NY Post Story on Hunter Biden quickly unraveling.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

He believes global warming is real and the consequences if not addressed at all will be dire. Though he sees progress in this regard.

That progress is coming from those who know it is real.

He just does not believe in political accords to solve it, he says we must use alternative energy sources and technology or adapt to may be a warming we cannot stop.

And you are really tender when you are insulted but cannot come up with a better insult than "dimwit."

You need to work on that.

You are literally dim witted. I'm good with that.

 

[candycorn]

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Mind you most scientist disagree with him, so I am not siting him as an authority as you are.

You mean citing....right?

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

You have not made a case there are any clear comparisons with the Syrian Kurds and Vietnam, no historian would, but if you can I await.

Being much smarter than you, apparently, I made no efforts to make direct comparisons between Viet Nam and the Kurds , per se.

I only made comparisons to being bogged down in foreign wars where there was no way to win and
an exit strategy was non existent. Again, the possibility of being caught between Turkey and Russia
for an ally we had already spent lots of money and lives on (where we would have to keep
escalating our military presence in a foreign conflict) after ISIS was put down (which actually was a much bigger deal for the Kurds than any material benefit we could gain).

I hope you got the message by now. I don't intend to squabble over this non point endlessly). You haven't made any comments about how this military quagmire was NOT like Viet Nam so I have to assume
you agree but are too cowardly to say so.

The strategy with the Syrian Kurds was clear, defeat ISIS and then keep our diplomatic assurances (as we did with the Iraqi Kurds post the First Gulf War) and protect them until a settlement can be made with the Syrian government.

The objectives were clear, militarily they were achieved and political they were making progress.

And then Trump turned tail and ran.

Maybe if you didn't have to exaggerate and make crap up in order to slander Trump again.

The Kurds did most of the hard yards, loosing 12,000 fighters, we provided assitance

You have not made a case there are any clear comparisons with the Syrian Kurds and Vietnam, no historian would, but if you can I await.

Being much smarter than you, apparently, I made no efforts to make direct comparisons between Viet Nam and the Kurds , per se.

I only made comparisons to being bogged down in foreign wars where there was no way to win and
an exit strategy was non existent. Again, the possibility of being caught between Turkey and Russia
for an ally we had already spent lots of money and lives on (where we would have to keep
escalating our military presence in a foreign conflict) after ISIS was put down (which actually was a much bigger deal for the Kurds than any material benefit we could gain).

I hope you got the message by now. I don't intend to squabble over this non point endlessly). You haven't made any comments about how this military quagmire was NOT like Viet Nam so I have to assume
you agree but are too cowardly to say so.

The strategy with the Syrian Kurds was clear, defeat ISIS and then keep our diplomatic assurances (as we did with the Iraqi Kurds post the First Gulf War) and protect them until a settlement can be made with the Syrian government.

The objectives were clear, militarily they were achieved and political they were making progress.

And then Trump turned tail and ran.

Maybe if you didn't have to exaggerate and make crap up in order to slander Trump again.

Except you have made no case we were bogged down, provided no evidence, nor were we increasing our numbers as ISIS was knocked out of the region.

The Kurds did most of the hard yards, loosing 12,000 fighters.


We were keeping a military presence there to protect the ally who really won that war against ISIS, which was in US interest and then seeing them to a political solution.

This is called good diplomacy.

Trump threw it away, even much of his own lap dog party the Republicans felt disgrace on that one.

There is no comparison to Vietnam what so ever.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Do you read your own posts?

You brought up Vietnam and made the comparison?

I sure did. So what about it?
Did I say anything you take an objection to?

Your lame ad hom insults are a poor substitute for an argument, though I guess it's the best
you can do given your sub par intellect. Again, where was I off base?

I guess you can't say.

You mean ad hominem right?

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

He believes global warming is real and the consequences if not addressed at all will be dire. Though he sees progress in this regard.

That progress is coming from those who know it is real.

He just does not believe in political accords to solve it, he says we must use alternative energy sources and technology or adapt to may be a warming we cannot stop.

And you are really tender when you are insulted but cannot come up with a better insult than "dimwit."

You need to work on that.

You are literally dim witted. I'm good with that.

Oh my, is that ad hominem?

I thought your tender little heart was against that sort of thing?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Native Americans could be brutal, even commit genocide, this is the human stain. It is just capitalism often justifies it in the name of gain.

Gold too, do not forget the gold.

So the capitalist greed for gold defied even the US government and invaded the Black Hills. Just as capitalist faith in markets saw the Irish starve in mass during the potato famine.

And one could go on and on about those who worship nothing but greed and self interest.

This reads like some of the crap I used to see in my son's history textbooks from Howard Zinn.
I won't babysit you by going down that rabbit hole.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You mean ad hominem right?

Yeah. Ad hom. Same thing. Didn't anyone ever show you?

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Native Americans could be brutal, even commit genocide, this is the human stain. It is just capitalism often justifies it in the name of gain.

Gold too, do not forget the gold.

So the capitalist greed for gold defied even the US government and invaded the Black Hills. Just as capitalist faith in markets saw the Irish starve in mass during the potato famine.

