Since folks like to talk about…

[dneal]

…threats to democracy, authoritarian Presidencies, etc…

The ‘Climate Emergency’ Trumps Democracy (https://www.commentary.org/noah-rothman/the-climate-emergency-trumps-democracy/?utm_campaign=the-climate-emergency-trumps-democracy&utm_medium=social_link&utm_source=missinglettr-twitter)


Have you ever gotten the sense that Democratic concerns about the threat to American democracy aren’t entirely sincere?

Perhaps it’s the efforts of party strategists to boost conspiracy-curious, MAGA-flavored Republican candidates in the primaries only so they can mourn the GOP’s authoritarianism. Maybe it’s Democrats’ claim that the Supreme Court is making “a mockery of democracy” by remanding divisive social issues to the various legislatures, to which Democrats have responded by doing exactly what the Court recommended in seeking to codify those rights in legislation. Or it could be that the party responds to legislative setbacks by threatening to usurp the powers it isn’t specifically granted by Congress. At least, that’s how the president reportedly plans to respond to congressional lethargy on one of the many exigencies of our time: the “climate emergency.”

For months, progressive activists have lobbied the Biden administration to declare a “climate emergency” and to impose restrictions on private enterprise commensurate with the crisis. The president is reportedly listening to these enthusiasts and is prepared to do just that. It was not, however, any event or statistic that allegedly convinced Joe Biden to act. The failure of the people’s elected representatives in Congress to empower the executive branch has apparently convinced him to seize and exercise new authority.

The president’s forthcoming power grab was reportedly inspired by the breakdown of negotiations over new federal spending initiatives designed to support green technologies while making it more expensive to produce power through conventional means. Owing to the worsening economic climate, Sen. Joe Manchin refused to support this measure. This act of prudence led prominent Democratic influencers to label him the “man who single-handedly doomed humanity,” consigning us all to a future dominated by “barren croplands, flooded homes, and incinerated communities.”

It is precisely Congress’s explicit refusal to authorize the executive branch to execute new climate change regulations that has convinced Democrats the president must exercise those undelegated powers. “This also unchains the president from waiting for Congress to act,” said Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley of the still very fettered president. “Free at last,” Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse declared. “With legislative climate options now closed, it’s now time for executive Beast Mode.” And yet, the value proposition associated with declaring a “climate emergency” seems to be primarily in the declaration itself. What the president is supposed to do remains vague.

The Washington Post noted that activists believe the usurpation they envision “would allow the president to halt crude oil exports, limit oil and gas drilling in federal waters, and direct agencies including the Federal Emergency Management Agency to boost renewable energy sources.” The Biden administration has thus far balked at restricting oil exports because America’s European allies depend on U.S. energy exports to offset Russian supplies. The White House already produced a plan to limit federal leases offshore for the next five years and has canceled three oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Alaskan coast even in the absence of emergency powers. Reorienting FEMA away from disaster response and toward social engineering would expand the agency’s remit, sap it of authority, and commit it to tasks it cannot perform while sacrificing its core mission.

Moreover, as the Supreme Court recently ruled in West Virginia v. EPA, the executive branch has been assuming authority that “Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself” for years. That decision put an end to that agency’s apparent presumption that “Congress implicitly tasked it, and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in the basic regulation of how Americans get their energy” when there’s “little reason to think Congress did so.” These constitutional impediments do not dissolve simply because Democrats believe the Constitution is unequal to the imperatives of the moment.

But the activists are angry. They demand action, regardless of whether that action is effective or backed by the imprimatur of America’s democratic institutions. And the president needs those activists. In their absence at the polls in November, the defeat Democrats expect to endure could turn into a rout. The mechanisms of self-government have become an obstacle to realizing Democratic goals, so those mechanisms must be stilled. It’s enough to make you wonder if left-wing laments about “the death of American democracy” are genuine.

[Chip]

England's melting. France is on fire. Australia is either on fire or flooded. Millions are displaced by Bangladesh floods. New Mexico had huge wildfires in early spring. Alaska wildfires have burn 3 million acres so far this year. Glen Canyon and Lake Mead reservoirs, on the Colorado River, have sunk close to a level at which dams can no longer generate hydropower.

And you think this is a chickenshit political tussle?

[dneal]

England's melting. France is on fire. Australia is either on fire or flooded. Millions are displaced by Bangladesh floods. New Mexico had huge wildfires in early spring. Alaska wildfires have burn 3 million acres so far this year. Glen Canyon and Lake Mead reservoirs, on the Colorado River, have sunk close to a level at which dams can no longer generate hydropower.

And you think this is a chickenshit political tussle?

This line of thinking is brought to you by the same people who mandate electric cars and then won't let you charge them because there's not enough electricity.

[Bold2013]

Not to mention how they will significantly increase electricity costs after the switch.

It’s always about power and money…

[Chip]

This line of thinking is brought to you by the same people who mandate electric cars and then won't let you charge them because there's not enough electricity.

You really are a reactionary crank. Vaccines. Electric cars. Climate issues.

I've installed solar PV power on two houses, in 2004 and 2011. Both paid off in 7-8 years and have been trouble-free. We presently generate more electricity than we use. I designed the second system with enough surplus to charge an EV, which we'll buy in the next year or two.

We drive a 2000 Honda Insight, a hybrid that averages 60 mpg. I haven't calculated our savings in fuel and money for a while, but it's more than paid for the car.

I'm not sure why you react with such hostility to sensible, practical measures.

Is Joe Manchin a hero of yours?

