Bernie actually suggested a special tax for "gas guzzlers" and meat.

Lol! Oh brother. Did you not notice the 30 years of marriage comment I made? You have no idea since you don't know me, but go ahead and make ridiculous comments like that about someone you know nothing of. Sheesh. 😏

A human does not win over an animal every time. There are plenty of soulless murderous human beings I wouldn't rescue over any dog. Would you rescue a person who murdered or raped your child? Would you rescue a person who callously killed your dog because it was fun? Probably not.

To the second question, I love my family, friends, and my own animals over those who are not part of my family. Therefore, of course I would prefer my loved ones rescued over those I do not know - to include animals I don't know. To ask you a similar question, would you not prefer YOUR loved ones to be rescued over unknown strangers? Of course you would. Hypocritical much yourself?

So where were you guys. Oh yea...
Climate change, Tesslas, F-250's, Republicans, Democrats, and a hurricane. Carry on. ;)

You could be right. It could be misleading. It doesn't mean, however, that means climate change is a hoax. This article, written by a scientist and former oil man, addresses the possible error in the 97% claim. Still, according to him, it's above 80% and a strong consensus.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?c=0&s=trending#8da560713657

The space program, like the Interstate Highway system and the Manhattan project, was driven by national defense concerns. There is no such support for energy r&d among today's voters, who have other spending priorities. Politicians are afraid to get too far ahead of the public in raising taxes or cutting entitlements. :(

Denmark gets over 40% of its power from wind, and has on multiple occasions been able to meet or exceed its daily power needs purely from wind. Not bad for a power source that is "not viable".

And if little old Denmark, with only 5.5 million people, can find the resources to make it a viable source of energy don't try and convince me that the richest country in the world does not have the ability to make it viable.

Wind energy might be viable but it has an enormous footprint for the amount of energy it generates. They have been spreading like a cancer across this country and of course are often put in places where the land is not tillable. They kill untold numbers of birds and bats and are just plain eyesores in some of the last wild places left.

They're a pain in the butt on tillable ground too!

And oil refineries, plus the plan to turn the AWNR into a driller's paradise.... Are better how??

Pssst!! Pssst!! (He was Italian; born in Genoa. His expedition was financed by Spain, but he sailed from Portugal.....) ;)

This.

Electric may become a viable form for intra-city transit, and for rail, inter-city.

But air travel? You need energy density, and that seems unlikely to jump 400 orders of magnitude.

Here's an interesting article on the false eco-economy of windmills. It cites a lot of numbers that I have not personally researched to verify, but a quick perusal (with an engineering background) says "plausible and in the ballpark."

I believe the UK "Spectator" is a reputable magazine similar to Esquire.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/...global-energy/

70 years ago, almost no homes had air conditioners, yet almost every home had a solar-powered clothes dryer, and a carbon-free washing machine.

It was a hand-cranked wash tub, and a clothes line.

I wonder how many climate-warrior homemakers would give up their front-loaders and "spring-fresh" fabric softeners to do things the old-fashioned way.