And one could go on and on about those who worship nothing but greed and self interest.

This reads like some of the crap I used to see in my son's history textbooks from Howard Zinn.
I won't babysit you by going down that rabbit hole.

So you cannot refute it, I accept your surrender and you may keep your side arms and mule.

Your mule is named Ad Hominem right?

 

[sakinago]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Yea...thermodynamics is deluded gibberish. OooKay. You mind pointing out which parts are “gibberish”? Unlike you I actually can read and understand the science. The problem with people like you is, you don’t actually read the science. You read the articles written by journalist (really activist), who read an article from another “journalist” in a “science” publication, that dilute the actual science. Go ahead, look up the chemicals used in solar panels. Look up the amount of land required. Look up the MJ/kg. Look up where the waste from solar panels is getting dumped. Look up how long solar panels last. You should probably give yourself a refresher on thermodynamics (8th grade science) and things like energy gradients. Probably freshen up on plant respiration. FACT: Solar only works when the sun is shining. FACT windmills only work when there is SUFFICIENT wind. So how exactly do people get their power when there isn’t sun or wind?

All I’m talking about is energy gradients. Doesn’t require a whole lot of energy to boil water. In fact, nuclear materials just do it by simply existing. It does require a lot of energy to convert photons into USABLE energy. Yea plants do it, but they also don’t have things like muscles, digestive tracts, brains, eyes, etc, that all require a lot of energy so they can get away with it. Do you see where I’m getting with this?

EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT EXACTLY I GOT WRONG.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Yea...thermodynamics is deluded gibberish. OooKay. You mind pointing out which parts are “gibberish”? Unlike you I actually can read and understand the science. The problem with people like you is, you don’t actually read the science. You read the articles written by journalist (really activist), who read an article from another “journalist” in a “science” publication, that dilute the actual science. Go ahead, look up the chemicals used in solar panels. Look up the amount of land required. Look up the MJ/kg. Look up where the waste from solar panels is getting dumped. Look up how long solar panels last. You should probably give yourself a refresher on thermodynamics (8th grade science) and things like energy gradients. Probably freshen up on plant respiration. FACT: Solar only works when the sun is shining. FACT windmills only work when there is SUFFICIENT wind. So how exactly do people get their power when there isn’t sun or wind?

All I’m talking about is energy gradients. Doesn’t require a whole lot of energy to boil water. In fact, nuclear materials just do it by simply existing. It does require a lot of energy to convert photons into USABLE energy. Yea plants do it, but they also don’t have things like muscles, digestive tracts, brains, eyes, etc, that all require a lot of energy so they can get away with it. Do you see where I’m getting with this?

EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT EXACTLY I GOT WRONG.

The science, you got the entire science of climate change wrong.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists do not think solar winds are the major driver of global warming.

Rather we are warming because of carbon emissions from man.

You see science is not just making it up in your own head, cherry picking only what you want to believe, it just does not work that way.

"Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim. "

The Role of Sunspots and Solar Winds in Climate Change

Do these natural phenomena have a greater impact on climate change than humans and industrialization?

www.scientificamerican.com

.

 

[sakinago]

And that of course would be the case through out the world, so we can still rationally compare outcomes and Germany's outcome is much better than America's.

NO. That is NOT the case throughout the world unless the CDC is now managing the health of the entire planet.
The subject is how the CDC inflated deaths in the US by attributing all deaths to the Chinese originated
covid virus if the virus was present at all. So much so that the CDC was pressured into changing that policy.

Nevertheless that policy was in place for months and the US death toll remains inflated and uncorrected
and you remain disingenuous.

All countries are using that methodology, they have an "excess death mythology" as defined as " A range of estimates for the number of excess deaths was calculated as the difference between the observed count and one of two thresholds (either the average expected count or the upper bound threshold), by week and jurisdiction. Negative values, where the observed count fell below the threshold, were set to zero."

And the method of if one did not have a prognosis of death within the year and contracted COVID it is counted across the globe as a Covid related death.

There is no world health body, or American for that matter, which believes the USA is doing well in this pandemic.

Just wishing Americans were not dropping like flies by playing semantics with the numbers is not going to save any American lives.

America is far from the worst record when it comes to covid deaths and far from the best.
I know it serves your agenda to state otherwise, however. Saying we are "dropping like flies" is disingenuous and misleading and it won't win Joe the election you so desperately want.
Nothing will including all the post election chaos and disorder the left has planned.


As things stand right now we will have a covid vaccine soon and society will begin to come out of
politicized lockdown box leftist swine has tried to keep us in.

Joe Biden and all the Karens can wear their little masks all day long, if it thrills them to do so.

Only Spain in Europe has a worse death per 100K rate right now.

As in the chart I have provided in this thread many times.

Just to be clear....

There are other countries...just not in Europe....that have worse rates.

Also, we pay our hospitals more for treating COVID, so anyone who dies, that has COVID is listed as a "COVID" death, whereas in most countries unless COVID is actually what caused your death, your cause of death is not listed as COVID. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Medical stats from country to country are NEVER an apples-to-apples comparison, because they don't compile ANY medical stats the same way we do. How many times have we heard the canard that infant mortality in the US is so much worse than the rest of the world, only to find out that it's largely because other countries simply don't count children who die in the first week of life as ever having existed at all?

