Koko78 Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 Instead of carbon taxing the krauts, they should stick to fixing their terrible emissions on their over-priced cars. That'd be a start. Their actual emissions or the emission numbers their on-board computer systems are altered to give?
Tiberius Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 If it's a good company how much of your personal funds have you invested on future returns? It's tough to invest in emerging technologies because so many of the new companies either fold or are bought out. One hundred years ago there were a whole bunch of auto companies but only a few emerged as the dominant players. It is a tempting buy on investment. But as of now I have not bought any solar stock. Maybe if the government got more behind the effort, as I think it should, I might jump in.
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 Look, I missed that Yes, funny How the !@#$ did you miss that? It's your !@#$ing pet peeve!
4merper4mer Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 Their actual emissions or the emission numbers their on-board computer systems are altered to give? How about only charging for daytime numbers? This spreads out the traffic and helps drive overall numbers down. Use roads when they are more clear by discouraging and vilifying daytime travel, not all travel. To summarize, don't make anyone feel ashamed about their nocturnal emissions. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be cleaned up because they definitely should.
Wacka Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 It's tough to invest in emerging technologies because so many of the new companies either fold or are bought out. One hundred years ago there were a whole bunch of auto companies but only a few emerged as the dominant players. It is a tempting buy on investment. But as of now I have not bought any solar stock. Maybe if the government got more behind the effort, as I think it should, I might jump in. So you are for fascism?
/dev/null Posted September 11, 2017 Posted September 11, 2017 It's tough to invest in emerging technologies because so many of the new companies either fold or are bought out. One hundred years ago there were a whole bunch of auto companies but only a few emerged as the dominant players. It is a tempting buy on investment. But as of now I have not bought any solar stock. Maybe if the government got more behind the effort, as I think it should, I might jump in. So basically you're not willing to risk your own funds but are willing to gamble with taxpayer money to subsidize an industry that suits your political ideology How very Progressive
B-Man Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) COMMON SENSE ON HURRICANES The coincidence of hurricanes Harvey and Irma striking in rapid succession has naturally caused global warming hysterics to react hysterically. As usual, Ken Haapala of the Science and Environmental Policy Project contributes a dose of common sense and scientific knowledge: Last week’s TWTW discussed Hurricane Harvey, which ended a lull of almost 12 years without a major hurricane making landfall in the US. A major Hurricane being defined as category 3, or above, on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale used by the National Hurricane Center, with sustained wind of 111-129 mph (96-112 knots, 178-208 km/h) or greater. The lull in hurricanes hitting the US was simply good fortune and had nothing to do with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The twelve-year lull between category 3 hurricanes was the longest in the historical record, which goes back several hundred years. We have been living in a time of unusually little hurricane activity, which, as Haapala says, is merely lucky. Unfortunately, Harvey stalled around Houston and inflicted major damage not by winds but by major flooding from about 50 inches of rain over a few days. Even before the relatively flat area was urbanized, flooding from heavy rains was a problem. Contemporary newspaper accounts describe the extensive damage to the cotton fields during the floods of April and May 1929, before hurricane season. The population was less than 5% of the population today. The December 1935 flood exceeded the 1929 floods. Afterwards, US Rivers and Harbors Act of 1938 enabled the construction of a storm management system featuring two major reservoirs. Unfortunately, the rainfall and its runoff were beyond the design capacities of the reservoirs and floodgates had to be opened, compounding the flooding problems. Many critics of Houston sermonize that the city should not have been built, or should have been built differently, but that can be said about any human structure that is damaged by natural events. No doubt, the same sermonizing will occur after those in Florida experience the destructive force of Hurricane Irma, currently a Category 4 storm, crossing the Florida Keys. According to forecasts, Irma will go up the west coast of Florida. Our best wishes go to those who have been damaged and will be damaged by this storm. What the climate hysterics never do is offer any quantitative analysis to substantiate their claims of increased hurricane activity. They don’t, because they can’t. Edited September 12, 2017 by B-Man
4merper4mer Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 So you are for fascism? Why the question mark? He directly stated his support.
OCinBuffalo Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) It's tough to invest in emerging technologies because so many of the new companies either fold or are bought out. One hundred years ago there were a whole bunch of auto companies but only a few emerged as the dominant players. It is a tempting buy on investment. But as of now I have not bought any solar stock. Maybe if the government got more behind the effort, as I think it should, I might jump in. The entire objective of most startups...is to be bought. You usually see a nice 20-30% ROI on that, if not more. So please explain how one company buying your stock in another is a bad thing. After all, a buyout offer almost always triggers an automatic board election by the shareholders. Then the board votes on the offer. This is how business works. Yes there were lots of auto companies, but, also, many of them had a specific patent or piece of tech that made the company worth something. So, Ford, GM, etc. bought them. A lot of those little auto companies returned significant profits. So, what is your argument? Do you honestly believe that if a new solar company developed a collection tech that could triple the energy output of solar panels, GE would NOT buy them in a heartbeat? Thus the government has nothing to do with this: either somebody invents something, that's worth something to GE, and you take a big risk for a potential big reward, or, nobody invents anything better, and you, along with the rest of us, stay out. Or, you go buy GE stock, because they are already in the solar panel business, you figure they have the best chance to innovate the solar panel, and STILL the government has nothing to do with it. Edited September 12, 2017 by OCinBuffalo
4merper4mer Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 The entire objective of most startups...is to be bought. You usually see a nice 20-30% ROI on that, if not more. So please explain how one company buying your stock in another is a bad thing. After all, a buyout offer almost always triggers an automatic board election by the shareholders. Then the board votes on the offer. This is how business works. Yes there were lots of auto companies, but, also, many of them had a specific patent or piece of tech that made the company worth something. So, Ford, GM, etc. bought them. A lot of those little auto companies returned significant profits. So, what is your argument? Do you honestly believe that if a new solar company developed a collection tech that could triple the energy output of solar panels, GE would NOT buy them in a heartbeat? Thus the government has nothing to do with this: either somebody invents something, that's worth something to GE, and you take a big risk for a potential big reward, or, nobody invents anything better, and you, along with the rest of us, stay out. Or, you go buy GE stock, because they are already in the solar panel business, you figure they have the best chance to innovate the solar panel, and STILL the government has nothing to do with it. A lot of this is correct and a lot of it is crap.
