TN

"Biden Is Running U.S. Energy Security Into The Ground" by Irina Slav

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

By the way, the information presented came from media sources (like the Wall Street Journal), not from my speculations.

Peter, it seems that you want rules to be dictated which control people's lives and their finances in order to serve an agenda.  Is this true?  Do you desire that Technocrats monitor and control society?

My friend, your very own argument is working against you. You are attacking politicians trying to control a persons choice to invest in what they want yet Biden isnt the one that said you cannot invest in a certain strategy, Trump and the Republicans are. Biden only said investment managers must act in the fund participants best interest. Do you not think that those giving them money to invest for them should be able to expect that? Now by law they will be accountable if they dont, as they should be, right? It was Trumps law saying they cannot invest in ESG considerations as responsible investment managers said themselves that was restricting, for the obvious reason i previously pointed out. Trump and the republicans were the ones being controling. Biden didnt say you cant invest in something or have to invest in something... only that it has to be in best interest of the fund participants. I dont understand how that is an issue to you... unless you actually are a republican, then i understand completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peterwp said:

My friend, your very own argument is working against you. You are attacking politicians trying to control a persons choice to invest in what they want yet Biden isnt the one that said you cannot invest in a certain strategy, Trump and the Republicans are. Biden only said investment managers must act in the fund participants best interest. Do you not think that those giving them money to invest for them should be able to expect that? Now by law they will be accountable if they dont, as they should be, right? It was Trumps law saying they cannot invest in ESG considerations as responsible investment managers said themselves that was restricting, for the obvious reason i previously pointed out. Trump and the republicans were the ones being controling. Biden didnt say you cant invest in something or have to invest in something... only that it has to be in best interest of the fund participants. I dont understand how that is an issue to you... unless you actually are a republican, then i understand completely.

This is not about a SINGLUAR person's financial interests of choice. You lied.  Please stop lying, it is pathetic.  This is about generic pension funds in a company or government institution.  If you, eh hem, YOU wish to invest in ESG... go for it, but you do NOT get to use my money to do so. 

I'll give you kudos for being consistent.  I see you are consistently, proudly a thief for your own religion of the world is going to end... Even though you know the earth has been vastly warmer with at least 10X more CO2 in atmosphere than today and life was flourishing.  It was flourishing so much we call them many different periods of time Plioscene etc.  Of course I have to wonder if your religious cult can read a basic graph...   Temperature rise BEFORE CO2... because, newsflash, Water holds Less CO2 when it warms up... CO2 is therefore NOT the driver of  temperatures... oh wait, we already knew that from basic black body radiation physics....  Damn NO! Not more basic science...

https://randombio.com/antarctic-ice-core-data.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

This is not about a SINGLUAR person's financial interests of choice. You lied.  Please stop lying, it is pathetic.  This is about generic pension funds in a company or government institution.  If you, eh hem, YOU wish to invest in ESG... go for it, but you do NOT get to use my money to do so. 

 

It's cute that you think of those funds as your money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

This is not about a SINGLUAR person's financial interests of choice. You lied.  Please stop lying, it is pathetic.  This is about generic pension funds in a company or government institution.  If you, eh hem, YOU wish to invest in ESG... go for it, but you do NOT get to use my money to do so. 

I'll give you kudos for being consistent.  I see you are consistently, proudly a thief for your own religion of the world is going to end... Even though you know the earth has been vastly warmer with at least 10X more CO2 in atmosphere than today and life was flourishing.  It was flourishing so much we call them many different periods of time Plioscene etc.  Of course I have to wonder if your religious cult can read a basic graph...   Temperature rise BEFORE CO2... because, newsflash, Water holds Less CO2 when it warms up... CO2 is therefore NOT the driver of  temperatures... oh wait, we already knew that from basic black body radiation physics....  Damn NO! Not more basic science...