On COVID the death rates per 100k most developed nations are using the same method, indeed it is the USA that most world health bodies are concerned are vastly under reporting due to your fragment health care system run by 50 different states. Some estimates are that the USA is under reporting by 33%.

You mean our health care system that bodies the DHSC for legit life threatening diseases like cancer. Our health care system where you can actually get the surgery you need within a week. Our healthcare system that the rest of the world, except Switzerland, has been leaching off of our innovation and the tens of billions we drop into R+D every year. That healthcare system? Y’all treat the healthy for dumb shit like broken arms and infections, while taxing the fuck out of your citizens and pretend like you’re hero’s for doing so. Meanwhile Canada sends all their cancer patients TO ME, to get the very best treatment that WE develop, and then pay for it. Your nurses and doctors are garbage. When y’all can start actually saving your cancer patients and stop sending them to me, and actually preform surgeries on things like joint replacements that aren’t outdated 30 years, when your hospitals have as many top of the line critical care beds as ours do, when you actually do your part in the world and start developing drugs, procedures, and technologies...then you can lecture us on our healthcare.

Me and my wife both work in one of the largest hospitals right next to the covid epicenter. We’re over reporting. 100%. Notice how the flu has effectively disappeared? In this current “spike”, we have 6 covid patients who are actually suffering from covid, among other things.

Australia has similar wait times as the USA, in fact shorter wait times for GP visits, yet gets far better results in every macro category except breast cancer treatment, and even there we are just behind the USA.

All at much cheaper cost.

BECUASE YOU SEND YOUR WORST CANCER PATIENTS TO US TO FIX. Ipso facto, y’all fucks don’t take the hit in death rates. We take on the worst cases, and still have a better death rate than all of y’all. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to take care of healthy people. In Europe they go to Switzerland. What’s the last medical innovation that came out of Australia? At least the French have Sanofi. Stop fucking swimming in our wake. We’re basically subsidizing the entire globes R+D. We’ve been subsidizing NATOs defense spending for decades. We just invented a goddamn missile that goes Mach 45. Why? Because y’all made incredibly stupid deals with China and now you’re having buyers remorse. And now we’re gonna have to arm you once again. What have you done recently for me Australia? The fucking gall of you foreigners who come here and lecture us about our politics while we’re the ones putting in the elbow grease to make YOUR lives better, healthier, and safer.

No we do not actually.

Australia has the best cancer treatment survival rates in the world.

Australia leads global cancer survival rates – but more can be done

An international study shows Australians have the best chance of survival for seven types of cancers.

www1.racgp.org.au

Here is a good article about Australian heath care and why over all it gets better outcomes than the USA at much lower cost.

What Australia can teach America about health care

Why the Australian system might represent a realistic path forward for the US.

www.vox.com

Nobody cares about your healthcare system....especially the spin from America hating Vox idiots.

You don't have to care.

You can continue to naval gaze as many Americans love to do.

I am just throwing the facts out there for the intelligent minority of Americans to consider.

Intelligent people learn from the rest of the world, both good and bad.

Facts? The only thing you threw out was Vox bullshit.

I understand, the cult of Trump only believes anything Trump says, nothing else.

All cults work this way.

You sound as if you are involved in the cult of the bubble.
A real true believer.

Though only thing I believe in is scientific method, blue skies and cold Australian beer, the rest is just an opinion.

You believe in global warming, so you don't believe in the scientific method.

Yes I do and so does NASA.

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

climate.nasa.gov

We have been in a long term cooling trend for 6,000 years, True or False?

The Holocene climate was warming and actually proves our current warming in large part iscaused by humans. The warming 6,000 years ago was caused by Earth orbital changes which are currently not occurring or causing such rapid warming.

This is actually more evidence of human caused global warming in our time.

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

" Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."

Here is a basic primer on why previous climate changes are not proof this climate change is not man made, rather proof it is.



"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions."

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our...

skepticalscience.com

That's pure bunk. We have no idea what temperature fluctuations were like 6000 years ago. The granularity of our records is measured in hundreds of years. You can't legitimately claim our temperatures have departed from anything. There is nothing unusual about our current warming.

I quote the link below again.

"The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD....

Fake news. There was no "scheduled date" for the next glacial advance.

... But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions. "...

Fake News, temperatures began recovering at the end of the little ice age, and with warming temperatures, we get rising CO^2 levels, and earth's processes convert some of the excess CO^2 into living cells.

... We should be in a cooling period...

We are cooler than we were 5,000 years ago.

... denilist cheery....

No. The last interglacial lasted about 15,000 years, and we are pacing fairly consistently with that. Everything is as expected.

... Climate change denial has all the hallmarks of faith or religion, it only sees what it wants to see....

You are the one promoting a Doomsday Cult, I'm just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support your claims, which is the way with doomsday cults. They point to a date when the world is supposed to end, and then they are disappointed when the date passes uneventfully.

