The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

I stopped watching Scott Adams years ago. Predicting Trump would win the election was no mean feat, as it sure did not look like that at first. Adams correctly identified the methods Trump used, the mechanism at work.

That does not make it right though. What I see is someone doing what suits him best while as the POTUS he should really be focusing on what's best for the USA. There is, for now, more money to be made with oil than science or green technology, so he plays the pipes of Big Oil.

It may radically change when the price of solar and wind not only competes but falls way below fossil fuel. Then the US, like everyone else, will switch over, and Trump will then lead the parade.

It may be too late though, there's a tipping point where the permafrost in Canada and Siberia melts and releases large amounts of methane, the oceans warm up too much and release large mounts of methane from methane hydrate deposits on the ocean floor and it all runs away to several degrees up, melting all the ice and raising the seas by 80 to 100 meters no matter what we do.

[freebeard]

I stopped watching Scott Adams years ago. Predicting Trump would win the election was no mean feat, as it sure did not look like that at first. Adams correctly identified the methods Trump used, the mechanism at work.

That does not make it right though. What I see is someone doing what suits him best while as the POTUS he should really be focusing on what's best for the USA.

From my point of view, predicting Trump would win was no big deal. Hillary invoked Pepé the Frog, and Kek the ancient god of Chaos jumped up and bit her in the b*tt.

That whole debacle in the House of Reps hinged on the point that doing what is best for the country is also what is best for the incumbent, in this case, Donald J.(for justice) Trump.

I find Scott Adams irritating but I watch anyway. He's making bank on reinventing Marcus Aurellius.

I find Tim Pool irritating for other reasons, but he's still right a lot. And Steve Crowder.

[oil pan 4]

I will tell you how trump won.
Hillery.

How is women and minority unemployment at its lowest level in history only good for trump and not good for the country?
How does 4% gdp growth only good for the goose and no good for the gander?

[freebeard]

This is on topic: [Prof?/Film-maker?] Simon Holland did a good recap of the Solar Orbiter's mission and used this [footage?/data?] from SOHO as an outro:

Solar Orbiter - Prof Simon

Recommended. Soon we get to see behind that blanking disk in the center.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I stopped watching Scott Adams years ago. Predicting Trump would win the election was no mean feat, as it sure did not look like that at first. Adams correctly identified the methods Trump used, the mechanism at work.

I'm much less susceptible to non-rational forms of persuasion, so I was blind to how motivating Trump could be. SA has been helpful at pointing these methods out to me. As freebeard says, I find him to be annoying too, and I don't subscribe to "might is right" philosophy, though that isn't exactly where SA is coming from. Still, his thought processes through things are generally rational, and therefore worthwhile to consider.

That does not make it right though. What I see is someone doing what suits him best while as the POTUS he should really be focusing on what's best for the USA. There is, for now, more money to be made with oil than science or green technology, so he plays the pipes of Big Oil.

All presidents incorporate their self-interests into their "service" to the citizens. Although I don't follow politics, as best I can tell, Trump is no worse than average in this regard, and possibly a little less. He's already wealthy, so that isn't his motivating factor, and there's no political career after this, so sleezey politics isn't a factor either.

What does that leave then? What's best for the USA is open to debate. We've got Communists like Bernie that think Communism is best. He's focused on what he thinks is best. I can't call it self-interest just because I disagree with his conception of best.

It may radically change when the price of solar and wind not only competes but falls way below fossil fuel. Then the US, like everyone else, will switch over, and Trump will then lead the parade.

Of course it will. New ways of doing things are the domain of liberalism. Once something goes mainstream and is clearly better, it gets incorporated by conservatives. Once renewables are adopted by conservatives, you'll see them pushing back against whatever comes along to replace those, because you don't change what's working unless it's clearly and demonstrably better.

It may be too late though, there's a tipping point where the permafrost in Canada and Siberia melts and releases large amounts of methane, the oceans warm up too much and release large mounts of methane from methane hydrate deposits on the ocean floor and it all runs away to several degrees up, melting all the ice and raising the seas by 80 to 100 meters no matter what we do.

Perhaps. Democrats consume 3.9% less energy than Republicans. We can blame them 3.9% less when the apocalypse arrives.

[freebeard]

Breaking Down The Last Decade Of "Terrible" Climate-Change In 7 Narrative-Busting Charts by Tyler Durden Sat, 02/08/2020

[RedDevil]

Blaming communism for everything and calling Democrats communist is quite stale.
Labeling something communist just shows you have no intent to take it seriously.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Blaming communism for everything and calling Democrats communist is quite stale.
Labeling something communist just shows you have no intent to take it seriously.

The extreme left in this country are communists.

I still want to know how record low unemployment only benefits trump.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Blaming communism for everything and calling Democrats communist is quite stale.
Labeling something communist just shows you have no intent to take it seriously.

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I'm only specifically identifying Bernie as a commie, a label he's comfortable wearing.

I'm not against Communism; it works great in a family or very small community/tribe. It becomes progressively dysfunctional the larger the group becomes, scaling up to utter catastrophe at the nation level. Capitalism is blamed for the Tragedy of the Commons problem, and rightly so. Communism has a Tragedy of the Everything problem. When everything is owned by everyone, then nobody owns it and things rot. I see this all the time at work; the number 1 culprit of any failure is lack of ownership. Take a work queue for instance; if everyone is responsible for voluntarily taking work from the queue, productivity falls off a cliff and people cherry pick the stuff to work on, neglecting the unappealing yet important stuff. Communism fails at even the medium sized business level. Just imagine how dysfunctional it is with a group of millions of strangers.

I make a very distinct difference between Democrats and Communists. Considering the needs of disadvantaged people is way different than despising success. That said, mainstream Democrats have increasingly become accepting of their platform being hijacked by an ideology responsible for more suffering and murder than any other in human history. The Hammer and Sickle are at least as evil as the Swastika.

I've got no fear of Communism at the national level because as I stated elsewhere, ideas are subjected to Darwinism too, and those unfit for purpose will inevitably die. Communism doesn't have to be fought, it can simply be left alone to wither and die.

My criticism of Communism isn't politically motivated, but rather a reasoned response based on the evidence we have. If it was a better national system, I'd abandon all inferior systems in a moment because I'm about goodness, not ideology.

Advocating for Communism would be much more effective if people would demonstrate the benefits by pointing to evidence rather than always being on the defensive by saying things like Gulags have a worse reputation than they deserve.

[freebeard]

Blaming communism for everything and calling Democrats communist is quite stale.

Times change, keep up. I remember Democrats like Adlai Stevenson and Wayne Morse*.

Also, 'not all Democrats'. The Democratic party is splitting into at least two factions. The traditional business Democrats vs the newly emerging faction:

duckduckgo.com/?q=social+democrat+vs+democrat+socialist

The intersectional feminists and Antifa's Black Block represent about 8% of the population. They won't prevail.

Now I'm off to view the Space Weather report.

*

Political party
Republican (1944–1952)
Independent (1952–1955)
Democratic (1955–1974)