GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

16 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

Hillary was right.  You are all a bunch of right wing climate change oil industry covering Trump loving deplorables!.  99.99% of Meteorologists say climate change is from the oil industry.  10% of all electricity in the world is for air conditioning. Change your ways or your grandchildren and great grandchildren will hate you. 

Where did you get that 99.99% figure? You just pulled it out of your ear?

You are a good example of the loony left ideology which has no reputable scientific basis for your wild claims.

If you really supported the climate alarmists you would start by purchasing an EV instead of contributing to the perceived problem with your ancient dirty fossil fuel SUV. Pure hypocrisy. 

[Ron Wagner + 643]

On 3/20/2023 at 4:43 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

That will not happen. This progressive socialist administration fully intends to destroy the US and it's world image.

Lead from behind had far more meaning than on the surface. 

 

You are good at seeing through the bullshit that the Demoncrat socialists do and spew. 

 

[Ron Wagner + 643]

On 3/21/2023 at 3:59 AM, Rob Plant said:

Just interested in what your perception is of the US's "world image" over the last 20 years??

My take is it will be the same or worse than the UK's.

 

Socialists and communists will do whatever they can to create globalist dictatorships like China and Russia have. Our Demoncrat party is doing the same thing for the same reasons. They want global anarchy. At least Biden has fully supported Ukraine. That is the only thing worthwhile that he has done. 

The Demoncrats want to bankrupt Americans so that all aside from the oligarchs and their wealthy friends and employees need government handouts and fear to oppose the government at any level. It is obvious to anyone who knows what is going on in America. Sadly, we are probably the most free of the large countries. The state of Illinois, where I live, is now nearly as bad as California due to Governor Pritzker who is from a multi- billionaire family. He is signing bills to suppress conservatives and install immoral rules in our already lousy schools. Trying to impose unconstitutional gun bans. and shut down crisis pregnancy centers that do not promote aboritions.  

[specinho + 440]

On 3/19/2023 at 10:16 PM, turbguy said:

The words used are " a hole up to 300 meters deep". 

Holes in the earth do not reach into the atmosphere.

Just go here for a REAL answer.

http://www.steelwindtower.com/wind-turbine-foundation-5-foundation-types-explained-for-onshore-wind-turbine/

Maybe, just maybe, 10 meters deep.

"Up" = ( Oxford dictionary)

1. Preposition = from a lower to a higher point on something/ from one end to another

2. Adj= directed toward a higher place/position

3. Adverb= toward the sky or a higher position

 

"Up to" = from a lower to a higher point reaches 300 deep.

How deep a turbine should be planted might depend on the 

a) type of soil

b) loads from structure

c) ground water table

d) etc

The deeper the foundation, the better the support and resistance to uplift by wind, water etc.

Where wind farms are, some areas in UK might have limestone soil that is generally fragile and decays quickly; Scotland- peatswamp ( wet, soft and probably not steady).

If an average turbine weighs ~ 100 tons and more, how deep do you think it needs to be stable/ lasting in those soil types? 1m? 10m? 100m? Or more?

On 3/19/2023 at 11:42 PM, notsonice said:

 

 

You must learn how to participate in a discussion. They never teach you, you do not know, does not make it an lazy excuse not to learn.

[specinho + 440]

On 3/22/2023 at 3:06 AM, notsonice said:

Western civilization has brought peace and prosperity to the world over the past 100 yrs.?????

yet WW2 was on the level of human suffering .....The worst....unless you are a Holocaust denier

WW2 3.25 % of the world pop was killed one of the highest percentages ever (only second to the Taiping rebellion)

WW2 was brought to you by Western Civilization

toss in WW1 ( just a few years over 100) and you get Western Civilization is not the deliverer of peace and prosperity....Unless you think prosperity means trying to wipe out entire civilian populations

How many countries turned from impoverished condition to prosperous economy after major world wars in the past century?