Your fake news is faker than the fake news you think is fake news.

The science is clear if you could understand it, the oribital causes of climate change was seeing us going into a cooling period well into the next thousand years but the carbon released from the industrial revolution changed all that.


I think I will trust the majority of climate scientists and NASA before I will trust a cult member always chanting "fake news" when confronted with scientific information they simply do not want to believe.

The actual science is the more energy dense fuel you use, the less carbon emissions there actually is. The order of energy density goes from (least-greatest) wood, coal, oil, gas, then nuclear (which doesn’t have carbon as a byproduct of the process). Wood is at 16 MJ/kg vs coal (depending on the type) is in the range of 20-30MJ/kg. Due to the laws of physics, it takes around twice the amount of carbon expenditure for wood to boil water (boiling water is the method for basically every large scale power generation) compared to coal. Natural gas is at 40 MJ/m3. So, thanks to Isaac Newton natural gas uses at least 33% less carbon byproduct to boil water. On top of that, with the nature of it being gas, and technology allowing precision amounts of gas to obtain the desired temp, there’s far less wasteful burning of it vs a solid fuel. In other words, a 1/m3 of gas goes a lot further than 1/KG of any solid fuel. Maybe you could achieve the same results with a powdered fuel as you would gas, but to powder it would be a process that requires more energy expenditure than gas in its natural form. Obviously because there is no carbon involved in the nuclear process, it’s superior by far. If you “care” about the climate, and you’re not pushing for nuclear, exit the conversation immediately. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with nuclear. We’re using 80 year old technology, and even then it’s still the far superior option. All because Jane Fonda, Gov Brown, the Sierra Club, and scores of other elites decided to demonize nuclear. Many of them to profit off of the oil business dealings they had (cough* cough* gov Brown), others because they nonsensically conflated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs during the Cold War (cough* cough* Jane Fonda types). And others (cough* cough* the Sierra club) wanted to continue their exploitation of 3rd world countries, because it’s easier to exploit poor people who remain poor by spending vast amounts of energy and money (and vast amount of environmental damage as well as carbon emissions) to cook their food and heat their homes using wood (set up for my next paragraph). It also helps when the philosophy of your little elite Sierra club is a Malthusian one, so fuck those poor people, amaright?

As I set up in the last paragraph......I mentioned wood even though it’s hardly used in 1st world countries. Not true for 3rd world countries. There’s this crazy idea out there that we can “leap frog” the 3rd world with renewable energies, and bypass coal and gas completely (set up for my 3rd paragraph). Absolutely absurd idea. The 1st world is struggling “renewable energy”. It is not reliable. So what winds up happening in these countries is that people just go back to using wood. Cutting down vast swaths of carbon scrubbing trees, destroying natural habitats, and oh yeah, dumping a hell of a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than they would if we accelerated their development with coal, then to gas, then to nuclear. Obviously I have no problem in helping them develop clean burning coal, clean burning gas, etc. It’s just a simple fact. The more developed your country is, the less emissions there are per person. It also follows that the less resources (physical, time, money, etc) people have to spend producing energy (I.e. cutting down trees, splitting wood, starting and keeping fires) the more time and energy they will have to be productive in other areas and become more prosperous. Having a reliable source of electricity is basically the #1 key on the road to prosperity, and consequently a reduction in carbon emissions.

What people are also not telling you is that not only is solar and wind severely unreliable, the battery/fuel cell tech is not there (never will be until the invention of super conductors), but also the production of fuel cells and panels (which eventually go bad 10 years at best) creates more emissions, and there is NO safe way to dispose of the extremely environmentally hazardous materials used to make them. There simply is no way to get around Isaac Newton’s laws. People think solar panels just sit there and the sun hits them and bam, energy. The sun itself does not boil water on its own (in most areas). Therefore you need to go through an energy costing process in order to get the photons from the sun to be transformed into usable energy. Not only do you need energy to do this, you also need extremely environmentally toxic chemicals to help boost this process. Both fuel cells and the solar panels themselves are made out of extremely toxic materials. Currently the strategy of nations “leading the way with renewable energy” is to pay 3rd world countries to have them take the fuel cell/panel waste to throw in a dump somewhere. And you can bet your bottom dollar they aren’t dumping it in a safe way. Basically, the net energy solar is producing is 2 steps backward to get 3 steps forward, AT BEST, as long as the panels last 10 years WITHOUT the use of fuel cell storage (which also goes bad). You simply cannot get around the laws of physics. Solar/wind is actually way more expensive for citizens. It is so unreliable, no sun, not enough wind, power plants have to stay fully staffed even when shut down, because they will have to continually power up and power back down. Mind you these are plants designed to run continuously, and the constant power-up power-down process is extremely energy inefficient. So, if you live in an area receiving energy from solar panels or wind, you’re paying for the same power plant you’ve been using before plus the solar/wind generators, plus the infrastructure between the renewable generators, plus the costly process (both in carbon emissions and dollars) of powering up and down continuously. As it turns out, our most “renewable” energy is water. Yes it requires energy to boil, but it goes up, comes back down, and we have plenty of it. This is why nuclear is by far the best option. Zero emissions to hear water, a fraction of a percentile of the current waste produced by solar, as well as a very easy and safe way to store it, and oh yeah did mention far less energy and land investment made into building a Nuclear plant. I almost forgot to mention the vast amounts of land needed for solar/wind just produce a fraction of what a standard power plant can produce. You know, land that would otherwise be used by those big green leafy things (the name escapes me) that actually absorb carbon and exhale oxygen. Land that’s also home to the little critters we value so much.