Tiberius Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 So basically you're not willing to risk your own funds but are willing to gamble with taxpayer money to subsidize an industry that suits your political ideology How very Progressive I think you payers have a responsibility to pay for it. They are ruining the environment, right? I have a vote and I'd spend my vote on funding alternative energy. The entire objective of most startups...is to be bought. You usually see a nice 20-30% ROI on that, if not more. So please explain how one company buying your stock in another is a bad thing. After all, a buyout offer almost always triggers an automatic board election by the shareholders. Then the board votes on the offer. This is how business works. Yes there were lots of auto companies, but, also, many of them had a specific patent or piece of tech that made the company worth something. So, Ford, GM, etc. bought them. A lot of those little auto companies returned significant profits. So, what is your argument? Do you honestly believe that if a new solar company developed a collection tech that could triple the energy output of solar panels, GE would NOT buy them in a heartbeat? Thus the government has nothing to do with this: either somebody invents something, that's worth something to GE, and you take a big risk for a potential big reward, or, nobody invents anything better, and you, along with the rest of us, stay out. Or, you go buy GE stock, because they are already in the solar panel business, you figure they have the best chance to innovate the solar panel, and STILL the government has nothing to do with it. Actually, many of the auto companies just went bankrupt. I owned whole foods and they were bought out by Amazon. I got a decent little bonus but nothing out of the world. And I do own some GE But the government should do much more
Joe Miner Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 A lot of this is correct and a lot of it is crap. Isn't that the slogan for PPP?
4merper4mer Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 Isn't that the slogan for PPP? Not exactly. The official full slogan is: A lot of this is correct and a lot of this is crap but sometimes the crap is correct and the correct is crap but that doesn't mean the correct is always crap or the crap is always correct. I like to simplify things so I just say: ALOTICAALOTICBSTCICATCICBTDMTCIACOTCIAC
row_33 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 so was CNN more disappointed that: 1) Trump won; or 2) The Florida disaster wasn't all they had hyped it to be, not even 10%
B-Man Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 so was CNN more disappointed that: 1) Trump won; or 2) The Florida disaster wasn't all they had hyped it to be, not even 10% Oh.................easily #1..............they will never get over it.............. But in regards to the second. THE PRESS STARTS ROWING BACK THE PRE-IRMA HEADLINES: “That headline at The Washington Post makes me think about all the headlines, as the hurricane was approaching, about how the hurricane is worse because of climate change. If if wasn’t worse, was that because the earlier talk about the effect of climate change was exaggerated? . . . The article is about luck and happenstance — ‘shifts and wobbles.’ And I can’t help feeling suspicious that if the hurricane had bounced into more damaging locations, it would be framed in terms of climate change.”
row_33 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 they were totally wrong again, as always the big lie now is "it is much worse than it could have been" which is reaching into the biggest elephant's rear end to pull out that totally unprovable assertion.
Tiberius Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 Oh no! The government is creating the hurricanes! http://www.thedailybeast.com/no-dumbasses-the-government-didnt-cause-hurricane-irma-with-its-secret-weather-machine The conspiracy theorists believe the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program site is a weather-altering weapon in disguise. They claim that HAARP’s radio waves can somehow cause, or worsen, storms—and that the government is behind it all. (That is, when HAARP isn’t controlling minds, conducting long-range spying operations, or threatening to “capsize” the planet.)
Koko78 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 Oh no! The government is creating the hurricanes! http://www.thedailybeast.com/no-dumbasses-the-government-didnt-cause-hurricane-irma-with-its-secret-weather-machine The conspiracy theorists believe the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program site is a weather-altering weapon in disguise. They claim that HAARP’s radio waves can somehow cause, or worsen, storms—and that the government is behind it all. (That is, when HAARP isn’t controlling minds, conducting long-range spying operations, or threatening to “capsize” the planet.) Seems legit.
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) You want fascism? Here's your fascism. “Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such... ...Brad Johnson, executive director of Climate Hawks Vote, posted last week on Twitter a set of “climate disaster response rules,” the third of which was to “put officials who reject science in jail.” Edited September 12, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 You want fascism? Here's your fascism. But y'know...we had no hurricanes all the time Obama was in office with his foot on the throat of the coal industry. Then as soon as we withdraw from the Paris Accords...BAM! Two major hurricanes hit the country. Now, that may not illustrate a causal relationship...but "no hurricanes while environmental regulations is strong, major hurricanes when environmental regulations are weak" is a hell of a correlation. I'll bet it's got a P-value less than 0.05, which is low enough to be "Scientific fact! No more debate allowed! Burn the heretics!"
Recommended Posts