https://randombio.com/antarctic-ice-core-data.png

The point being discussed is NOT whether the earth has been warmer or colder in the past, it is WHO is ACTUALLY "dictating" how the peoples money is to be invested in energy funds. Trump and the Republicans passed a law that said they CANNOT invest the peoples money with ESG considerations, handcuffing the investment managers to the dirty oil companies that just happen to be the Republicans biggest donors but sure... nothing Political or CONTROLLING about that law???? All the investment managers are lying when they say it was a "restricting law" What could possibly be controlling about the government saying you HAVE TO avoid investing in Clean energy to an investment manager in charge of an energy fund right? And how dare those terrible controlling democrats come in and tell those managers that they CAN invest in the ESG strategy OR the dirty energy so long as it is in the BEST INTEREST of the American citizens that are giving them their hard earned money and trusting them with it to make EDUCATED investments on their behalf!!Those controlling terrible democrats have NO RIIGHT to protect the American citizens investments by mandating that the managers have to have the BEST INTERESTS of the people in their investing decisions!! What is this world coming to when a government of the United States acts to protect the people???Here are some basic facts for your investing, The oil and gas industry is going to be around for many years after you and i are long forgotten about, it just WONT be DIRTY oil and gas and there is NOTHING that Trump or the Republicans can do about that transition!!! They can slow it down a little here and there with laws to protect their donors but that will be nothing more than the occasional delays, thats it! So if you want to give your dollars to an investment manager that is restricted to a political parties donors and THEIR best interests then by all means you go right ahead and do that my friend. My guess is that the VAST majority of the people will want to have their investment managers working to invest for THEM and NOT for a political parties best interests. So i will agree that the earth has been warmer before, it has been colder before too... here is another fact, humans used to live in caves before... maybe we should go back to that too LOL??? Fact is, there were reasons for those temperature differences that were NOT what the reasons are today. Today there are scientific measurable causes for the situation and it is not just American Democratic scientists with this conclusion, it is a world wide accepted reality!! So keep investing in a DYING faction of an eventually to be clean industry if you wish. Personally I am happy with my 120% return so far this year in the oil and gas company that is complying with the movement to clean up the industry and will still be here in the future. Another fact for your investing my friend, eventually those DIRTY oil and gas companies that you seem to feel have the right to pollute and destroy the environment ....WILL invest in cleaning up their company!!! They are just trying hard now not to have to, and so far they have a political party in their pocket that is going to try to help them not have to!!! I am honestly curious about something maybe you can explain for me. Why is it that Republican supporters (talking about the average republican citizen not politicians)so passionate about defending the "dirty oil and gas" industry that is raping them at the gas pumps? Do you not think that if they could be cleaner it would be better if they did that? Oh wait, i know, Trump told you "Dont believe what you see (or think for yourselves) just believe what I tell you. " nvm i understand lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Peterwp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Peterwp said:
On 11/29/2022 at 7:44 AM, Tom Nolan said:

By the way, the information presented came from media sources (like the Wall Street Journal), not from my speculations.

Peter, it seems that you want rules to be dictated which control people's lives and their finances in order to serve an agenda.  Is this true?  Do you desire that Technocrats monitor and control society?

My friend, your very own argument is working against you. You are attacking politicians trying to control a persons choice to invest in what they want yet Biden isnt the one that said you cannot invest in a certain strategy, Trump and the Republicans are. Biden only said investment managers must act in the fund participants best interest. Do you not think that those giving them money to invest for them should be able to expect that? Now by law they will be accountable if they dont, as they should be, right? It was Trumps law saying they cannot invest in ESG considerations as responsible investment managers said themselves that was restricting, for the obvious reason i previously pointed out. Trump and the republicans were the ones being controling. Biden didnt say you cant invest in something or have to invest in something... only that it has to be in best interest of the fund participants. I dont understand how that is an issue to you... unless you actually are a republican, then i understand completely.

I do not know anyone who would prefer that their retirement fund focus on "environmental & social" over profits.  People invest in their retirement in order to have a nest egg of financial security in retirement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

I do not know anyone who would prefer that their retirement fund focus on "environmental & social" over profits.  People invest in their retirement in order to have a nest egg of financial security in retirement. 

OMG its like talking to a rock!! Biden did not say funds "Have to" focus on ESG!! Can you not read plain english? He said whatever they focus on has to be in the "BEST INTERESTS of the fund participants!! If that be dirty oil then thats what it is!!! The difference he made was he did not HANDCUFF the managers TO dirty oil!!! Do you understand the words here? ALSO my oil investment made 120% and record profits, their dividends alone gave me 10% BUT they are ESG responsible corporate citizens so you were not able to take advantage of the opportunity i was, being my own investor if you had your investments DICTATED to by Trump and the Republicans!! Maybe just try reading this very slowly and you might get actually understand that Trump did NOT do you any favours. All he was interested in doing was the bidding of the Republican donors, he could NOT possibly care less about you and your 401k investments. He is wealthy enough to fund the rest of his life so thats all that matters to him!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 11/26/2022 at 1:47 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, typing on backwards day.  So let me translate for the rest of rational human beings... What you mean in reality is low energy prices = no one looking for more efficient forms of  transportation and when energy prices are high, more efficient means of transportation are sought...  Yes, that is how economics work, I agree...  Oh wait, you typed the opposite of reality.  Two thumbs up!