[Chuck Naill]

Going in debt to save on fuel and electricity is a complicated decision.

Better is debt free car getting 15 mpg than a financed $35,000 car hat gets 60mpg. I just did some calculations and the gas guzzler wins.

Plus, those batteries can be very costly to replace.

That said, I think solar is a great idea. I’ve just had experience with solar spot lights, but I do enjoy the free lights for the house and utility barn.

[dneal]

This line of thinking is brought to you by the same people who mandate electric cars and then won't let you charge them because there's not enough electricity.

You really are a reactionary crank. Vaccines. Electric cars. Climate issues.

I've installed solar PV power on two houses, in 2004 and 2011. Both paid off in 7-8 years and have been trouble-free. We presently generate more electricity than we use. I designed the second system with enough surplus to charge an EV, which we'll buy in the next year or two.

We drive a 2000 Honda Insight, a hybrid that averages 60 mpg. I haven't calculated our savings in fuel and money for a while, but it's more than paid for the car.

I'm not sure why you react with such hostility to sensible, practical measures.

Is Joe Manchin a hero of yours?

I don't know what's more amazing. Your total lack of self awareness (i.e.: the "reactionary crank" comment, given the tenor of most all of your posts in this section), or your inability to grasp a topic and not turn it into something irrelevant or some narcissistic story-time. Your solar panels or Honda insight have absolutely nothing to do with this thread, and aren't going to solve "climate change". Your Insight isn't even an electric car. It's a gas-burning hybrid. Dear god you are dense.

You want snark and crankiness? There it is. Enjoy.

The narrative of the left is littered with claims of Trump's authoritarianism. How he is a dictator, a "literal Hitler", etc... Yet here we see those same radicals insisting the executive do the very thing they (with no evidence) claimed Trump was doing.

But for those who can see a larger picture, and could pass an 8th grade civics class; there is an enormous danger in the executive leveraging a "crisis" or "emergency" to assume powers they are not Constitutionally given.

You would think they would learn that these things backfiring, like the "nuclear option" they invoked being used against them, like the President using his pen and phone, would result in some semblance of hesitation for further radical changes; but not apparently. Let's get rid of the filibuster. Let's get the President to invoke power he doesn't have. What happens when control belongs to the opposing side? The toddler tantrum simply changes from demands to whining.

These same geniuses who have more than doubled the price of gasoline in a year, have the media warning of nation-wide "rolling blackouts", and can't manage to charge the electric cars they want; want to bankrupt the country with a "green new deal" using sources of energy that clearly cannot provide sufficient capacity and are laden with their own ecological problems.

They could come to the table with sensible ideas (Dan Crenshaw has a few) on how we could transition to natural gas and nuclear - over time - but they won't. They apparently would rather ram more stupid ideas down everyone's throats and then run on how they've identified a problem (that they deny causing) that they alone can fix. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Joe Manchin is a hero to every sensible American.

[Bold2013]

“there is an enormous danger in the executive leveraging a "crisis" or "emergency" to assume powers they are not Constitutionally given.”

Well said.

[Lloyd]

“there is an enormous danger in the executive leveraging a "crisis" or "emergency" to assume powers they are not Constitutionally given.”

Well said.
Did you ever notice how people praise executive orders when it's for something they want enacted and deplore them when it's for something they oppose?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

“there is an enormous danger in the executive leveraging a "crisis" or "emergency" to assume powers they are not Constitutionally given.”

Well said.
Did you ever notice how people praise executive orders when it's for something they want enacted and deplore them when it's for something they oppose?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

After reading today's op-ed piece where 8 writers are saying they were "wrong about" various topics, it caused me to think about my own tendency to see 2022 with a 1990 concept. I see it in myself and often hear as folks tend to repeat what they want to think is true. Brooks discusses, while at the NY Journal he took trips to Russia and came to believe the problem was land ownership, he now knows the problem was rule of law.

It is like seeing the January 6th insurrection as people wanting Trump when what they were really rebelling against is coastal elites and progressives making white males feel they are loosing their place. It is the same with vaccines and Fauci, they don't want anyone they don't trust telling them what to do. Obama was right, although I was insulted at the time, they cling to their guns or religion".

I am having to take a fresh look at many things with which I thought I was settled. I am pro life, but not allowing a female to choose bothers me. And not allowing a rape or incest victim freedom is immoral. I also don't like a minority imposing their Bible on the unwilling majority. If you think divorce is against God, don't get one. If you think abortion is wrong, don't get one. Let others live as they choose. It is their life. And it is not as if the Evangelicals can point a condescending finger at others suggesting they have the answers. And, saying "I am not perfect, but I am saved" is disrespectful to others and Jesus.

Anyway, the parting comments from Brooks today,
"Sometimes in life you should stick to your worldview and defend it against criticism. But sometimes the world is genuinely different than it was before. At those moments the crucial skills are the ones nobody teaches you: how to reorganize your mind, how to see with new eyes."

[TSherbs]

“there is an enormous danger in the executive leveraging a "crisis" or "emergency" to assume powers they are not Constitutionally given.”

Well said.
Did you ever notice how people praise executive orders when it's for something they want enacted and deplore them when it's for something they oppose?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect[emoji769]I actually have not seen this. I have seen particular decisions criticized, but I have not seen a flipflop on the actual power to do it. Sometimes the frequency of use is criticized. But presidents can run the executive branch. Who would object to that (in principle)?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

Better is debt free car getting 15 mpg than a financed $35,000 car hat gets 60mpg. I just did some calculations and the gas guzzler wins.

