Hodad

Lol 1. Do you have a relevant point to make? We need LDCs to skip steps of industrialization, so the Western world subsidizes better tech. International carbon markets are part of the Kyoto protocol. Polluter countries pay LDCs not to pollute. Which in turn helps then skip less efficient stages of growth. They can be owners or stakeholders in their own infrastructures. 2. The economy is thriving. Jeebus, look at any data. You look like a fool, standing outside on a balmy day, complaining about the cold. -- And WTF? in your warped little mind does the SPR level have to do with record high domestic oil production? Two different things entirely, like your salary and your bank balance. Once again, try data. What aspect of the economy do you want to jump start? Jobs? Wages? The stock market? Manufacturing? GDP growth? What exactly are you whining about? Trump left office with the economy in shambles, and all of those metrics have improved dramatically while Biden has been in office. Most of them are as good or better than pre-covid Trump. And again, starting from a point of extreme hardship. Trump started high and ended low. Biden started low and is climbing steadily. There really isn't much to complain about. And more to the point, Biden has actually made some real fundamental investments in the future of the economy, in the base and middle of the economy, rather than just coasting and feeding the rich.

Yep. And if Musk lends the guy a megaphone X will face social and commercial consequences for his part. Rightly and naturally.

Yes, Coal is undeniably gross and harmful in many direct ways, short and long term. Coal may be "cheap" but the cost is high. The externalities are off the charts. It's a case of penny wise and pound foolish. The whole principle--many decades old now--behind funding new technologies in developing countries is that they won't have to go through every stupid, wasteful phase of growth. They don't need to start with the pony express, move to telegraphy, then phone lines then internet and mobile phones. We've already done that work. Africa will skip directly to cell towers and internet over the top. The exact same thing is true with power generation. They can skip the wasteful ugly stuff and build directly into a renewable-heavy energy infrastructure. -- And we help pay for it so that they don't fill OUR air atmosphere with CO2 and particulates the way China does. Win-win. And, as you've been correctly told dozens of times, the economy is robust by any measure and more oil is being pumped out of the ground than at any point in history. We're net oil exporters. There is no domestic shortage.

Yes. Full points for patience and self-restraint. I have gone through charitable phases over the years. I even started here very politely. I know, in principle, why one doesn't wrestle with pigs. But just in principle. 🤣

It's not. Climate deniers (Nationalist, as a prime example) pretend that someone wants to flip a switch and turn off all fossil fuel usage and then we'll all try to chaotically figure out how to replace it. That's a very dumb idea. Which is why nobody has ever proposed it. It's why every country has phased carbon targets. It's why they phase out the worst offenders (coal) first. It's why the transition takes time. Germany didn't make a choice between coal and freezing. They made a choice to get off coal as quickly as they could replace it with less harmful alternatives. Freezing was never on the table as an option. And getting off coal--and eventually all fossil fuels--means alternative energy, not "no energy."

You've been overcome by an admirable fit of generosity, but I haven't been so lucky, lol. Sticking with "shamefully dishonest."

It does. Luckily that's not a choice people have to make anymore.

That is SHAMEFULLY dishonest. It's nothing to do with CNN. There are millions of scientists active in the world. They near-universally acknowledge the fact of anthropogenic warming. You've found a one retired academic who sort-of disagrees with policy recommendations and latched onto her opinion as if it justifies your skepticism. You're "logic" is like the fool who visits doctor after doctor after doctor who all tell him cut back on bacon and salt or he's headed for a heart attack. But you just struggle through the dizzy spells and meat-sweats until you finally find some quack who tells you're healthy enough. "Huzzah, you say. I told you all those other doctors were wrong! This is the only smart doctor who got it right!"🤪