So according to your brain drain, companies can take losses, but not profits.  Ah, spoken like a true thief/communist/progressive/socialist(is no difference)

Ah yes, play make believe the planet can be killed.  Uh, no.  Plant and animal life THRIVE on higher CO2 levels.  co2science.org should be your stop of choice to inform your ignorance where you can then look up said studies... After reading/studying a basic biology book/class.  Plant life and invertebrates LOVE higher CO2, this is their Fertilizer and allows them to work using fewer minerals and use less water.  If we can hit 600ppm(50% increase over today), Rice, etc will yield 66% more food per acre and do so in a quicker time period, using LESS minerals and LESS water.  That is an average of 10 different studies by the way...  Your doomsday fool prophets didn't bother to tell you this did they?

Do you like bread?  At 900ppm CO2, Wheat produces 80% more per acre(4 different studies).  In one study, at temps averaging over 30C(much hotter than today for where wheat is grown) wheat production per acre will DOUBLE if CO2 increases.  Your doomsday fool prophets didn't bother to tell you this did they?

If you like flowers, (most of our food comes from flowers) then Roses and many others will DOUBLE the number of roses per plant as high CO2 tells plants that there is PLENTY of food available to convert into their seeds.  Your doomsday fool prophets didn't bother to tell you this did they?

But hey, basic science you know... Plant life's ability to adapt is based on CO2, not water, not temperature.  Their range for where they can grow increases with available CO2 and their range shrinks as CO2 levels shrink.  Your doomsday fool prophets didn't bother to tell you this did they? 

Animals, last I checked, eat plants and other animals who eat plants.  More plant life able to grow over a wider range using less inputs, = MORE animals who can eat plants and more animals who eat both. 

But hey, basic science. 

 

Just got one question to all this narrow minded BS... When the United States is TOXIC with the pollution you seem to feel is the answer to world hunger and has turned into a desert wasteland how much rice are you going to grow then? Have you never heard the saying " A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" Your ranting in support of all out pollution is a perfect example of this! So lets take ALL pollution controls off vehicles to turn America into the utopia you claim pollution will bring!! Or maybe the REAL scientists all around the globe (you know ...the people who actually know ALL the facts both pros and cons) know that the utopia you seem to find in a rush to pollute might mean that it is uninhabitable for humans. You are a "Sofa scientist" is the best way to describe your lack of logic. Aside from all this BS you are using in support of all out polluting the planet just like a typical republican if you cant argue the point of the discussion ( which was who is DICTATING to fund managers) you go off on some random tangent. I have heard some absolutely ridiculous things in my time but you take the cake with this one.... wow who thought the answer to the world hunger was more pollution... apparently that has NO adverse side effects... like maybe... when all that wonderful pollution destroys the Ozone layer and the suns radiation cooks the planet is that going to be an OOOPS moment for you??   DUH!! 

But hey... Basic Common Sense!

Edited by Peterwp
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Peterwp said:

Just got one question to all this narrow minded BS... When the United States is TOXIC with the pollution you seem to feel is the answer to world hunger and has turned into a desert wasteland how much rice are you going to grow then? Have you never heard the saying " A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" Your ranting in support of all out pollution is a perfect example of this! So lets take ALL pollution controls off vehicles to turn America into the utopia you claim pollution will bring!! Or maybe the REAL scientists all around the globe (you know ...the people who actually know ALL the facts both pros and cons) know that the utopia you seem to find in a rush to pollute might mean that it is uninhabitable for humans. You are a "Sofa scientist" is the best way to describe your lack of logic. Aside from all this BS you are using in support of all out polluting the planet just like a typical republican if you cant argue the point of the discussion ( which was who is DICTATING to fund managers) you go off on some random tangent. I have heard some absolutely ridiculous things in my time but you take the cake with this one.... wow who thought the answer to the world hunger was more pollution... apparently that has NO adverse side effects... DUH!! 

What a opinionated tool. 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

43 minutes ago, Peterwp said:

 When the United States is TOXIC with the pollution you seem to feel is the answer to world hunger

Some people here think that exhaust is just pure - and beneficial -  CO2. 