Perhaps, if your sole criterion is your money and your thinking is very short-term. But I think you figured wrong.

FYI, we bought the car, two years old and very low miles, for $12k cash, and have driven it for 16 years, or 116,000 miles. The total mileage is 134,000. The average mpg (instrument readout) is 58.5. That yields a lifetime fuel consumption of 2291 gal. and 1983 gal for our use. With an average fuel cost (2000 to present) of $3.00, that gives a total of $6873 lifetime and $5949 during our use.

For 134,000 miles, the 15 mpg car would burn 8933 gallons, or 6642 gallons more. With an average fuel cost of $3.00 per gallon that's $26,799 to date.

$26,799 – $6873 = $19,926 more in fuel costs for the guzzler (which is more than we paid for the hybrid).

Other than regular service, we've had very few maintenance costs. About three years ago we replaced the Motor Assist battery: about $3000.

Typical major service for a V8 engine can run from $3000 - $7500.

(Not to mention the damage to air, water, climate, and other things you don't care about.)

[Chuck Naill]

Better is debt free car getting 15 mpg than a financed $35,000 car hat gets 60mpg. I just did some calculations and the gas guzzler wins.

Perhaps, if your sole criterion is your money and your thinking is very short-term. But I think you figured wrong.

FYI, we bought the car, two years old and very low miles, for $18k cash, and have driven it for 16 years, or 116,000 miles. The total mileage is 134,000. The average mpg (instrument readout) is 58.5. That yields a lifetime fuel consumption of 2291 gal. and 1983 gal for our use. With an average fuel cost (2000 to present) of $3.00, that gives a total of $6873 lifetime and $5949 during our use.

For 134,000 miles, the 15 mpg car would burn 8933 gallons, or 6642 gallons more. With an average fuel cost of $3.00 per gallon that's $26,799 to date.

$26,799 – $6873 = $19,926 more in fuel costs for the guzzler (which is more than we paid for the hybrid).

Other than regular service, we've had very few maintenance costs. About three years ago we replaced the Motor Assist battery: about $3000.

Typical major service for a V8 engine can run from $3000 - $7500.

(Not to mention the damage to air, water, climate, and other things you don't care about.)

Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.

[Lloyd]

(Not to mention the damage to air, water, climate, and other things you don't care about.)

Since you care so much about the environment, are you vegan? If so, for how long?
This isn't a snarky question. I'm a very strict vegetarian, but I don't follow a vegan diet. I went vegan for a while but, due to absorption issues, I still eat (actually, drink) milk.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

We don't eat beef or much red meat in general. We use to hunt within a short distance of our place, but are getting a bit old to drag a deer or antelope through the sagebrush. Chicken about twice a month. Wild-caught fish from a fishermans' co-op. Eggs, perhaps a dozen per week. We eat cheese but use oat milk instead of cow. With a garden and a year-round greenhouse, I grow most of our veg, which eliminates the transportation issues of vegan diets in areas such as this unsuited to growing crops.

The greenhouse has a solar collector system and DC pump that provide radiant floor heat, even in winter. Any AC power (lights, fan) comes from our main 4.2 kW solar system.

https://i.imgur.com/osDnDtB.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/HLHc6SD.jpg

Ripe tomatoes in December.

[Chip]

Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.

What did I assume? You gave me vague BS and I gave you actual figures.

Aim higher. Stop pissing on your shoes.

[TSherbs]

We don't eat beef or much red meat in general. We use to hunt within a short distance of our place, but are getting a bit old to drag a deer or antelope through the sagebrush. Chicken about twice a month. Wild-caught fish from a fishermans' co-op. Eggs, perhaps a dozen per week. We eat cheese but use oat milk instead of cow. With a garden and a year-round greenhouse, I grow most of our veg, which eliminates the transportation issues of vegan diets in areas such as this unsuited to growing crops.

The greenhouse has a solar collector system and DC pump that provide radiant floor heat, even in winter. Any AC power (lights, fan) comes from our main 4.2 kW solar system.

https://i.imgur.com/osDnDtB.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/HLHc6SD.jpg

Ripe tomatoes in December.Can you open the greenhouse roof? What's in it now? Nothing?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Lloyd]

Impressive set-up!
When you say you eat cheese but use oat milk, do you mean you drink oat milk or that you use it to make cheese?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Making cheese is beyond my capability. We use it for drinking and in recipes that call for milk.

[Chip]

Can you open the greenhouse roof? What's in it now? Nothing?

Don't understand the question. The roof is 6-wall polycarbonate, R 3.8, to carry the snow load and insulate against the cold of our winters. Along the ridge is a row of clerestory vents, with thermal-piston devices that open and close them. There are low corner vents, with similar thermal devices, that open at 70°F for passive ventilation. On really hot days, I use a fan to move more air.

https://i.imgur.com/0c8eIsh.jpg

Inside it's a green madhouse. Very productive.

https://i.imgur.com/SbS0R3X.jpg

[Chuck Naill]

Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.

What did I assume? You gave me vague BS and I gave you actual figures.

Aim higher. Stop pissing on your shoes.

Get a bicycle, Chip. It will pay for itself.

You’re going to be pissed off anyway.

[Chip]

Pissed off enough to act.

You should try it.

[Chuck Naill]

Pissed off enough to act.

You should try it.

Nope. I am good.

[Chip]

Nope. I am good.

In what sense?

[Chuck Naill]

Nope. I am good.

In what sense?

In every sense of the word. How are you?