You are such an echo chamber boob. lol A. Coal is gross. Even if these nations didn't accept the AGW science, nobody wants the air quality disaster that comes with coal. B. For whatever reason you are "celebrating" coal powered plants, it's a combination of phony and misleading--probably because you just heard some other jackass make a list. For example, Germany un-shuttered some coal plants as winter backup against natural gas shortage, but is still phasing out. Austria has been coal-free since 2020 with coal plants for emergency backup. Italy is almost coal free and should complete by 2025. The Netherlands committed to be coal free by 2030. -- But regardless of target dates and milestones, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those countries is being coal-free in the next 5-10 years. They didn't say "Nah, climate change is a hoax, let's go back to coal." So whatever point you were trying to make, you're 180 degrees off. "Drill, baby, drill" was always a stupid slogan, but doubly so now when production is at record levels. You can't "turn the taps back on" when they are already the most open they have ever been. The moral, as usual, is that you have a lot of extreme opinions, but no knowledge or information. It's bizarre. Maybe gather some of the latter and use them to shape the former. Just saying.

There is no hoax. And if you mean to say that you think you're merry band of know-nothings is "winning" the climate change debate I'm doing to have to reset the bar for "dumbest claim ever." Climate deniers have done nothing but lose ground. Published science is nearly unanimous. The world has never been more certain and galvanized. You flat-Earthers are, at least worth a good, hearty laugh. And now you want to declare victory too!🤣

What you say is false. The judge sided with the defense objections most of the time during Daniels' testimony and he even curtailed her story multiple times with his own objections. Perhaps the defense should have offered more objections if they thought her testimony was irrelevant and unduly presidential. That's their job, and Merchan clearly was sympathetic. Instead they just let it happen and whined about it afterward. Sort of like Daniels.

One of the few things he's said that actually makes sense.

Name 3 economic metrics that you think are important.

I don't care--at all--about some alleged "Satan dildo cake." It's not relevant. It has nothing to do with the Masterpiece case. It was not the reason he refused to sell a gay couple the same cake he would sell a straight couple. At BEST word got out that the man was discriminating against gay people and someone decided to troll him for it. A bigot got verbally trolled? Cry me a river. If a basic farking 3-tiered cake (or whatever) is "art" then a sandwich artist has the same claim to making art. Painting houses is my "art"! Pumping gas is my "art"! Every time I drop crinkle-cut potatoes into a deep fryer it's a motherfarking transcendent expression of the glory of god! That's all bullshit. Art CAN be expressed or executed in many mediums. A cake--or any commodity product--has to be an extraordinary and unique creation to become "art." And beyond being bullshit, it's an attempt to cynically use "god" as a legal facade to exclude ANYONE from anything about which a person claims to have religious feelings. I'm sure Jesus would be thrilled that people are being abused, marginalized or excluded in his name.

The fundamental problem here isn't that you're wrong, it's the way you go about being wrong, and looking for information that confirms your biases--without regard to quality or relevance or even reasonableness. You are shouting from the rooftops (for whatever reason) that climate change is an evil hoax. You do some googling to "prove" that and come back with... any old thing. In this case, your smoking gun is a handful of meteorologists criticizing of the language of a report FROM 30 YEARS AGO. 30 years. Let that sink in. You can't find anything current because the scientific community is nearly unanimous that, yes, the planet is warming and yes, humans are major drivers of that change. Every field, every country, every industry (including the petroleum industry!), every major scientific body. Because for more than 30 years the evidence has piled up, paper after paper, report after report, all pointing to the exact same conclusion, to the point that even those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo have had to acknowledge that climate change is fact. Scientists across the spectrum long ago shifted from "if" to "when, how fast, how much and what will it mean for their scope of their study?" And, BTW, meteorologists (short term) are NOT climatologists (long term). And they typically don't require as much education. But if you find their thoughts on the topic compelling, perhaps you should ask where the field stands today. American Meteorological Society (They have a LOT to say about it, including educational resources.) "Humans are causing climate to change and it poses numerous serious risks. The more carbon we emit, the higher the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be and the larger the changes in climate we'll face." Do you know why meteorologists--especially broadcast meteorologists--are so convinced that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a serious problem? It's because they stand up day after day, year after year in front of an audience and have to tell them over and over and over again about aberrant weather, record temperatures set with record frequency, and natural disasters at unnatural frequencies and with unnatural ferocity. Because they are public and accountable day after day to deliver the one directional trend that the climate is changing and our world is warming.