That is a lot of deluded gibberish.


I think I will go with the actual scientists on this one and the consensus is clear, we are warming the planet with carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe it, you do not have to believe in gravity either, but you still have to live with it.

Yea...thermodynamics is deluded gibberish. OooKay. You mind pointing out which parts are “gibberish”? Unlike you I actually can read and understand the science. The problem with people like you is, you don’t actually read the science. You read the articles written by journalist (really activist), who read an article from another “journalist” in a “science” publication, that dilute the actual science. Go ahead, look up the chemicals used in solar panels. Look up the amount of land required. Look up the MJ/kg. Look up where the waste from solar panels is getting dumped. Look up how long solar panels last. You should probably give yourself a refresher on thermodynamics (8th grade science) and things like energy gradients. Probably freshen up on plant respiration. FACT: Solar only works when the sun is shining. FACT windmills only work when there is SUFFICIENT wind. So how exactly do people get their power when there isn’t sun or wind?

All I’m talking about is energy gradients. Doesn’t require a whole lot of energy to boil water. In fact, nuclear materials just do it by simply existing. It does require a lot of energy to convert photons into USABLE energy. Yea plants do it, but they also don’t have things like muscles, digestive tracts, brains, eyes, etc, that all require a lot of energy so they can get away with it. Do you see where I’m getting with this?

EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT EXACTLY I GOT WRONG.

The science, you got the entire science of climate change wrong.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists do not think solar winds are the major driver of global warming.

Rather we are warming because of carbon emissions from man.

You see science is not just making it up in your own head, it just does not work that way.

"Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim. "

The Role of Sunspots and Solar Winds in Climate Change

Do these natural phenomena have a greater impact on climate change than humans and industrialization?

www.scientificamerican.com

.

Are you confusing me talking about the toxic chemicals in solar panels with solar wind? omg this is hilarious. Did you just google solar and find the first article that sounded like it agreed with your view? What a fucking idiot. Solar winds isn’t even close to the realm of what I’m talking about.

If you had half a brain and understood science... my posts have been talking about REDUCING carbon emissions. I can’t believe you just posted that. Wow. Incredible. The only way to expose yourself as a fraud more would be if you just typed “I like turtles” as a response. That was so perfect. Thank you.

How on earth could you confuse those? Holy shit, you are that dumb.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

No just drunk.

And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.

So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.

Good.

Then I agree with you.

 

[sakinago]

No just drunk.

And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.

So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.

Good.

Then I agree with you.

One last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.

I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

No just drunk.

And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.

So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.

Good.

Then I agree with you.

One last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.

I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

No just drunk.

And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.

So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.

Good.

Then I agree with you.

One last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.

I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

I tried to wade through that rambling, boring post, I still do not know what you are going on about?


I have not talked about solar panels as THE solution, I was simply trying to make the point with the Trump cult that global warming is largely caused by man made carbon emissions.

If you agree good.

Just make your point, how would you deal with man made global warming?

And please do not add to it with such, hot, long winded posts.

 

[DBA]

Yeah...anymore...wanting liberty makes you a cult member.

Yes. liberty is the basic concept of America and the concept that made America great but liberals simply lack the IQ to understand it and so to be real Americans. If America falls it will be because of this. Being so slow, they turn to the govt as Santa Claus attitude or the Nancy Pelosi "we feed them" concept of government.

If America falls??? Where do you think we are right now son?

Millions of millions of Americans are facing evictions, mortgages payments, food on the table, lost of health coverages, credit cards max, jobs, unemployments, business closures, uncertain future, financial crisis, health crisis...... Trump has failed this country big time.

We deserves better.

I can assure you that nobody in their right mind thinks that essentially electing Kamala Harris as President of the US is even in the vicinity of a real answer to any of the problems you mention above, which, by the way, were non-extistent pre-pandemic.

Smart people will vote for Trump. As a relative born in another country said the other night, “I am not even from this country, but if the US elects Biden/Harris they are just plain dumb.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh please!

the whole October Surprise stinks of rotten eggs!

First, Giuliani has had the laptop since July of 2019....
Why didn't he give it to AG Barr? That is what a law abiding citizen would do.

And Barr is in the bag for Trump, so there would be no reason not to do this...

And then, why in the hell would this computer shop owner, decide to give this lap top to Giuliani.... of all people??? Seriously!!!


Come onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!


And then you have the impeachment, with Giuliani head deep in the shenanigans back in the late summer and fall of 2019....while he had the laptop already? And didn't come to the defense of Trump, in the impeachment nor the impeachment trial????

come onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!! wake up!