10s, 20s, 30s - UK, US, Russia, Middle east, Europe

50s- Germany, Japan, South America

60s, 70s, 80s - Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, China

90s - Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia

00s - Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Africa, India etc

Without wars and great scarcity on things, the world might still complacent in being multi-lacking and toileting in the forest, river or wild sites.

Jews outside of Europe turned more powerful after ethnic cleansing during wwII. They contribute the most, subtly, in technological creation, innovation, advancement, monetary system, basic governing etc besides pioneering countries.

It might be Jews who stayed and survived in Germany and Europe the traitors who had caused deaths of their own in massive numbers, mistreated after the war, imposed their suffering, pain and vengeance, by sacrificing the world. ( Movie "Schindler list")

How much you missed indicates how little you paid attention, ignorant but arrogant enough to show off like prime minister of somewhere small......who keeps bashing the impoverished kid ( the poorest grad of the world) misusing media.....

Edited March 23, 2023 by specinho

[Rob Plant + 2,617]

6 hours ago, specinho said:

"Up" = ( Oxford dictionary)

1. Preposition = from a lower to a higher point on something/ from one end to another

2. Adj= directed toward a higher place/position

3. Adverb= toward the sky or a higher position

 

"Up to" = from a lower to a higher point reaches 300 deep.

How deep a turbine should be planted might depend on the 

a) type of soil

b) loads from structure

c) ground water table

d) etc

The deeper the foundation, the better the support and resistance to uplift by wind, water etc.

Where wind farms are, some areas in UK might have limestone soil that is generally fragile and decays quickly; Scotland- peatswamp ( wet, soft and probably not steady).

If an average turbine weighs ~ 100 tons and more, how deep do you think it needs to be stable/ lasting in those soil types? 1m? 10m? 100m? Or more?

You must learn how to participate in a discussion. They never teach you, you do not know, does not make it an lazy excuse not to learn.

I think the point Turbguy was making was a 300m (1000ft) foundation hole for a wind turbine is utterly ridiculous!

I think you know this but (pun intended) you keep digging!

[notsonice + 1,069]

11 hours ago, specinho said:

"Up" = ( Oxford dictionary)

1. Preposition = from a lower to a higher point on something/ from one end to another

2. Adj= directed toward a higher place/position

3. Adverb= toward the sky or a higher position

 

"Up to" = from a lower to a higher point reaches 300 deep.

How deep a turbine should be planted might depend on the 

a) type of soil

b) loads from structure

c) ground water table

d) etc

The deeper the foundation, the better the support and resistance to uplift by wind, water etc.

Where wind farms are, some areas in UK might have limestone soil that is generally fragile and decays quickly; Scotland- peatswamp ( wet, soft and probably not steady).

If an average turbine weighs ~ 100 tons and more, how deep do you think it needs to be stable/ lasting in those soil types? 1m? 10m? 100m? Or more?

You must learn how to participate in a discussion. They never teach you, you do not know, does not make it an lazy excuse not to learn.

You sticking to your 1000 feet deep foundations????

as it is obvious you do not know when you reposted garbage......

You must learn how to participate in a discussion????? more babble

 

 

[turbguy + 1,401]

16 hours ago, specinho said:

"Up" = ( Oxford dictionary)

1. Preposition = from a lower to a higher point on something/ from one end to another

2. Adj= directed toward a higher place/position

3. Adverb= toward the sky or a higher position

 

"Up to" = from a lower to a higher point reaches 300 deep.

How deep a turbine should be planted might depend on the 

a) type of soil

b) loads from structure

c) ground water table

d) etc

The deeper the foundation, the better the support and resistance to uplift by wind, water etc.

Where wind farms are, some areas in UK might have limestone soil that is generally fragile and decays quickly; Scotland- peatswamp ( wet, soft and probably not steady).

If an average turbine weighs ~ 100 tons and more, how deep do you think it needs to be stable/ lasting in those soil types? 1m? 10m? 100m? Or more?

The major force on any wind turbine foundation is a side load, not an "uplift".

And I know what "UP TO 300 meters" implies.  Anything from zero to 300 meters.