Lol. "The judge belongs in jail!" Um, no. There is nothing wrong or unusual about that gag order. Demanding that a powerful, public figure (with a legion of cultish followers, no less) not make public statements that could intimidate or endanger witnesses, jurors or court staff couldn't be more reasonable--or necessary--to sustain the process of justice. And if you'll notice, in the contempt review the judge does not penalize Trump for responding back to an engaged party. If Michael Cohen says something related to Trump in public, Trump has been allowed to snipe back without consequence. It's a two-way street. Well, as much as it can be when dealing with such a public figure. Clamoring for judges to be imprisoned (for no legal reason, BTW) is really driving home the "law and order" theme.

Not that I recall. If you want me to opine in what Biden said, show me the quote. Most of you are not even marginally economically literate and there's like an 80% chance you just didn't understand the information presented and hopped on the faux outrage bandwagon. And 20% allowance for decrepit Uncle Joe to have said something crazy.🤷‍♀️

The couple in question did not request a "Satan dildo cake" or anything at all other than the same exact commodity good they would sell to any straight person. And you WILDLY overestimate the quality of your "argument," which is just a retread of the nonsense defense the bigoted baker presented--an argument he lost twice. And the SCOTUS didn't give any ruling on the fundamental question. They punted. A "sandwich artist" is not an artist. A bakery churning out tiered cakes is not making art. It's not an act of self expression. You take the order, you make the food product. The end. And if either of those people are refusing service to protected classes, they are breaking the law.

Again, read your own citation. False. If you want to make a different claim, one that you haven't already provided evidence to refute, please provide a citation.

You lost the thread completely. Wasn't much point Selling someone the exact same cake you'd sell to anyone else is not "participating in their wedding." That's patently absurd. And yes, refusing to sell the exact same cake that you'd sell to anyone else, because the purchaser of the exact same cake is gay, absolutely is discriminating against the customer solely on the grounds of sexual orientation. It's a farking commodity product, not an artistic endeavor. Next you will argue that he can refuse to serve interracial couples. Or perhaps Blacks altogether. Or that a Subway Sandwich Artists shouldn't have to make a veggie footlong for a gay person because they disapprove of such things. You're making a specious argument to rationalize hateful, bigoted behavior.

Hey, dummy, if you want to know why *I* said something, try finding something I actually said.🙄

It gets better--and worse--every time we lower the cost of entry. Nobody was going to fund the FERN (Flat Earth Radio Network) but now every dumb idea has unlimited cheap distribution. And before you know it lizard people secretly rule the world and the most scrutinized election in history was secretly "stolen" but nobody can quite say how. Back before the printing press, the standards were VERY high to merit copying and distributing a book. 😁

A. That's false. Read your own citation. They cancelled scheduled sales. B. Even if it weren't false (it is) it wouldn't change the fact that net supply was increased, not reduced, making it impossible for a reduced domestic supply to function as a mechanism to apply upward pressure to prices. What you claim is literally impossible given the facts. Again, I took the time to explain the whole situation to you. You can read that same story in a dozen economic journals. Just learn something and move on. No need to cling to the incorrect assertion and defend it in sily ways.

Clearly. The fact of a laptop existing is all anyone should need to weave wild conspiracy theories and convince themselves that the unsupported claims are infallible. 🤪 It's almost toooooo easy!

"Lower than it could have been" in what timescale? lol Those things usually sit for a decade(s) before they are developed. Look, this isn't hard. Q. Has the net domestic production increased or decreased during Biden's time in office. A. It's increased. Dramatically. To record levels. Ergo, Biden did not reduce supply and could not have increased prices through a reduction of supply. You are very simply wrong. You're trying to make excuses for it, but they are really very silly. Just learn something and move on.