's Bush Int'l Airport all run on natural gas, which burns cleaner than gasoline. Since NG is very plentiful, why aren't we developing that technology to plug the gap between gasoline/diesel transportation and all-electric, which, is still in its infancy. Why aren't the climate crusaders calling for development of hydrogen fuel cells, like Toyota has been doing, which, when burned, emits water vapor and is literally everywhere in the atmosphere and doesn't have to be mined by enslaved children? Again, these questions go back to the bigger question on skeptics' minds: is this crusade really about saving the planet or is it something else (and, conservatives tend to infer some agenda infinitely more nefarious than saving the planet)?
One big hangup I have with the whole movement is that the data we have is very limited and nonexistent beyond a few decades. If we're in a 5k or 10k or 50k year cycle, how can we possibly be able to predict/conclude anything? We have NO data of any reliability beyond maybe a 100 years. I just saw an article recently where some 'scientific' body stated that the world's oceans have risen 9" in the past 20 years (or something like that) and, of course, that was ballyhooed as one more indication that the planet needs saving. What they didn't say was the average depth of the earth's oceans is around 12,000 feet. How does one go about measuring the depth of the ocean accurately? And, wouldn't 9" represent .0063% of 12,000 feet - the dictionary definition of a 'rounding error' if I ever saw one. Bear in mind that the climate is an ecosystem that probably consists of 1,000 or more separate variables. How can any scientist look at one (CO2 levels) and confidently predict what the total system's reaction will be?
? I didn’t get anything wrong. I described your hypothetical exactly like you did here. What about my characterization was inaccurate?
So? One doesn’t get to just make things up to support their argument. ‘Hey everyone, there’s really like sixteen gods, many more than your crappy one, and they ALL support my position so you’re outnumbered sixteen to one in godpower so my position is stronger and more correct than yours!’ We invented rights and we determine the morality around them to this day, just like we did when we created them. Yes that makes them fragile, but also valuable and worth protecting. Did their rights supposedly being derived from God help Japanese Americans keep them during WWII?
Last edited:
And yet income inequality continues to rise. They can afford to pay much more before it affects them a small fraction of what it does to us.
Yep income inequality continues to rise.
We all keep sending our tax money to Washington, and the wealth gap between America on the one hand, and Washington DC and the surrounding counties on the other hand continues to grow.
If you work at a coal mine in EKY, the last thing in the world you should want is more money sent to Washington.
Go to work and make your own money and pay some taxes.
Why do temps continue to rise while solar output has been on the decline since the 60s then?
You seem to be hung up on God. God has very little to with the definition of natural rights. God doesn't have to exist for natural rights to exist. It's just that the framers said they are endowed by our creator. They exist because you exist, God or no God.
Because leaving things in the hands of the corporations always worked out so well for the coal miners of Eastern Kentucky. The shell casings all over Blair Mountain beg to differ.
There’s plenty of money in Washington to get you your direct welfare. Sending more money to Washington will have a net negative impact on the lives of Americans.
Don’t know how they will enforce it. Some parents will just sign up for them.
It’s the same argument. If they exist inherently as a function of being human and you don’t support government suppressing them for citizens, why do you support government suppressing them for noncitizens?
Last edited:
Are you still going with this shit?
Someone may oppose the U.S. government bombing a school teacher in Afghanistan, but that doesn’t mean they think the Constitution of the United States of America is the appropriate means by which the United States government is restrained from infringing upon the rights of someone in Afghanistan.
totally obvious yet it seems like absolutely nothing is being done about it.
each day i see reports about the continuing invasion and each day i have worsening anxiety about the election
each day i see reports about the continuing invasion and each day i have worsening anxiety about the election
Going to be so pissed if calipari convinces Jamal mashburn’s son to come play with Reed and that gives Calipari breathing room to stick around for another agonizing year capped by a flame out in the first round.
I dunno, but if it is CO2, we should do something about that. I'd be behind any promising/meaningful ideas that the climate change left can come up with. But so far, none have been proposed.
So basically, get back to me when you have something that will make a difference. Until then, STFU already.
Similar threads