Show me one, just ONE, wind turbine that requires a "hole" more than 30 meters deep.

Of course the geology of an installation is important!  Firms don't build wind turbines where excessive and cost prohibitive foundation work is required for the application. 

 

[bloodman33 + 20]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. House failed Thursday to override President Joe Biden's first veto — of a Republican-led bill that would have banned the consideration of environmental, social or governance issues in retirement and other investment decisions.  LOL.  You guys are all banned!

[Rob Plant + 2,617]

6 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. House failed Thursday to override President Joe Biden's first veto — of a Republican-led bill that would have banned the consideration of environmental, social or governance issues in retirement and other investment decisions.  LOL.  You guys are all banned!

Fuck ESG its a load of hogshit

[bloodman33 + 20]

Do you even have any money to invest?  LOL

[bloodman33 + 20]

How much does the oil industry pay you anyway?

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

3 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

Your banned!

The big E is back. Hmm sneak a little hooch did we...tread carefully it tends to exaggerate perception.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

On 3/23/2023 at 10:43 PM, bloodman33 said:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. House failed Thursday to override President Joe Biden's first veto — of a Republican-led bill that would have banned the consideration of environmental, social or governance issues in retirement and other investment decisions.  LOL.  You guys are all banned!

No, it means that better decisions for retirement investment will be made by individuals, not by their fund managers. Time to opt out and not sign on to funds managed by others.

That is better for everyone.

[specinho + 440]

On 3/24/2023 at 8:10 AM, turbguy said:

The major force on any wind turbine foundation is a side load, not an "uplift".

And I know what "UP TO 300 meters" implies.  Anything from zero to 300 meters.

Show me one, just ONE, wind turbine that requires a "hole" more than 30 meters deep.

Of course the geology of an installation is important!  Firms don't build wind turbines where excessive and cost prohibitive foundation work is required for the application. 

 

By "uplift", I guess it meant floating capacity of seawater.... If it is built offshore.

You might be half getting it. The explanation of "up to" is not a technical term but a term of expression. It refers from "one end to another" in the author's impression. Not a technical term from ground zero down.

[specinho + 440]

📣📣📣 Breaking News!!!📣📣📣

Found this when rereading "The book of Guinness Amazing Nature", pg130, about Acid Rain.

This screenshot might show how fossil fuel, car exhaust are taking the total blame on problems with emission, culprits of co2 and all.... i.e. 

- people read first half of the paragraph but selectively not recognize sentences after that........ Which say" the emissions contain sulphur dioxide........combine with  oxygen and water vapour ...to form sulphuric acid and nitric acid"......

Witnessed damage of acid rain on plant during volcano eruption across the strait while living by the coast ages ago. The rain was brief but managed to burn leaves on the plant to form black patches.

Another incidence, might have mentioned somewhere, was the burning of dried wood or tree branches. Leaves on neighbouring plants were burnt the same way, leaving black patches.

Therefore, the initial emission might relate to strong acid formed during volcanic eruption, earlier days of raw wood burning, not merely burning of fossil fuel. The damages are severe which could still be seen once a while today. 

Sulphur and nitrogen can be found as an element of proteins in living things. Hence, if we can deduce, fossil fuel formed after millions of years might have those proteins burnt during the process of formation. Coal might be the same. There must be reports that examine the contents, particularly those that need environmental approval before released, yes? Any supporting facts?

The next page on this book is about smog. 

Witnessed one severe case during late 80s. We were having assembly when whitish stuff fell continuously like fine snow. The air was humid and suffocating. We did not know what was it, nor the teachers. We stood there staring into the snow-like- show in the tropics that would never happen otherwise. (What an idiot thinking back.....) One student fell with incessant muscle contraction ( convulsion).....Later, it was reported to be massive forest fire happened in the neighbouring country.

If we may briefly summarize these info:

1. Damaging acid rain is mainly formed by volcanic eruption and burning of raw woody material that consist of residue proteins.