And then we have the year long investigation in the Senate on it..... and the R Senate investigation in to the Hunter/Joe thingy and they supposedly have the lap top, and then clear Joe Biden of any wrong doing, though lots of negative on Hunter?

and this shop owner is allegedly legally blind so he doesn't know who dropped the laptop off, yet he says he called the person to come pick it up, and another yet, is he claims he saw something disturbing so he gave a copy to the FBI, but when questioned about child porn on the lapto this guy claims "He saw NONE of that..."?

So why did he give the laptop copy to the FBI?

And what was he doing snooping through Hunter Biden's lap top in the first place? That's NOT part of retrieving a hard drive.....? So what was it specifically that made him give a copy to the FBI and then out of the blue, choose Rudy Giuliani to give it to?

And this guy did not see child porn, and is legally blind, additionally an excuse for not knowing who dropped off the laptop, yet he sees well enough to read Hunter's emails and see something to make him want to turn the coPy of the laptop to the FBI?

Then Giuliani holds on to ALL OF THIS INFO, letting the alleged child sex abuse continue on and on and on and on, while he holds on to the laptop for over a year's time, without giving it to AG BARR,

only to drop the laptop in to the new National Enquirer helper for Trump, the New York Post tabloid, to drop the story two weeks out from the election.... and Giuliani says he gave it to the tabloid because he was afraid a legitimate news paper would be required to check the sources BEFORE printing the story,and 'this would be too late'..... too late to serve HIS PURPOSE of an October surprise.....

Come onnnnnnnnnnnn again!

Sorry, this stinks to high heaven of trumpery!

Your timeline is wrong. Want to try to not spin nonsense?

The FBI was given the hard drive in December after they subpoened it---------which means Barr would have or should have been informed then---but the clinton corrupt FBI sat on and hid this evidence even though Trump was being impeached over Burisma and the computer held evidence that was pertinent to the hearing. Guilliani wasn't informed of the computer till this year-------after the FBI had the computer.

Nope! That's all fake news dear one! The shop owner said he gave the laptop to the FBI after Hunter did not show up to pick it up..... that was early summer 2019? so is the story changing?

And then the subpoena that is showing by the GatewayPundit as a subpoena for Hunter Biden to show up at a grand jury, DOES NOT HAVE HUNTER'S NAME ON IT..... whomever was being subpoenaed...the name was blacked out.... the one that is claimed to have some agent named Wilson bled thru on it ....who works on child sex trafficking.....does not name Biden as the person being subpoenaed, and does not say that the person being subpoenaed has to bring any electronic data with him, as claimed by the GatewayPundit......

Snowflakes are being snowed!

NONSENSE---you desperately spinning bS.

April of 2019...computers (3) were brought in for repair. ONly one of the computers was left. AFTER the repairs, the owner of the computer have 45 days after being notified to come get their computer minimum by law. Most computer repair shops give longer periods to try to get their money. Once the owners do not show up--then the computer becomes the repairman---so you are talking atleast JUNE before the repair guy could even go through the computer's private emails/photos etc. "AFTER HUNTER DID not show up to pick up the computer" means MONTHS LATER,

According to the repairman, he then contacts a friend about what he found--and the friend contacted the FBI....who then in DECEMBER subpoened the computer.

Meet the computer repairman at the center of New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story

A computer repairman who reportedly gave a copy of Hunter Biden's hard drive to Rudy Giuliani’s attorney spoke cryptically about his arrangement with the Republican operative.

www.delawareonline.com

The only problem with your post is you skip Guilliani who has been digging dirt against Biden working with Russian agents Derkach and Tekizhenko who just get banned from entering US by the state department.

Guilliani has a very long and good relationship with Fox News. It’s shocking and wondering why Fox News didn’t take this emails scandals against Biden? Instead he went to a NY Post a tabloid. Then stupid enough to admit that a legitimate news media will question him.

Maybe Guilliani knew something at the POST or maybe given all the smears by libs about Fox---he thought that it would have more impact coming from them instead of Fox. Or it could be that maybe the reporter as able to get information that guilliani wasn't and hence wrote his own story. This is a question that Guilliani should be asked though-------

But he went to less credible tabloid media. He even admitted he will get less question or less challenges using NYP tabloid.
All these doesn’t make sense.

Libs have smeared Fox as Faux so going for the POST does make sense ---because the libs aren't sure how to attack this. Plus it is likely that Guilliani knows someone at the post who makes him feel more comfortable.

TURTLE...... Why are you blaming the libs of an action that was done by your Russian assets Giuliani? We didn’t tell him to go to New York post or anywhere. We have nothing to do with any of that but let me update you just incase you don’t know what is going on.

He went NY Post because it’s a lot less scrutiny and it’s the only outlet that takes this story.

But even Fox News turned it down the story of Giuliani because of credibility and not properly vetted. Here’s the link.


Fox News passed on Hunter Biden email story amid credibility concerns

Fox News reportedly declined the chance to run Rudy Giuliani’s Hunter Biden emails story amid reported concerns on its credibility.

The Rupert Murdoch-owned news channel was offered the story by Donald Trump’s personal lawyer but refused it until it could be properly vetted, according to political news site mediaite.com.

