Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

Hack, I look forward to your detailed "sort" on this issue.

It would be nice if our parallel thinking (that the scale of CO2 emission reductions required to make a climatic difference is probably unachievable) would filter down to the mainstream media. It would also be nice if the global warming hysteria could be dampened a bit by reality but that isn't likely to happen. So, policy makers at the state level are going to move forward with expensive CO2 emission reduction initiatives whose costs greatly outweigh potential benefits deriving therefrom. We'll also see 2020 presidential candidates on the left embracing shaky global warming science as planks in their platforms and the sheeple they're herding lapping it all up.

[Kapture1]

people say they can predict this 10 years in the future are straight up fucking lying to you

[Dr. Strangelove]

President Deals is our only hope!

[Kapture1]

The NY law and the Virginia proposed law (which I doubt passes), are states doing what states want to do. Good for them. Ohio is going to pass a "heartbeat" bill (which will surely be challenged).

Meanwhile, the significant majority of Americans are pro-choice for the first trimester and pro-life for the final trimester. But, if NY and Virginia want to allow a mother to terminate a pregnancy when she's fully dilated, welp....they have to live with it. The thing about the Virginia exception is "mental health" -- I mean, WTF is that? Sounds like a catchall that is always satisfied.

not just fully dilated, after birth apparently

q6fbjc28zqd21.jpg?width=743&auto=webp&s=e6a316ad732288767bd162c82795fd0dfce13dc4.jpg






this is fucking evil.

The federal government has a say in the violation of an America's civil rights once that child is born. The argument for states rights goes out the window when you are killing actual infants.

[hack]

Well IMO it is without question achievable to get there. The technology exists and there's capital that wants to finance it. It's not a question of values or ethics -- there's a purely commercial argument for it. The question is whether we can do the smart policy stuff fast enough, and the answer is almost certainly no.

[crashcourse]

so the Mueller investigation has to share their discovery with Russian firms.--what dummy came up with that

sounds like those retards are a bigger threat to elections then trump ever was

they are going to do an entire investigation on Russian efforts to meddle in our election then share that information.......witht the Russians--wtf

lmfao

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna964811

[Kapture1]

so the Mueller investigation has to share their discovery with Russian firms.--what dummy came up with that

sounds like those retards are a bigger threat to elections then trump ever was

they are going to do an entire investigation on Russian efforts to meddle in our election then share that information.......witht the Russians--wtf

lmfao

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna964811

a5a.png

[Ghengis Jon]

so the Mueller investigation has to share their discovery with Russian firms.--what dummy came up with that

sounds like those retards are a bigger threat to elections then trump ever was

they are going to do an entire investigation on Russian efforts to meddle in our election then share that information.......witht the Russians--wtf

lmfao

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna964811

Um, the discovery phase and sharing of that information between prosecution and defense is a tenet of free world laws. Perhaps you would like to be charged with a crime and then have the prosecution not provide any details/evidence that your attorney can defend against? Yeah, a real dummy came up with that.

Somehow that confidential information was stolen/hacked/given away and used in a disinformation program. Is that bad? Yes. But the Russians know that so long as Putin's cock holster infects the Oval Office, they can do that sort of thing with absolute impunity.

The operation to undermine the Special Counsel's case/investigation probably came with blessing. Multiple meetings with Putin that only had a Russian translator - no American notetaker or translator present. What can the First Traitor need to speak with Putin about that needs to be concealed from all other Americans? Only reasonable answer: treason.

[froot loops]

What a dumb post by crash, he even posts the article and can't understand the concept of discovery.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Hack, don't misunderstand me. I absolutely believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to temperature increases at the earth's surface. What the impact of that is and the urgency attendant to mitigating it is not clear.

I think we can sensibly mitigate this increase but mitigation is more likely to come from investment in technology not public policy that imposes stringent, potentially unachievable, carbon emission reduction on industries that are now using fossil fuels for energy. The economic disadvantages imparted to US industries by such undertakings is simply not worth the supposed benefits. The article I linked to speaks to that.

If there is one area of policy that I agree with the Trump administration it is the withdrawal from these so called climate accords. Murky since and even murkier solutions to global warming.

[Ghengis Jon]

brrrrrr.jpg

[Kapture1]

no wonder why they get pissed when you call them an NPC

[Kapture1]

[crashcourse]

I know the process of discovery

mueller is blaming the Russians for leaking or hacking materials given during the discovery process to concorde a Russian company

seriously how dumb do you have to be to indict a Russian company then be forced to turn over materials to that same company again controlled by the Russians knowing damn well that material was going to be leaked

what a dumb post by froot loop he cant understand the concept of how stupid it was to indict concorde in the first place. as soon as they did it the other side hit them up for discovery forcing mueller to show his hand--now he's whining they aren't playing by the rules--are you going to indoict those dirty Russians again--maybe they'll cooperate this time--lmao

[hack]

Well I'm not sure why you would come to that first-paragraph conclusion. I don't see how the article supports that. But re this:

I think we can sensibly mitigate this increase but mitigation is more likely to come from investment in technology not public policy that imposes stringent, potentially unachievable, carbon emission reduction on industries that are now using fossil fuels for energy. The economic disadvantages imparted to US industries by such undertakings is simply not worth the supposed benefits. The article I linked to speaks to that.

Well, again, the cost of building new solar and wind plants in particular are now in many places lower than the cost of keeping old coal plants running. There need not be any ethics or values or incentives involved in these decisions. Following the money leads directly to renewables, and to less economic disadvantage imparted by policy. As it stands, global subsidies provided by government to fossil-fuel companies are around $500bn, and to renewables companies $30bn. Right now we are subsidizing something far more prone to cause economic losses. Once you net out the subsidy for both, renewables win by an even bigger margin. So that's a start in terms of thinking about policy -- you ahve to think about the policy for petroleum products as well. It is also why Trump and his DOE led by Rick Perry can try as hard as they can to put a thumb on the scale for coal and it hasn't made a difference at all. So there are no economic disadvantages to renewables, increasingly.

As for whether it should come from tech or policy, I think in the US it's common to think of those two things as independent of each other, and I don't think that's right. When governments push renewables people like Elon Musk correctly conclude that it's worth investing intellectual capital in battery storage. The tech is shaped directly or indirectly by the policy.

Another factor here to keep in mind is that, even though it's been said so often that the private sector should lead and government should get out of the way, power is yet another area where that just hasn't turned out to be true. Roughly 50m Americans buy their power from a publicly-owned utlity, and the vast majority of the rest from a private-sector, investor-owned utility. The people who get their power from a private company pay 15% more than the people who get it from a publicly-owned one. There is no apparent increase in efficiency in the private-sector ones. The economic structure here is baked in now -- we can't nationalize these companies and drop the cost of power by 15%, or use the cash to invest in renewables. We're stuck with this business model. But strictly from the standpoint of economic disadvantages this one is significant.