2. Carbon particles from coal, unrefined fossil fuel, ash from forest fire cause smog.

 

Let's go back to one important question:

how did emission evolve to the dedication of sole carbon dioxide? Campaigns of zero carbon emission, carbon tax are really trendy......

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by specinho

[turbguy + 1,401]

18 hours ago, specinho said:

By "uplift", I guess it meant floating capacity of seawater.... If it is built offshore.

You might be half getting it. The explanation of "up to" is not a technical term but a term of expression. It refers from "one end to another" in the author's impression. Not a technical term from ground zero down.

"Up to" carries no clear meaning of "from one end to another".

It is used to express the maximum of a range of value or measurement.

"This hall will seat up to 500 people"

"This type of construction can be built up to 100 feet in unsupported span".

In your quoted statement, it could range from 0 meters to +300 meters in depth of a hole.

Similar verbiage that might be of interest..

...in excess of... (strictly limits the low end of a value or measurement).

...no more than... (strictly limits the upper end of a value or measurement).

...on top of... (adds to a value, or measurement, or situation).

BTW, "uplift" on a floating structure is balanced by gravitational forces for "sinking".

Which reminds me of a story:

Near the very end of the maiden voyage of the RMS Titanic, the Captain screamed at her Scottish Marine Architect who was aboard, "This cannot be happening!  The Titanic is un-sinkable"!

To which the architect loudly responded in a heavy Scottish accent:  
"Sir, I can guarantee you she can sink!  She's made of IRON"!  

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,401]

21 hours ago, specinho said:

📣📣📣 Breaking News!!!📣📣📣

Found this when rereading "The book of Guinness Amazing Nature", pg130, about Acid Rain.

This screenshot might show how fossil fuel, car exhaust are taking the total blame on problems with emission, culprits of co2 and all.... i.e. 

- people read first half of the paragraph but selectively not recognize sentences after that........ Which say" the emissions contain sulphur dioxide........combine with  oxygen and water vapour ...to form sulphuric acid and nitric acid"......

Witnessed damage of acid rain on plant during volcano eruption across the strait while living by the coast ages ago. The rain was brief but managed to burn leaves on the plant to form black patches.

Another incidence, might have mentioned somewhere, was the burning of dried wood or tree branches. Leaves on neighbouring plants were burnt the same way, leaving black patches.

Therefore, the initial emission might relate to strong acid formed during volcanic eruption, earlier days of raw wood burning, not merely burning of fossil fuel. The damages are severe which could still be seen once a while today. 

Sulphur and nitrogen can be found as an element of proteins in living things. Hence, if we can deduce, fossil fuel formed after millions of years might have those proteins burnt during the process of formation. Coal might be the same. There must be reports that examine the contents, particularly those that need environmental approval before released, yes? Any supporting facts?

The next page on this book is about smog. 

Witnessed one severe case during late 80s. We were having assembly when whitish stuff fell continuously like fine snow. The air was humid and suffocating. We did not know what was it, nor the teachers. We stood there staring into the snow-like- show in the tropics that would never happen otherwise. (What an idiot thinking back.....) One student fell with incessant muscle contraction.....Later, it was reported to be massive forest fire happened in the neighbouring country.

If we may briefly summarize these info:

1. Damaging acid rain is mainly formed by volcanic eruption and burning of raw woody material that consist of residue proteins.

2. Carbon particles from coal, unrefined fossil fuel, ash from forest fire cause smog.

 

Let's go back to one important question:

how did emission evolve to the dedication of sole carbon dioxide? Campaigns of zero carbon emission, carbon tax are really trendy......

 

Fossil fuels that contain sulfur (almost all coals do)  will typically emit sulfur oxide compounds in the exhaust gasses, which can effect the pH of precipitation, particularly downwind of the source.

Due to acidification of ponds, lakes, and other effects experienced in the eastern USA from "acidic rain", the EPA placed Oxides of Sulfur under regulation.