[Chip]

Glad you're so close to perfection.

You might want to brush up on English usage and math.

[Chuck Naill]

Glad you're so close to perfection.

You might want to brush up on English usage and math.

You misspelled Hillary in a post. I had decided next time you argued with insults about typos, I'd call this to your attention.

Saying I am good does not mean I think I am perfect. Perhaps you should learn to read and not assume, Chip. Your angry person posts aren't cutting it.

[Chip]

If I post in error, I don't mind a correction.

As far as anger, you seem to be a lot worse off. No one gets in as many fights, thinks people are threatening to kill them, etc.

Perhaps you should give yourself a break.

I'll stop teasing you for a while, if that will help. ;)

[Chuck Naill]

If I post in error, I don't mind a correction.

As far as anger, you seem to be a lot worse off. No one gets in as many fights, thinks people are threatening to kill them, etc.

Perhaps you should give yourself a break.

I'll stop teasing you for a while, if that will help. ;)

Chip, I’m good!!!!!Does t mean I think I’m perfect, but baked on your posts, our life experiences are much different. Maybe you should consider such

[Chip]

* * *

[Chuck Naill]

Per your posts, you have no child or children and live where no tree or grass or plants can survive.

[Chip]

It's an awful place, for sure.

https://i.imgur.com/QwoNnDT.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/IjPoC6y.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/hymTDwR.jpg

[dneal]

The climate-change environmentalist has a propane tank. lmao

[Chuck Naill]

The climate-change environmentalist has a propane tank. lmao

"Say it ain't so, Joe". Also, more fuel when accessing goods and services is required. I'll keep my Tahoe as I am 3 minutes away from everything.

This finger pointing is part of the problem when discussing climate change. Some have children, livestock, or other demographics that others without don't. We each can do what we can do.

[dneal]

I'll keep my Tahoe...

Hold on a second...


It appears here that men purchase a pick up truck upon retiring and insist upon backing into a parking space which tells me that both are a poor choice.


Personally, I don't want to end up with nothing but a $80K retirement pick up truck that I cannot back into a parking space after several attempts.


Since you were driving your $80k pickup truck listening to Tucky...

You drive an $80k SUV built on a truck chassis? LMAO!!! It ain't a big leap to figure out how you're current on what Tucky says. You drive your $80k Tahoe around listening to him, trying to back into parking spaces!!!

[Chuck Naill]

My Tahoe is an early mid year 1999 @dneal.

[Chuck Naill]

Just replaced the battery today. Don’t owe nothing and might get 12 mpg.

[dneal]

My Tahoe is an early mid year 1999 @dneal.

Still a truck with a permanent shell. Hope you can park it while you're listening to Tucker.

[Chuck Naill]

My Tahoe is an early mid year 1999 @dneal.

Still a truck with a permanent shell. Hope you can park it while you're listening to Tucker.

It's a wonderful vehicle with 287 k miles. I have a Karavan trailer as well if the Tahoe "permanent shell" becomes an issue. I have to admit that I have never heard a person refer to an SUV as a permanent shell truck, but you're always the numbskull exception.

My radio stations are public radio. Your Tucky buddy isn't broadcasting there as far as I can tell. Perhaps check YouTube when your checking out the latest healthcare recommendations from Iran nurses.

[Chip]

This reminds me of a night in the Corral Bar in Pinedale, Wyo. I was sitting between an oil rigger from Texas and a local super-cowboy, both of whom were cussing me for being a dirty varmintalist. I thought about throwing a punch, but decided the other one would blindside me, why bother? So I got up and ambled off for a piss, taking my time.

When I got back to the bar, they were thrashing around in a puddle of beer, pounding on each other.

:dirol:

[TSherbs]

Ha

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

My Tahoe is an early mid year 1999 @dneal.

Still a truck with a permanent shell. Hope you can park it while you're listening to Tucker.

It's a wonderful vehicle with 287 k miles. I have a Karavan trailer as well if the Tahoe "permanent shell" becomes an issue. I have to admit that I have never heard a person refer to an SUV as a permanent shell truck, but you're always the numbskull exception.

My radio stations are public radio. Your Tucky buddy isn't broadcasting there as far as I can tell. Perhaps check YouTube when your checking out the latest healthcare recommendations from Iran nurses.

Chuck, unlike you I don’t listen to Tucker. I’m busy listening to PhD’s discussing interesting topics. I don’t have your cocker spaniel attention span, consumed with the political drama the MSM is distracting you with.

I referred to your SUV, not the entire class. The original K5 was built on a 1/2 ton truck frame (just like your Tahoe). The fiberglass shell over the back used to be removable. Now it’s integrated. You’re driving a 1500 truck chassis.

[Chip]

I’m busy listening to PhD’s discussing interesting topics.

Indeed. Name a few, besides Jordan Peterson.

Does that qualify you as an elitist snob?

[Chuck Naill]

My Tahoe is an early mid year 1999 @dneal.

Still a truck with a permanent shell. Hope you can park it while you're listening to Tucker.

It's a wonderful vehicle with 287 k miles. I have a Karavan trailer as well if the Tahoe "permanent shell" becomes an issue. I have to admit that I have never heard a person refer to an SUV as a permanent shell truck, but you're always the numbskull exception.

My radio stations are public radio. Your Tucky buddy isn't broadcasting there as far as I can tell. Perhaps check YouTube when your checking out the latest healthcare recommendations from Iran nurses.

