Aristides

This is not the 40's or even the 50's, it takes years to get new weapons systems into service and people trained to operate them. 156 F-35's a year are produced for all the air forces that operate them. During WW2 an average of over 10 P-51 Mustangs a day were built over four years plus all the other fighter types being built. From first steel being cut to the first of the RN's Type 26 frigate going into service will be 9 years, ten times longer than it took to build a WW2 destroyer. We have bad mouthed our military so much, concentrating on things like sexual harassment that we can't even man the ships we have. Our naval commander says that of the four new deWolfe class ships going into service, we only have personnel to man one of them. Any future large scale war will end when the combatants run out of weapons because they cannot be replaced as fast as they will be destroyed.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-06-27/watchdog-report-finds-negligence-mismanagement-at-n-y-jail-where-jeffrey-epstein-died

Not just the US. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-drought-rebecca-schulz-stefan-kienzle-irrigation-1.7074092 Expect food to get much more expensive.

A big difference is Canadians have a choice of parties for their one party rulers.

And yet Canadians who want to stick with FPTP instead of some sort of PR actually prefer one party rule.

Ya,we all know housing costs are high because no one wants to live there. 🙃

So all the systems failed. That just says Texas has a shitty grid that can’t stand a bit of cold.

If the Texas ones were that was their fault. Many northern countries have wind farms and they are reliable. The North Sea is full of them. The world's largest floating wind farm is off the coast of Norway. 20% of Sweden's and 17% of Finland's power comes from wind farms.

Because they weren't designed to handle ice. Alberta has lots of wind farms and it is a hell of a lot colder than Texas.

No one is saying it was illegal although it would be hate speech in this country, this is about a morally bankrupt university policy. Universities will ban speakers because their opinions might offend the sensibilities of their precious students but won't sanction those same students for calling for another Holocaust.

Still haven't learned the difference between weather and climate.

They have been able to deice aircraft propellers since the 1930's, maybe Texas should have used a bit of that technology.

The issue with fuel cells isn't the fuel cells, it's the economical production of enough green hydrogen to fuel them.

Well, either he is or he isn't, it won't make any difference to his base, they will excuse anything.

Actually they are panning out, that's why they are warning of a tipping point. You are too stupid to understand that there is a point where this will feed itself regardless of what we do. You are too ignorant to do any real research and just comfort yourself with opinions from know nothing hacks.

So says the guy that hopes Ukraine and Gaza will be destroyed. Stop yourself.

Ya, you ignore all the measurements and data compiled by NASA satellites over decades and the scientists on the ground actually measuring rates of glacier melt and latch on to political hacks and snake oil salesmen with no scientific credentials like Marano. You never question their motives and sources because they are telling you exactly what you want to hear. Talk about gullible, you set new standards.

Just points to the moral decay in institutes of higher learning. It's OK to call for the genocide of a group provided you don't actually kill anyone. They call that "context" and It's something I never thought I would see.

Like I said, politics taints everything you think, it makes you incapable of being objective. You live in a never never land where anything you don't want to hear is just a lefty plot. You are so brainwashed by your right wing circle jerks its pathetic.

To what end, just for the hell of it? Your "truth" is whatever you want to hear, regardless of the source.

Rising ocean temperatures show definite warming. That article doesn't even mention them, all it talks about is weather. And they accuse NOAA of being selective. But hey, why wouldn't we believe an OP in a investors journal written by an anonymous author. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/oceans-have-been-absorbing-the-worlds-extra-heat-but-theres-a-huge-payback https://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth-oceans-storing-heat-record-breaking-amounts

That doesn't answer the question.

No we don't because we don't know what it would have been like without the tax. Like I said, because we can't measure the results, we can spin it any way we want. Yes, tobacco and alcohol taxes probably do have an effect on consumption but we really don't know how much. Just because we personally haven't changed much doesn't mean no one else has. A problem with the carbon or any other tax is people won't change their behaviour if they can afford not to. That and the use of energy is not optional is why I'm not a big believer in the tax. You can quit smoking or drinking but not driving your car to work or heating your home. PP is doing a great job of spinning the tax to his benefit.

We don't know that the carbon tax has failed but we also don't know how much it may have helped. That is the problem with a tax, we can't measure the result so people can spin it any way they want.

Oppose what, the carbon tax? Go right ahead because I'm not convinced how effective it is either but that doesn't change the fact that we are on the way to making the planet uninhabitable. We can argue about details it doesn't change the fact humans are a major contributor to the planet warming.