Edited by TailingsPond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

36 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

What [an] opinionated tool. 

Says the king of opinionated tools.

Release the Kraken! 

Your 45 days are up, eat the crow.

 

Edited by TailingsPond
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

What a opinionated tool. 

Thats republican plan B... name calling... When their ranting is exposed as the BS it actually is they turn to the mature tactic of name calling. Biden has a momentous task ahead of him if he is going to save America from itself !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 11/10/2022 at 8:10 PM, Michael Sanches said:

A large single-cycle gas turbine typically produces 100 to 400 megawatts of electric power and has 35–40% thermodynamic efficiency. Therefore:

Combustion engine = 40%

Typical thermal efficiency for utility-scale electrical generators is around 37% for coal and oil-fired plants. Therefore:

Electric engine = (.85 x .40 (natural gas)) = 34%

Electric engine = (.85 x .37 (oil or coal) = 31%

The 'Electric engine =' calculations wouldn't work in Germany (where half of the electricy doesn't come from gas turbines).    Then there's the eMPG calculations which make the electric engine around 80 or 90+ mpg compared with petrol ICE lucky to break 30 or 35 mpg (and on average, far lower).   And, not all the electric generation in the US comes from natural gas turbines or coal fired plants.   Therefore:  the thermal efficiency at the source might be around 37% or it might not, or, due to the technology used, it might not even be relevant (like if you are charging the EV during the day directly from a solar panel).

Edited by lexington green
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2022 at 3:11 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

NIT: Should read: Inverter + electric motor + motor controller convert 80%(at best) as the electric motors convert over 90% as we are talking permanent magnet motors here and not induction, etc.  World record for PM motor and controller is over 98% last I checked for a load optimized controller(cars have varied load control so cannot possibly hit this without a multitude of motors and controllers and with only 4 wheels... Good luck.  95% is still considered tops for majority of load optimized controllers.  I believe Tesla stated 92% for their latest iteration which I believe to mean 92% for both motor and controller which aligns with what I typed above.  The charger, AC-->DC inverter is where a large loss happens dropping overall efficiency down to the ~80% efficient territory.  85%... Good luck, that is a goal for sure.  Not there yet, unless straight from a DC source.  In fact, most AC--DC home chargers are only about 75% efficient - transport of energy to your home losing ~2%-->5%.  So, 75% of 90% is ~60% efficient compared to an ICE of ~30% efficient - cost of energy to drill transport etc. 

Since vast majority of people who can afford to buy a new car live in cities, their drive distance is not all that great and do not need large range.  Range is nice, but not required if you have home charging.  If you rent, you are screwed until cars start holding enough power for ~500miles range so you do not have to wait an hour to "fill up" at a so called "super charger".  Yea yeaaa, if a miracle happens one does the 15 minute ~100 miles range fill up.  But, who the Hell wants to do that everyday or every other day?  NO ONE.  One charge a week or less is where the sweet spot will be for 100% market saturation. 

Of course none of this can happen currently as we need an gargantuan EXPLOSION of mining/refining capacity that DOES NOT EXIST.  Requires a LOT of time. 

Tried buying the Aptera vehicle, but their electric looks FAR superior.  Why did they not make it longer for more solar?  If ever gets in production, sign me up.

I would take 60% over 30% any time.  EV and battery technologies are improving at "light speed" while the best way to improve the range of a gas powered ICE is to add an electric power train to it, suddenly you're getting 50 mpg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Peterwp said:

Thats republican plan B... name calling... When their ranting is exposed as the BS it actually is they turn to the mature tactic of name calling. Biden has a momentous task ahead of him if he is going to save America from itself !!!

When you grow up and look up basic facts, let us know.  No the ozone layer is not dictated by burning of coal, or oil, or NG.  No, CO2 is not a pollutant.  It is literally food for plants and invertebrates of which you eat plenty of. 

So, nice of you to finally admit that managers have to manage for cost benefit, not politic BS... oh wait, no you didn't as you claim the earth is dying and that should be their goal. 

Adios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lexington green said:

I would take 60% over 30% any time.  EV and battery technologies are improving at "light speed" while the best way to improve the range of a gas powered ICE is to add an electric power train to it, suddenly you're getting 50 mpg.

Uh, no.  Heard of a gas can?  Far cheaper to improve range of an ICE. 