Chuck, unlike you I don’t listen to Tucker. I’m busy listening to PhD’s discussing interesting topics. I don’t have your cocker spaniel attention span, consumed with the political drama the MSM is distracting you with.

I referred to your SUV, not the entire class. The original K5 was built on a 1/2 ton truck frame (just like your Tahoe). The fiberglass shell over the back used to be removable. Now it’s integrated. You’re driving a 1500 truck chassis.

I know, John Campbell....yeah, I remember.

Much different, @dneal. There was never a removable section on the four door Tahoe and longer wheelbase, but yes, while it's a stretch, the '99 Tahoe is several generations forward from the K5.

[TSherbs]

My Tahoe is an early mid year 1999 @dneal.

Still a truck with a permanent shell. Hope you can park it while you're listening to Tucker.

It's a wonderful vehicle with 287 k miles. I have a Karavan trailer as well if the Tahoe "permanent shell" becomes an issue. I have to admit that I have never heard a person refer to an SUV as a permanent shell truck, but you're always the numbskull exception.

My radio stations are public radio. Your Tucky buddy isn't broadcasting there as far as I can tell. Perhaps check YouTube when your checking out the latest healthcare recommendations from Iran nurses.

Chuck, unlike you I don’t listen to Tucker. I’m busy listening to PhD’s discussing interesting topics. I don’t have your cocker spaniel attention span, consumed with the political drama the MSM is distracting you with.

I referred to your SUV, not the entire class. The original K5 was built on a 1/2 ton truck frame (just like your Tahoe). The fiberglass shell over the back used to be removable. Now it’s integrated. You’re driving a 1500 truck chassis.

I know, John Campbell....yeah, I remember.

Much different, @dneal. There was never a removable section on the four door Tahoe and longer wheelbase, but yes, while it's a stretch, the '99 Tahoe is several generations forward from the K5.He'll call your SUV a truck, but don't call the AR-15 an assault rifle!





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

I’m busy listening to PhD’s discussing interesting topics.

Indeed. Name a few, besides Jordan Peterson.

Does that qualify you as an elitist snob?

Don't really care for Peterson, but unlike you I listened to him instead of googling for an op-ed by a twenty-something journalist straw-manning an argument that he's an alt-right Neo-Nazi.

Recently though: Richard Haier, Bret Weinstein, Steve Keen, Mattias Desmet, Stephen Kotkin, Jonathan Haidt.

Elitist snobs are usually NYT readers who gush about their organic tomatoes and green energy lifestyle and pretending they don't burn gas in their car or home.

[dneal]

He'll call your SUV a truck, but don't call the AR-15 an assault rifle!

You're confusing me with Niner. If you understood all those definitions you looked up, you would get the "select fire" portion and how it applies to an actual assault rifle.

[dneal]

My Tahoe is an early mid year 1999 @dneal.

Still a truck with a permanent shell. Hope you can park it while you're listening to Tucker.

It's a wonderful vehicle with 287 k miles. I have a Karavan trailer as well if the Tahoe "permanent shell" becomes an issue. I have to admit that I have never heard a person refer to an SUV as a permanent shell truck, but you're always the numbskull exception.

My radio stations are public radio. Your Tucky buddy isn't broadcasting there as far as I can tell. Perhaps check YouTube when your checking out the latest healthcare recommendations from Iran nurses.

Chuck, unlike you I don’t listen to Tucker. I’m busy listening to PhD’s discussing interesting topics. I don’t have your cocker spaniel attention span, consumed with the political drama the MSM is distracting you with.

I referred to your SUV, not the entire class. The original K5 was built on a 1/2 ton truck frame (just like your Tahoe). The fiberglass shell over the back used to be removable. Now it’s integrated. You’re driving a 1500 truck chassis.

I know, John Campbell....yeah, I remember.

Much different, @dneal. There was never a removable section on the four door Tahoe and longer wheelbase, but yes, while it's a stretch, the '99 Tahoe is several generations forward from the K5.

They're all built on the corresponding year's truck chassis. I'm just pointing out your usual ignorance and hypocrisy. You're riding around in the SUV version of the pick-em-up truck you criticize. Go buy a Subaru and then talk shit.

[Chuck Naill]

My Tahoe is an early mid year 1999 @dneal.

Still a truck with a permanent shell. Hope you can park it while you're listening to Tucker.

It's a wonderful vehicle with 287 k miles. I have a Karavan trailer as well if the Tahoe "permanent shell" becomes an issue. I have to admit that I have never heard a person refer to an SUV as a permanent shell truck, but you're always the numbskull exception.

My radio stations are public radio. Your Tucky buddy isn't broadcasting there as far as I can tell. Perhaps check YouTube when your checking out the latest healthcare recommendations from Iran nurses.

Chuck, unlike you I don’t listen to Tucker. I’m busy listening to PhD’s discussing interesting topics. I don’t have your cocker spaniel attention span, consumed with the political drama the MSM is distracting you with.

I referred to your SUV, not the entire class. The original K5 was built on a 1/2 ton truck frame (just like your Tahoe). The fiberglass shell over the back used to be removable. Now it’s integrated. You’re driving a 1500 truck chassis.

I know, John Campbell....yeah, I remember.

Much different, @dneal. There was never a removable section on the four door Tahoe and longer wheelbase, but yes, while it's a stretch, the '99 Tahoe is several generations forward from the K5.

They're all built on the corresponding year's truck chassis. I'm just pointing out your usual ignorance and hypocrisy. You're riding around in the SUV version of the pick-em-up truck you criticize. Go buy a Subaru and then talk shit.