Another braindead Liberal holding on by his fingernails.



"...the e-mail showing that Hunter and Jim Biden, Joe’s brother, were part of a group trying to set up a partnership with Chinese individuals, involving energy projects and perhaps American infrastructure. Millions of dollars were being discussed, making the deal a windfall for the Bidens and a propaganda coup for China.


The e-mail, sent from one of the American partners to Hunter and two others, detailed large cash payments to the partners as well as eventual equity stakes. Hunter, referred to as “H,” was to get 20 percent, and the deal listed “10 Jim” and “10 held by H for the big guy?”

Sources have confirmed to Fox News that the “big guy” was Joe Biden. I have been told by another person with knowledge of the arrangement that there are documents and other proof of Joe Biden’s involvement."

Hey, Joe Biden, what did you know about Hunter’s dirty deals?: Goodwin
Now that some secrets of the Biden family business are no longer secrets, it’s easy to imagine Joe Biden asking the same question Robert Redford asked in the 1972 film “The Candidate.” After winnin…

nypost.com

Not......what was that about "unraveling"??????

First 2 sentences alone is just a waste of my time reading the rest of your post. Your post has NOTHING to do what I was talking about ............ why that Russian assets Giuliani went to NY post instead of Fox News. Go back and TRY AGAIN.

Everyone knows it's true, and proof of what was revealed months back.


Now....what is it that makes Hunter Biden, crack-addict, ne'er-do-well, with no experience in gas or oil, kicked out of the Navy, never visited the Ukraine....worth millions and billions?



Interesting that when Biden was VP, he and his son Hunter went to deal with China, and Hunter came away with $millions.....

But Trump is immune to the bribes.


"The troubling reason why Biden is so soft on China
In 2013, then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Less than two weeks later, Hunter Biden’s firm inked a $1 billion private equity deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China. The deal was later expanded to $1.5 billion. In short, the Chinese government funded a business that it co-owned along with the son of a sitting vice president."
The troubling reason why Biden is so soft on China


Sounds a lot like the $145 million Putin gave the Clintons.




The irony is astounding.....for years it was the lie that Trump was a Russian asset.....



......now we have proof......PROOF......that the Democrat candidate is a Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese employee.

Try again.

Again?

Sure...

From Hunter's laptop:

View attachment 404846

Game, set, match!

charwin95 turn off the lights when you leave

Why? Your gf keeps giving me a different rebuttal way off from what was I talking about with Turtlesoup. But you can try.

Putin and Xi are arguing over sharing custody of the Bidens

Nah?
Both Xi and Putin cut the Balls of Trump in the UN against Iran embargo by Xi and Putin.
Your boy Donnie has not said a single word against Putin despite the US bounty head in Afghanistan, interfering again in 2020 election, 14 times this year Russian jets was intercepted off Alaskan coast. That weakling Donnie has not said a single word against Putin.
Biden the true leader warned the Russians of consequences.

US jets intercept Russian bombers off Alaskan coast for 14th time this year

F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jets scrambled late Monday to intercept Russian long-range bombers and fighters flying off Alaska’s coast, the North American Aerospace Defense Command said Tuesday.

www.stripes.com

The bounty claim has already been discredited. As for the rest, it's no different than any other year.

Bounty head was discredited by who? When Kamala mentioned that during the debate with ....Pence. He didn’t say anything. Trump will pay dearly with the military voters this year. Guarantee.

You are an absolute idiot
President Trump and the military love and respect each other.

Idiot? Why in the world you PEOPLE can not have a normal discussion.

Obviously a moron ignorant like you don’t have a fucking clue of what you are saying. That MORON has trashed the military, Putin puppet a traitor, insults the general, trashed heroes that are caught as prisoners, attacked dead people, conspiracies, losers and suckers, US bounty head.....TRAITORS.

Here’s 3 links for you to update your ignorance. Trump is in very big trouble.
Robert O’Neill who killed Osama BL just trashed Trump.
Admiral William McRaven just trashed Trump endorsed Biden.


22 Retired 4-Stars Join Nearly 500 NatSec Leaders in Letter Endorsing Joe Biden

Trump Is Now 'America's No. 1 Traitor,' Says Veterans Group

"Benedict Arnold can step aside," VoteVets says in its latest anti-Trump attack ad.

m.huffpost.com

Trump’s popularity slips in latest Military Times poll — and more troops say they’ll vote for Biden

The latest Military Times poll shows a continued decline in active-duty service members’ views of President Donald Trumpand a slight but significant preference for former Vice President Joe Biden in the upcoming November election among troops surveyed.

Do you ever stop lying?

Nah! TRUTH HURTS . Those are straight facts and reality. Instead of your usual one liner lousy rebuttal. Why not try to debunked my post see if you are capable?

Why would anyone waster their time debunking your posts? Everyone who's seen them knows they are pure horseshit.

Nah! Meaning you can’t because those are real. What is there to debunked?

I did not even include the LBQT + friends & families plus the Women March.. Those are HUUUGE numbers.