As for the other, cost basis is better and why will be adopted.  Until road taxes start being applied and then... well, government has a way of always taking more than what they used to so... I expect sticker shock soon for all EV owners who have to start paying road taxes like ICE vehicles do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lexington green said:

The 'Electric engine =' calculations wouldn't work in Germany (where half of the electricy doesn't come from gas turbines).  

Vast majority of their energy used to come from NG after they shut down their coal/nuclear.  Today, Germany pretends on their numbers as they count every kWh of wind/solar as theirs while half the time they can't use it while shipping coal/NG power out of country which is still running.

Need batteries.  Only current solution is lithium iron phosphate...(people pretend regarding Hydrogen) and not even that as currently not enough lithium in the world for grid storage and everything else.  Probably can find more, but if one starts doing the calculations... we do not have enough.   Aluminum iron batteries or bust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2022 at 2:39 PM, Peterwp said:

My friend, your very own argument is working against you. You are attacking politicians trying to control a persons choice to invest in what they want yet Biden isnt the one that said you cannot invest in a certain strategy, Trump and the Republicans are. Biden only said investment managers must act in the fund participants best interest. Do you not think that those giving them money to invest for them should be able to expect that? Now by law they will be accountable if they dont, as they should be, right? It was Trumps law saying they cannot invest in ESG considerations as responsible investment managers said themselves that was restricting, for the obvious reason i previously pointed out. Trump and the republicans were the ones being controling. Biden didnt say you cant invest in something or have to invest in something... only that it has to be in best interest of the fund participants. I dont understand how that is an issue to you... unless you actually are a republican, then i understand completely.

Peter, This was a sneaky approach to further an agenda.  This Biden addition legally protects these retirement funds from lawsuits, because most of us realize that ESG rankings are corrupt, twisted, metric hype.  Behind the scenes is Blackrock, WEF and other elite who are pushing this ESG agenda.  The demonization of those corporations who do not follow ESG rankings are becoming blacklisted.  Biden strengthens the ESG narrative...that is the intent.

(It was sneaky...happening on Thanksgiving week.  See this:  https://www.zerohedge.com/political/thanksgiving-biden-stuffs-americas-401ks-esg

WSJ editorial: Biden Puts Your 401(k) to ESG Work

The Biden regulatory machine doesn’t rest, even in Thanksgiving week. On Tuesday the Labor Department finalized a rule that empowers retirement plan sponsors to invest based on environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors and put your 401(k) to progressive political work.

The Labor Department casts its rule as a mere clarification of the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Erisa), which requires that retirement plan sponsors act “solely in the interest” of participants and beneficiaries. A Trump Labor rule barred retirement managers from considering factors that weren’t material to financial performance and risk.

Asset managers and union pension plans claimed the Trump rule limited their discretion to consider such ESG factors as climate, workforce diversity and labor relations. The Biden DOL says it created a “chilling effect” on ESG investing. Its replacement rule gives plan sponsors nearly unlimited discretion and legal protection to invest based on these often political considerations.
“A fiduciary may reasonably conclude that climate-related factors” including “government regulations and policies to mitigate climate change, can be relevant to a risk/return analysis of an investment,” the rule says. Ditto workforce diversity, inclusion and labor relations since they may affect employee hiring, retention and productivity.
….

The main point of the Biden rule is to give legal protection to retirement plan fiduciaries that invest based on ESG. A secondary goal is to steer more retirement savings into ESG funds that often charge higher fees by allowing retirement sponsors to offer them as default options in 401(k) plans. Workers automatically enrolled in default funds can opt out, but they usually don’t.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is the Dept of Labor ...

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/fact-sheets/final-rule-on-prudence-and-loyalty-in-selecting-plan-investments-and-exercising-shareholder-rights