An interesting economic impact that effected my State was the sudden "added value" to low sulfur PRB Coal, making it much more marketable to coal fired plants to reduce expenses with controlling sulfur emissions.  Before that legislation, PRB Coals were almost worthless to them, as the heating value of PRB coal (BTU/lb)  was only about 2/3rds of Eastern coals, required very careful handling to minimize dust, and had significantly different ash fusion temperature.

The railroads also made money hand over fist!  I hope you are familiar with that idiom.  If not, google it.

Edited March 26, 2023 by turbguy

[Ron Wagner + 643]

21 hours ago, specinho said:

📣📣📣 Breaking News!!!📣📣📣

Found this when rereading "The book of Guinness Amazing Nature", pg130, about Acid Rain.

This screenshot might show how fossil fuel, car exhaust are taking the total blame on problems with emission, culprits of co2 and all.... i.e. 

- people read first half of the paragraph but selectively not recognize sentences after that........ Which say" the emissions contain sulphur dioxide........combine with  oxygen and water vapour ...to form sulphuric acid and nitric acid"......

Witnessed damage of acid rain on plant during volcano eruption across the strait while living by the coast ages ago. The rain was brief but managed to burn leaves on the plant to form black patches.

Another incidence, might have mentioned somewhere, was the burning of dried wood or tree branches. Leaves on neighbouring plants were burnt the same way, leaving black patches.

Therefore, the initial emission might relate to strong acid formed during volcanic eruption, earlier days of raw wood burning, not merely burning of fossil fuel. The damages are severe which could still be seen once a while today. 

Sulphur and nitrogen can be found as an element of proteins in living things. Hence, if we can deduce, fossil fuel formed after millions of years might have those proteins burnt during the process of formation. Coal might be the same. There must be reports that examine the contents, particularly those that need environmental approval before released, yes? Any supporting facts?

The next page on this book is about smog. 

Witnessed one severe case during late 80s. We were having assembly when whitish stuff fell continuously like fine snow. The air was humid and suffocating. We did not know what was it, nor the teachers. We stood there staring into the snow-like- show in the tropics that would never happen otherwise. (What an idiot thinking back.....) One student fell with incessant muscle contraction.....Later, it was reported to be massive forest fire happened in the neighbouring country.

If we may briefly summarize these info:

1. Damaging acid rain is mainly formed by volcanic eruption and burning of raw woody material that consist of residue proteins.

2. Carbon particles from coal, unrefined fossil fuel, ash from forest fire cause smog.

 

Let's go back to one important question:

how did emission evolve to the dedication of sole carbon dioxide? Campaigns of zero carbon emission, carbon tax are really trendy......

 

Who picks the experts. Quantity of "expert" opinions has only proven that experts who are paid for their opinion and given credence in scientific digests by like minded editors perpetuate stupid assumptions. History has proven this many times. It is often stated that it takes twenty years for new inventions to take hold in business etc. Probably longer IMHO. Herbal remedies thousands of years old are still scoffed at by experts who lack open minds and place profit ahead of people who need help. 

[Ron Wagner + 643]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/shocker-ford-motors-losing-billions-on-electric-vehicles/

 

SHOCKER: Ford Motors Losing Billions on Electric Vehicles

By Mike LaChance Mar. 25, 2023 11:10 pm0 Comments

• Truth
• Gettr
• Gab
• Parler
• Telegram
• Share
• Tweet
•  
•  
•  

In the mad dash to pursue all things electric for the sake of climate change, Ford Motors has invested heavily in the production of electric vehicles.

So far, things are not going according to plan.

Ford is losing billions on this in 2023 and it’s only March.

 

 

 

 

Doctors Can’t Explain But This Can Vanish Tinnitus (Ear Ringing)

 

 

 

New Discovery Regrows Teeth And Gums Nearly Overnight!

 

 

 

Doctors Stunned : This Removes Wrinkles and Eye-bags Like Crazy (Try Tonight)

 

 

The Associated Press reports:

Read: Dr. Peter McCullough On "The Holy Grail Of COVID-19 Vaccine Detoxification"

Ford says EV unit losing billions, should be seen as startup

Ford Motor Co.’s electric vehicle business has lost $3 billion before taxes during the past two years and will lose a similar amount this year as the company invests heavily in the new technology.