They will dwarf all of Trump rallies. I strongly believed that the record numbers of voting that we are witnessing are for Biden.

Voting for this?

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.



Which is your favorite part?

You created that your own. So it’s not a choice. Go get me sometin more interesting.

I 'created' that by watching the Democrat Debates.

Every word is 100% true, accurate and correct.

This is what you are voting for if you vote Democrat.....and you are so bereft of intelligence and insight, that you will.



Now.....which is your favorite part?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes 97% of the world's climate scientists are being bribed.

Agreed! The bribes are called "funding" from universities, government agencies and NGOs.

And if you contradict the approved "wisdom" they represent you will wind up like Galileo, who disagreed with the Pope and the consensus of "experts" of his day when Galileo said we live in a solar-centric universe (not earth-centric) and the Pope called that heresy.
Galileo had his funding pulled.



,

Nice analogy expect you got it ba

And it was not just the Syrian Kurds furious over Trump's cowardly betrayal, even many Republicans were.

You prefer we get drawn into a protracted conflict against Russia and Turkey?
You sound like a neo-con dumb fuck whose interests are motivated by your sick loser political biases.

The Kurds happen to be in an area controlled by Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq. We could be stuck in a
quagmire that makes Viet Nam look like a holiday guaranteeing the security of the Kurds.
Your talking points are bullshit. If we want to do something for them we should remove the Kurds
from their shitty neighborhood.

Resettle them in New Mexico, perhaps.

Turkey is a NATO member, there was no way with US troops in the Kurdish areas of Syria they were going to take military action, indeed that is why they didn't.

but Trump just pulled out and betrayed our ally.


There was no quagmire in the Kurdish controlled area of Syria, ISIS had been defeated it was a matter or keeping our word and protecting our most faithful ally in the region until a negotiated settlement with Assad, who also does not want Turkey occupying Syrian territory could be made.

It was won and we had a loyal ally who we betrayed.

And the region noticed.


Indeed Russia has a nice, fat bear smile.

" A serious policy of disengagement from the Middle East would require working with our allies in the region and elsewhere. It would involve intense planning by the Pentagon and State Department. And, most importantly, it would necessitate very tough negotiations with the Turks to minimize our betrayal of a people who lost some 11,000 troops fighting at our side."

Opinion: In his unconscionable betrayal of the Kurds, Trump was winging it — again

Unlike when past presidents made catastrophic decisions, Trump alone is responsible for the disastrous Syria pullout.

www.latimes.com

Marine who fought with Kurds blasts Trump move in Syria as betrayal

"As a guy who has fought alongside the Kurds," said former Marine Col. Andrew Milburn, "on an emotional level this is gut-wrenching."

www.nbcnews.com

When did we promise to protect the Kurds?

 

[sakinago]

No just drunk.

And you are really boring writer so I can only bare skim your posts without the risk of going into a coma.

So you agree global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions.

Good.

Then I agree with you.

One last slow clap for jake “I like turtles” frogen. I’ve been drunk plenty of times, never in a million years would I confuse those two. Why? Because my environmental education isn’t based off of the shit I saw in Disney’s Fern Gully.

I can tell you right now, we’re no where close to agreement. If your talking the shit you’ve been talking, you’re all about solar panels, and believe it’s “renewable” energy. Let me mansplain this to you using a metaphor, because thermodynamics is too big of a word and clearly went right over your head. We’ll use kinetic energy in the form of rolling a boulder up a hill to roll back down. It takes energy to push it up in order to roll back down. If you’re using solar, you are starting at 3/4 of the way down the hill, and have to expend all the energy to roll it up, in order to have it roll that extra 1/4 down from where you started. On top of that you have to clear out a fuck ton of trees along the way. What’s more is you have to dump toxic chemicals every 10 or so as your going up. If your talking about burning wood, that’d be like starting halfway up the hill. Less tress to cut down. No toxic chemicals. Coal your looking at starting 3/4 of the way up the hill. Gas your starting 5/6 uphill. Nuclear 99/100ths of the way uphill and just have to give the boulder a little push.The more energy dense the fuels you use, the less carbon emissions there are. Photons from the sun are not a very energy dense fuel (not really a fuel, just one form of energy that requires an inefficient, costly, and toxic process to convert into another form of energy).

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

I tried to wade through that rambling, boring post, I still do not know what you are going on about?


I have not talked about solar panels as THE solution, I was simply trying to make the point with the Trump cult that global warming is largely caused by man made carbon emissions.

If you agree good.

Just make your point, how would you deal with man made global warming?

And please do not add to it with such, hot, long winded posts.

Oh long winded, sorry there’s too much science, not enough leftist talking points. I’ve already made my point on how to reduce it. Very clearly. You called it gibberish, which apparently means to you “I don’t understand the science, it’s too hard”. The overall point is that you’re on here calling people who are actually using the science “cultists”. While you’re plugging your ears and are all about the party that’s ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, pushing energies with an overall net gain in carbon, and that are toxic to the environment. Not only is it bad for the environment, it’s also economically devastating. Especially considering we already invented clean energy 80 years ago in nuclear. What the left is suggesting is straight up psychotic