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/temporary-postings/prudence-and-loyalty-in-selecting-plan-investments-and-exercising-shareholder-rights-final-rule.pdf

~~~~~~~~~

...and EXCERPT

ESG Fund Concerns

Some have raised concerns about the cost and performance of ESG investment funds. In response to a related Securities and Exchange Commission request for public input on climate change disclosures by public companies, Jean-Pierre Aubry, assistant director of research at the Center for Retirement Research (CRR) at Boston College, wrote in a 2021 comment letter about his concern over regulations that "would give credence to the army of asset managers currently promoting ESG investing to retail and institutional investors…."

ESG research by the CRR, he added, found "the major state and local government pension plans that have incorporated ESG factors into their investment policies underperformed those that did not. The study also finds that most retail ESG funds have higher fees and worse performance than similar index funds."

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/dol-final-rule-rolls-back-restrictions-on-retirement-plans-use-of-esg-factors.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Says the king of opinionated tools.

Release the Kraken! 

Your 45 days are up

Tool: (noun)

1.) "A guy" with a hugely over-inflated ego, who in an attempt to get un-due attention for himself, will act like a jackass, because, in his deluded state, he will think it's going to make him look cool, or make others want to be like him. The person may even insincerely apologize later on, but only in an attempt to get more attention, or to excuse his blatantly intentional, and unrepentantly tool-ish behavior.

2.) Someone whose ego FAR exceeds his talent, intelligence, and likeability. But, of course, he is clueless regarding that fact. He erroneously thinks he is THE MAN!

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grandpa, I would much rather have a discussion on a more respectable level but when an "Opinionated Tool" talks down to me with a bunch of BS and a thick smug attitude well i recognize that there is only one kind of answer they will understand. thats exactly the SAME smug attitude they are dishing out!! And dont you think at your age you should have outgrown the name calling stage??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peterwp said:

Grandpa, I would much rather have a discussion on a more respectable level but when

Liar. Look at your first post. 

When you get past the age of 20 let us know.  You might mature into a partially civilized human being.

You could also learn what a paragraph is.

PS: You might, if you are honest for 5 seconds, look up the TTO(Tropical troposhere) data in IPCC's OWN reports.  According to basic laws of physics, if there is WARMING, it should show up here FIRST and push this excess heat north/south.  This is the entire basis for the global warming model.  The idiot IPCC et al. actually still publishes this data in their own report as it is the ENTIRE basis for global warming and the corrupt fools have now published for last ~20 years have the ground temps warming FASTER than the TTO in said region...

When heat rises.  Uh. lets try that again... heat rises.  TTO is actually NEGATIVE in their OWN reports!  By this aspect alone, without knowing ANYTHING about ANY other aspect we know with 100% certainty, there is abject corruption in the so called "climate science".  You do not need to know ANYTHING past this to know they are LYING corrupt, FRAUDS.

PPS: Every astronomer uses black body radiation physics to determine a planets temperature, atmosphere etc, but all of a sudden here on earth, according to the CO2 religious cult, where water literally covers the radiation band of CO2 minus a tiny sliver where other gases cover it, these basic laws of physics do not matter anymore and whom all of a sudden, cannot read an ice core graph showing CO2 increases FOLLOWING temperature increases stand in's according to geological history which uses... well uh... my bad.. DATA and the actual scientific method, not GIGO computer models which cannot even predict the weather a day from now let alone a year from now. 

Suggest a science class or two where you learn basic LAWS of physics, not propaganda pretending to be "science" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2022 at 12:15 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:
[Trump] 

1.) "A guy" with a hugely over-inflated ego, who in an attempt to get un-due attention for himself, will act like a jackass.

 

Fixed that for you.

He wants to rip up the constitution now... Still think you are on the good side?  0R0 and Ward would be so entertaining right now if they weren't in jail or hiding in shame (Seditious conspiracy).

Funny thing is if the constitution is voided the gun nuts lose right right to bear arms.  Guy had dinner with known antisemitic losers who publicly praise Hitler for Pete's sake. 

Fill up on crow and then join the side of good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 12/4/2022 at 5:03 PM, TailingsPond said:

Fill up on crow and then join the side of good.

Maga lives on..BIGLY I MIGHT ADD!

 

 

595daa75524f422dbd402e0d79d674a0_md.jpg

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Maga lives on..BIGLY I MIGHT ADD!

 

 

595daa75524f422dbd402e0d79d674a0_md.jpg

WHOA!! So you are not only dumping Trump but one of your two new dear leaders is none other than Mr. Electric Vehicle himself?!?!?

Ha...HaHa....BWAHAAAHHHAAAA :)

EVs are now MAGA Mobiles   

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

7 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Maga lives on..BIGLY I MIGHT ADD!

 

 

595daa75524f422dbd402e0d79d674a0_md.jpg

What ??? no room in the photo for Herschel and his lover Lindsey............Those two would have made a great couple running for the Presidency/VP ..........GOP these days is the party of Losers.......

Maga lives on..BIGLY???? ha ha ha You should be at Herschels' funeral party tonight...a real dead event for the GOP

 

 

Edited by notsonice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.