The figures were released Thursday as Ford rolled out a new way of reporting financial results. The new business structure separates electric vehicles, the profitable internal combustion and commercial vehicle operations into three operating units.

Company officials said the electric vehicle unit, called “Ford Model e,” will be profitable before taxes by late 2026 with an 8% pretax profit margin. But they wouldn’t say exactly when it’s expected to start making money.

Chief Financial Officer John Lawler said Model e should be viewed as a startup company within Ford.

 

Around the Web

 

Cheerleading Fails That Captured a Little Extra

History Obsessed

 

Creepy Photos Accidentally Captured by Trail Cams

History Obsessed

 

25 Shameless Shirts People Wore in Public

History Obsessed

 

“As everyone knows, EV startups lose money while they invest in capability, develop knowledge, build (sales) volume and gain (market) share,” he said.

Model e, he said, is working on second- and even third-generation electric vehicles. It currently offers three EVs for sale in the U.S.: the Mustang Mach E SUV, the F-150 Lightning pickup and an electric Transit commercial van.

 

Around the Web

 

Shameless Shirts People Wore in Public

UpbeatNews

 

Trail Cameras Captured More Than Expected

History Obsessed

 

25 Cheer Photos with Perfect Timing

History Obsessed

 

Why is everyone trying to reinvent the wheel?

 

 

 

Is there a Biden bailout in Ford’s future?

[specinho + 440]

12 hours ago, turbguy said:

"Up to" carries no clear meaning of "from one end to another".

It is used to express the maximum of a range of value or measurement.

"This hall will seat up to 500 people"

"This type of construction can be built up to 100 feet in unsupported span".

In your quoted statement, it could range from 0 meters to +300 meters in depth of a hole.

Similar verbiage that might be of interest..

...in excess of... (strictly limits the low end of a value or measurement).

...no more than... (strictly limits the upper end of a value or measurement).

...on top of... (adds to a value, or measurement, or situation).

BTW, "uplift" on a floating structure is balanced by gravitational forces for "sinking".

Which reminds me of a story:

Near the very end of the maiden voyage of the RMS Titanic, the Captain screamed at her Scottish Marine Architect who was aboard, "This cannot be happening!  The Titanic is un-sinkable"!

To which the architect loudly responded in a heavy Scottish accent:  
"Sir, I can guarantee you she can sink!  She's made of IRON"!  

 

It reminds me of this tanker incidence in Alaska ( and a few others):

(Click into the screenshot for details)

Briefly.... 

"......Oil tanker ran aground on the Bligh reef.......1/5 total cargo spilled into the sea......"

- if Alaska has reef........ How long ago Alaska has been having tropical temperature?

- if iron can be cut by reef or ice, why hasn't the design changed to safe guard the oil? E.g.

a) has an insulator or separator between the outer ship layer and the container inside?

b) damage control by having different interlinked compartments for oil?

c) impact cushion on the common location where reef hits e.g. thick natural rubber layer from discarded tyres?

d) any other route bypassing reefy areas?

Pardon my ignorant. As an outsider, I do not know the details of design but based on how easy reef scratch could destroy a ship, just wondering if those are already done.......

 

[TailingsPond + 473]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

Who picks the experts? Quantity of "expert" opinions has only proven that experts who are paid for their opinion and given credence in scientific digests by like minded editors perpetuate stupid assumptions.

I've taken a course on "giving expert witness testimony" at a police academy.

Normally people can not provide opinion as evidence. To get opinion as evidence they call a Voir Dire and the the judge decides if the person qualifies as an expert.

 

[specinho + 440]

56 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

I've taken a course on "giving expert witness testimony" at a police academy.

Normally people can not provide opinion as evidence. To get opinion as evidence they call a Voir Dire and the the judge decides if the person qualifies as an expert.