Of course they are, with many varieties. Calling a Tahoe a truck with with a permanent shell is rather ignorant or nonsense.

I often refer to the Tahoe as a truck.

My other vehicle is a 2015 Subaru Forester. As usually, your mouth has overloaded your butt.

If I could buy you for what you know and sell you for what you think you know, I’d get a new truck.

[dneal]

So we're ok with calling your Tahoe a truck then. Glad that's settled.

Now about you listening to Tucker...

[Chuck Naill]

Did I say otherwise? I’m not following this latest trolling!!

Did you want to discuss Subarus?

[Chip]

Don't really care for Peterson, but unlike you I listened to him instead of googling for an op-ed by a twenty-something journalist straw-manning an argument that he's an alt-right Neo-Nazi.

Recently though: Richard Haier, Bret Weinstein, Steve Keen, Mattias Desmet, Stephen Kotkin, Jonathan Haidt.

I never said he was a neo-Nazi (you just did). I said he was a shallow, attention-hungry twat who cares more about celebrity than science or fact. The most recent piece I read on Peterson was by a group of climate scientists (all presumably Ph.Ds) who listed every nonsensical thing he said about climate change and science on a RWW talk show. For instance, that having a larger data set increases the possible error.

Do you read anything by women? Besides Ayn Rand?

Do you have a Ph.D? Or any graduate degree whatsoever?

[dneal]

Your reading comprehension really sucks.

How much diesel does the propane company burn in the truck hauling it out to your remote location?

[Chip]

Your shrieky, juvenile taunts reveal more about your lack of character than about my faults.

I'm not going to describe our home energy setup because you're obviously just looking for some footing to launch yet another silly attack. You say nothing about your circumstances, which is probably wise.

Do you have a bachelor's degree? Did you finish high school?

Did you take the SAT? Remember your scores?

Here's a link to the piece on Jordan Peterson, which will test your reading comprehension. Perhaps that's why you "listen" to pundits rather than trying to read them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Chip]

A guide to dneal's methods:

1) Never respond to a legitimate question.

2) If challenged, launch a series of petty taunts.

3) Claim superiority (intellectual, moral, or whatever) without any proof.

4) Accuse others of hypocrisy, stupidity, moral failings, elitism, etc. at every turn.

5) Season taunts and accusations with sufficient malice to prompt an outraged response.

6) Never reveal your own situation or circumstances for comparison, even when you attack others about theirs.

[TSherbs]

Well put, Chip.

You need to add one more :

(7) dneal replies with a "yawn" when you point any of these patterns out.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

You need to add one more :

(7) dneal replies with a "yawn" when you point any of these patterns out.

He probably bores himself almost as much as he bores us.

[Chuck Naill]

He is winning when you respond.

[dneal]

A guide to dneal's methods:

1) Never respond to a legitimate question.

2) If challenged, launch a series of petty taunts.

3) Claim superiority (intellectual, moral, or whatever) without any proof.

4) Accuse others of hypocrisy, stupidity, moral failings, elitism, etc. at every turn.

5) Season taunts and accusations with sufficient malice to prompt an outraged response.

6) Never reveal your own situation or circumstances for comparison, even when you attack others about theirs.


1. Chip, they're not legitimate questions. They're precursors to silly Dunning-Kruger arguments. "Oh, you're not a Ph.D. in astrophysics? Not qualified to comment then...". If we start down that road, nobody can comment on anything. Do you have a graduate degree in cattle? No? Stop with the cowboy talk then. You're not qualified to speak on it. See how that works?

2. The majority of your posts are taunts, and not just with me. I've told you for a year now that I'll simply respond in kind.

3. I'd like to see some proof that I've claimed superiority, since this seems lately to be a common accusation.

4. When the hypocrisy is readily apparent, I'm happy to point it out. The response is "whataboutism". Do you notice the absence of discussion the current Presidency? His son's business dealings? Why do you suppose that is?

5. Mea Culpa. Want to have a legitimate discussion? I'll stop.

6. My own situation is irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of these topics. But otherwise you're wrong. Go revisit the retirement thread.

[TSherbs]

He is winning when you respond.

When I respond to Chip? That's some ego.

[Chuck Naill]

He is winning when you respond.

When I respond to Chip? That's some ego.

Kinda sorta. I think he likes your and Chip's attention. Just kidding more than anything, Ted.

[Chip]

Grant us to put away the leaven of malice and wickedness. . .

The Book of Common Prayer

[Chuck Naill]

Grant us to put away the leaven of malice and wickedness. . .

The Book of Common Prayer

You go first and I'll follow, Chip.

[Chip]

Don't make promises you don't intend to keep.

[Chuck Naill]

I no longer have a propane tank,Chip.

[Chip]

I no longer have a propane tank,Chip.

The 500 gal. tank was here when we bought the house. We use it for a fireplace insert and a demand water heater (much less energy than a conventional electric model). Our rural electric co-op goes down pretty often and in winter (cold here) we need a backup for heating and cooking. The former owners refilled it 3-4 times per year. We fill it once, about 350 gal.

You don't have solar panels or a wind turbine, and you drive a clunker that gets 15 mpg.

Take a break from the neal/naill attack force and calculate your carbon footprint (if it's not too hard for you), then get back to me.

Meanwhile, over and out.

[TSherbs]

I no longer have a propane tank,Chip.

The 500 gal. tank was here when we bought the house. We use it for a fireplace insert and a demand water heater (much less energy than a conventional electric model). Our rural electric co-op goes down pretty often and in winter (cold here) we need a backup for heating and cooking. The former owners refilled it 3-4 times per year. We fill it once, about 350 gal.

You don't have solar panels or a wind turbine, and you drive a clunker that gets 15 mpg.

Take a break from the neal/naill attack force and calculate your carbon footprint (if it's not too hard for you), then get back to me.

Meanwhile, over and out.You didn't have to explain this. It was a dumb thing that dneal brought up to begin with, scanning your property pics for whatever fodder he could find. I don't know why Chuck jumped on board with that, too.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chip]

Malice can always find a mark to shoot at, and a pretense to fire.

—Charles Simmons

[Chuck Naill]

I no longer have a propane tank,Chip.

The 500 gal. tank was here when we bought the house. We use it for a fireplace insert and a demand water heater (much less energy than a conventional electric model). Our rural electric co-op goes down pretty often and in winter (cold here) we need a backup for heating and cooking. The former owners refilled it 3-4 times per year. We fill it once, about 350 gal.

You don't have solar panels or a wind turbine, and you drive a clunker that gets 15 mpg.

Take a break from the neal/naill attack force and calculate your carbon footprint (if it's not too hard for you), then get back to me.

Meanwhile, over and out.You didn't have to explain this. It was a dumb thing that dneal brought up to begin with, scanning your property pics for whatever fodder he could find. I don't know why Chuck jumped on board with that, too.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

It occured to me that I also had a propane tank because I lived too far out to access natural gas. In 2000, when the house was built, gas was a reasonable heat source over electric heat pumps.

And, it occurred to me that when we point our fingers, as Chip does, at others, we set ourselves up for others point their fingers at us. No one is as "green" as we might be.

The conversation should be to understand. Chip paraded himself as something he could never sustain. @dneal just exposed him.

[TSherbs]

Chip paraded himself as something he could never sustain.

No he didn't. What are you talking about?

And dneal did not "expose" anything. This bullshit about a propane tank is a total canard. I can't believe that we're even talking about it. He didn't claim to be a zero-carbon user, nor even a net zero energy consumer. What are you guys going on about? The guy has a propane tank. Who gives a shit? He lives in the Wyoming mountains, for chrissake. Here in Maine, where we have snow from November to April, many homes also have propane tanks cuz whatever we heat our houses with has to come in on trucks (I also don't have water or sewer service, but that is not so uncommon). Unless yu cut your own hardwood trees down and use only wood to heat your home, then you either get your heat here from coal-fired electric plants (mostly, and its the stupidest way to heat a home in Maine) or it comes to your house in a fucking truck (wood, oil, or propane). The best thing to do is to collect your own water, use the sun's energy, grow some of your own food, and otherwise use as little energy to heat and cool your home as you can. Sounds like Chip does a bunch of these things. More than I do!

<shaking my head in disbelief>

[Chip]

The conversation should be to understand. Chip paraded himself as something he could never sustain. @dneal just exposed him.

Guess I made you feel guilty.

Live with it.

[Chuck Naill]

No guilt here. As I have said, you are doing what you want to do and can do. I am doing the same.

[Chuck Naill]

Anyone else ever consider the carbon footprint of these military operations around the globe. Sort of make us look silly to be fretting about a propane tank.

[Chip]

‘Reality is scary’: climate culture war heats up for UK meteorologists

Helena Horton Environment reporter
Mon 1 Aug 2022

Discussing the weather has long been a harmless British pastime, with forecasters relied on to ruin bank holidays with their predictions of drizzle or give good news of some gentle summer sunshine.

But now TV meteorologists have found themselves on the frontline of the climate culture war after extreme temperatures hit England last month, with records smashed and highs of 40.3C (104.5F).

Laura Tobin is well known as the chirpy weather forecaster for Good Morning Britain. She is popular with viewers and has 200,000 Twitter followers. But she has found herself spending her time battling climate deniers as her job has tipped from giving updates on the mild British weather to charting the terrifying advance of the climate crisis.

She said: “When I’d just done my 6.15am weather forecast on the Tuesday morning, I said we are forecasting 41C and I sat and looked at my map after, I was talking to the guy who does my weather graphics for me, I actually teared up. I said, ‘I’ve forecasted it, it’s going to happen, it’s actually reality and it’s going to happen’. We could not believe it in the forecasting community. I was very emotional about it.”

But not all of her viewers took the hot temperatures so seriously, accusing her of “scaremongering” and complaining on social media when Tobin linked the heatwave to climate breakdown.

Some tweets accused her of sharing “weather propaganda” and said they switched off when seeing her on television. Some called for her to be jailed over her climate warnings and others called her “Dr Doom”.

“People say you should just tell us about the weather, you shouldn’t talk about climate change,” she said, adding: “People think that it’s someone else’s problem and they don’t want to hear it. People don’t like being told what to do.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/01/climate-culture-war-uk-meteorologists-heatwave?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Chip]

This drug-dealer-style denial of reality is similar to Wyoming's (and West Virginia's) approach to being major exporters of coal.


Long a Climate Straggler, Australia Advances a Major Bill to Cut Emissions

By Damien Cave
Aug. 4, 2022

CANBERRA, Australia — After years of being denounced as a laggard on climate change, Australia shifted course on Thursday, with the Lower House of Parliament passing a bill that commits the government to reducing carbon emissions by at least 43 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, and reaching net zero by 2050.