 

Time has changed.... This piece of discussion was posted in a group where the post regarding " if one is not regarded as expert, his/ her voice will be ignored, because he/she is deemed ignorant on that subject matter". For your reference:

"

Expert = a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area (Oxford dictionary)

Who are you believe to be experts? Those with certs, members of some professional organizations and have friends as referees only?

That could be a thing in the past.

Modern days, the number of students produced like instant food, grants them very little useful exposure. Imagine, competition in this uniformed  environment disallows them to teach all they know to their students, fellow colleagues who could be their next competitors. And they will never take anyone better than they are. Knowledge mastery declines exponentially with each badge of intake. This could continue to a stage where a housewife or ordinary public who reads is having more common sense than so called experts (happened already in some places).

Now, a housewife and ordinary public are having more comprehensive knowledge than professional with certs. Who would you call experts then?

You can choose to deny the happenings and continue to flow with the majority ignorant experts. No one would bother, including yourself, until your life is affected by their imbecility and wasted much of your precious time, money in vain, is it not?

Courage to right the wrong is compromised by democracy where numbers rule..... Would rather pretend not to know problems have occurred, or worse they are blind to it because it is their routine that they insist not to be changed..... If we speak plainly, this is a form of mental illness found in most who declare themselves professional or experts, i.e.  by insisting no change in the routine despite problematic. Or worse, negligence on purpose, believing no one would know and no punishment. This is a form of mental illness in the professionals who should not be qualified to work with license removed for life, under old procedures, shall accusation found true. 

We regress to make life difficult for even ourselves is dumbfounding.... Insisting so is even more mind boggling....."

 

[specinho + 440]

Found this discussion interesting. Question is attached as screenshot and one reply caught the attention:

" 

True enough. Someone did an experiment the other day.....

In an online class, friend A replied 1. Followed by friend B, C, D..... Nearly 15 friends. Friend number 16 did not know what happened. But he saw all his friends replied "1 ", so he did the same. And put this face up 🤔, deep in thought what were his friends doing..... (May be all other friends do not know what happened too but the first three persons who replied?)

Trying to belong turns most people blind followers..... Politicians, academicians, teachers, general public, behave the same. 

The timing to synchronize the world is now. The era to take over the world is also now......"

 

[Ron Wagner + 643]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-reaches-deal-eu-future-105332030.html

 

Germany reaches deal with EU on future use of combustion engines

15

Tom Sims and Kate Abnett

Sat, March 25, 2023 at 5:53 AM CDT·2 min read

 

 

 

FILE PHOTO: Cars drive on the Mittlerer Ring in Munich, Germany

By Tom Sims and Kate Abnett

FRANKFURT/BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The European Union and Germany have reached a deal on the future use of combustion engines, officials said on Saturday, an issue that has been closely followed by the auto industry.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

The agreement will allow some combustion engines beyond 2035 and was quickly condemned by a prominent environmental group.

The bloc and its largest economy had been at odds over the planned 2035 phase-out of CO2-emitting cars, but leaders signalled in recent days that they were close to a resolution.

Germany had wanted assurances that new combustion engine cars can be sold beyond the deadline if they run on e-fuels - a request supported by parts of Germany's powerful car industry.

"We have found an agreement with Germany on the future use of e-fuels in cars," Frans Timmermans, head of EU climate policy, said on Twitter.

German Transport Minister Volker Wissing said "the way is clear" with the agreement reached late Friday.

"Vehicles with internal combustion engines can still be newly registered after 2035 if they fill up exclusively with CO2-neutral fuels," he said in a post on Twitter.

Sweden, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, said EU diplomats would vote on Monday to formally approve the 2035 phaseout law.

That would mean energy ministers could then give the law the final sign-off needed for it to enter into force on Tuesday, at a scheduled meeting in Brussels.

Benjamin Stephan of the Greenpeace campaign group said the deal was a setback for climate protection.

"This stinky compromise undermines climate protection in transport, and it harms Europe," he said.

It dilutes the needed focus of the auto industry on efficient electromobility, he said.

(Reporting by Tom Sims and Kate Abnett; editing by Jason Neely and Mike Harrison)