With critical support from the Australian Greens now in place, the new Labor government is expected to push the legislation through the Senate in a few weeks.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said it would put the country “on the right side of history.” The 43 percent pledge brings Australia closer to Canada, South Korea and Japan, while still falling short of commitments from the United States, the European Union and Britain.

“The impact of climate change is real. We need a response which is real,” Mr. Albanese told reporters on Thursday. “The government is offering that.”

In Parliament, the climate minister, Chris Bowen, said simply: “This is a good day for our country.”

But the commitment — which Mr. Albanese campaigned on as Labor challenged the long-governing conservative coalition in the federal election in May — is widely seen as long overdue, and just the start of a vital economic transition in a country that is the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter, after Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Amanda McKenzie, who runs the Climate Council, an association of scientists and community leaders who have called for years for Australia to do more on climate change, called the climate change bill a “springboard” that will require the government to hold itself accountable while creating a framework for investment in renewable energy.

Richie Merzian, the climate and energy program director at the Australia Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, described the bill as “a huge leap forward,” while pointing out that there was still a long road ahead.

The government has refused to accept proposals for Australia to reject any new coal and gas projects — a major point of contention among a series of independent members of Parliament who won seats in mostly conservative districts on pledges to attack climate change aggressively.

Mr. Albanese and his Labor government also rejected a separate Greens amendment to reduce emissions by 75 percent by 2030.
Sign up for the Australia Letter Newsletter Conversation starters about Australia and insight on the global stories that matter most, sent weekly by the Times’s Australia bureau. Plus: heaps of local recommendations. Get it sent to your inbox.

The Greens leader, Adam Bandt, has said repeatedly that the government’s lower target would lead to destroyed crops, devastating natural disasters and the demise of the Great Barrier Reef, which will continue to struggle under current warming trends, according to a report released on Thursday by Australian marine scientists.

They found that parts of the reef had begun to recover from a series of devastating bleaching events in recent years, but predicted that the world-renowned ecosystem would face frequent and longer-lasting heat waves unless there was “immediate global action on climate change.”

“That is the science,” Mr. Bandt said. “We’re not doing this to try to stop pollution a little bit. We are doing this to try to stop climate change becoming a runaway chain reaction.”

He described his support for the climate bill as a first step toward pushing Australia to do more, and many climate experts argue that the country can meet its international commitments only if it stops approving new coal and gas projects and eventually closes those that already exist.

“They need to address Albanese’s dissembling narrative that our coal and gas is somehow greener than others, and their drug dealer’s defense that if we don’t sell it, then others will,” said Robyn Eckersley, an expert on the politics of climate change at the University of Melbourne. “This is pernicious and a direct evasion of Australia’s responsibilities.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/04/world/australia/climate-bill.html?referringSource=articleShare

[sharmon202]

England's melting. France is on fire. Australia is either on fire or flooded. Millions are displaced by Bangladesh floods. New Mexico had huge wildfires in early spring. Alaska wildfires have burn 3 million acres so far this year. Glen Canyon and Lake Mead reservoirs, on the Colorado River, have sunk close to a level at which dams can no longer generate hydropower.

And you think this is a chickenshit political tussle?

Are these things unusual, rare? You think building cities, over time, in deserts & below sea level are a good idea and bad things might happen for only those causes? Think these affect the planet?

Little forest management in CA and fires, hmmm, makes me wonder.

Floods, drought, are a natural cycle. I live in KS. We are having a very hot summer, just like we had in 2011. Yes, it gets hot in summer here but should we be yelling the sky is falling, the sky is falling? No.

Now W coast growing population over the years and no forward critical thinking of future consequences of increasing people, decreasing water as a consequence is an issue. This year salination was suggested to the Gov., he said no. If increasing desalination sites had been done previously this entire debacle would not exist.

The condition of the planet environment, in some places, may be less than stellar but because of human laziness, grabs for political & corporate power and money, lack of forward thinking, critical thinking, and as my dad used to say, people not giving a crap. .

And you think this is a chickenshit political tussle? ]YES[/FONT]

You think this is chicken shit reasoning?

Nice talk, thx

[sharmon202]

The US military carbon footprint is small. Most of our emergency reserve oil has been sold to other countries, China for example. Politicians running the US military think EV military vehicles are appropriate and ok for war. (I include Milley in this, as a politician, not as a how to win a war expert).
Yes, I agree your statement does sound make us look silly, our global priorities seem wrong.

[Chip]

The US military carbon footprint is small.

Are you kidding?

The U.S. Department of Defense is the U.S. government's largest consumer of energy, consuming somewhere between 77 and 87 percent of all U.S. government energy consumption; in 2017, the DoD was responsible for 80 percent of total federal government energy consumption, sixteen times more than the total energy consumption of the next closest federal agency; the United States Postal Service. In addition, the DoD is the world's largest single institutional consumer of petroleum, consuming more fossil fuels than some nations.

Very detailed report here:

https://www.oyetimes.com/views/op-eds/275060-the-united-states-military-and-its-carbon-footprint

[kazoolaw]

On a simplistic note, I don't think you put $7 billion of military hardware in Afghanistan with a small carbon footprint. You could also review the number of super pollution sites on past and present military bases.

[Chuck Naill]

The “burn pits” are proof enough.

[Chip]

A Kiwi mate is a navy reserve officer who did a couple tours in Afghanistan, on humanitarian missions such as building schools for girls, setting up health clinics, and upgrading rural roads.

They also assisted with confiscating and burning opium poppy crops. A frequent hazard was getting caught in a shifting smoke plume and ending up higher than the proverbial kite.