Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The stupendous display of global energy and emissions ignorance by the Democratic Party Presidential candidates on CNN’s climate alarmist gabfest was nothing short of astounding.
Before addressing some of these candidates ridiculous, totally useless and massively costly energy schemes its important to establish what is the global energy and emissions data status today and where is it likely to go in the future.
The Harvard Gazette recently published an article titled “One thing to change: Anecdotes aren’t data” that addressed the significant need for clearer delineation between facts and feelings regarding how leaders, politicians, journalists and academics attempt to assess the world through anecdotes and images rather than data.
An example related to energy is noted as follows:
“People are terrified of nuclear power (the most scalable form of carbon-free energy) because of images of Three Mile Island (which killed no one), Fukushima (which killed no one; the deaths were caused by the tsunami and a panicked, unnecessary evacuation), and Chernobyl (which killed fewer people than are killed by coal every day).
“They imagine that fossil fuels can be replaced by solar energy, without doing the math on how many square miles would have to be tiled with solar panels to satisfy the world’s vastly growing thirst for electricity. And they think that voluntary sacrifices, like unplugging laptop chargers, are a sensible way to deal with climate change.”
Looking at global energy and emissions data is absolutely required to facilitate rational and reasonable judgments regarding global energy and emissions policy.
Global energy use climbed by 18.5% during the decade between 2008 and 2018.
About 98.5% of that decade long energy growth occurred in the developing nations with about 78.5% of that growth obtained from increased fossil fuel use.
The rate of energy growth in the developing nations during that decade was 5.5 times greater than in the developed nations that saw little growth.
The developing nations consumed 59% of global energy use in 2018 accounting for 64% of global CO2 emissions that year.
Fossil fuels accounted for about 85% of 2018 global energy consumption with the developing nations energy provided 87.5% through use of fossil fuels.
Wind and solar accounted for 3% of global energy in 2018 that is staggeringly small given more than a decade of mandated use by government edict and trillions of dollars in global government subsidies.
In the decade leading to 2018 the developing nations increased CO2 emissions by about 4.5 billion metric tons completely overwhelming the developed nations that decreased CO2 emissions by about 1 billion metric tons led by the U.S.
About 67% of the developing nations CO2 huge emissions increase in the last decade was from India and China.
By year 2050 EIA projects that global energy use will climb by about another 36% from year 2018 levels with more than 85% of that increased growth coming from the developing nations that will then account for about 67% of global energy use.
The developing nations are projected by EIA to use fossil fuels for about 78% of their year 2050 energy with renewables accounting for less than 10% of year 2050 energy.
EIA projects that CO2 emissions will climb by over 8.8 billion metric tons by 2050 from year 2018 levels with the developing nations accounting for 92% of that increase resulting in these nations representing 70% of global CO2 emissions in year 2050.
To summarize the present and future energy and emissions global picture the world’s developing nations in year 2018 accounted for about 59% of global energy use and 64% of global CO2 emissions with those figures projected to increase to 67% of global energy use and 70% of global CO2 emissions in year 2050.
The developing nations are projected to account for 85% of future global energy use increases and 92% of future global CO2 emissions increases.
The world’s developed nations cannot stop the overwhelming and ever increasing growth of global energy use and emissions by the world’s developing nations with these nations unequivocally dominating the global outcomes of these measures both now and in the future.
The Wall Street Journal’s article regarding the CNN climate alarmist gabfest noted the following non-factual foundations regarding this purely politically contrived show.
“The Columbia Journalism Review’s “public editor for CNN,” Emily Tamkin, beforehand insisted that moderators should proceed “on the assumption that the climate is in crisis,” and limit themselves to calling for action and faulting inaction.”
“The blame obviously can’t be laid entirely at the feet of climate press. There is much else going on, in which journalists are but lockstep automatons. And here it is: With their decision to resort to a strategy of hysterical exaggerations, vilifications and hackneyed partisanship, the greens have now succeeded in convincing voting publics that any climate strategy must be catastrophic to their lifestyles, transferring trillions from their pockets to green special interest groups.”
The Democratic Party Presidential candidates schemes addressed in the CNN climate hype gabfest demonstrate that none of these candidates have slightest idea and are absurdly ignorant about the present and future global energy and emissions data driven factual reality that the world is facing.
Given the absurd ground rules for CNN’s climate alarmist propaganda show combined with the global energy ignorance of the Democratic candidates it is no wonder the “climate solutions” proposed during the show were idiotic.
Schemes proposed by these candidates including supporting bizarre proposals calling for eliminating use of all fossil fuels, the imposition of Green New Deal concepts costing 5 to 16 trillion dollars in the U.S. that are globally energy and emissions irrelevant, imposing tighter light bulb efficiency standards (unbelievable), rejoining the failed, flawed and useless Paris Agreement, etc. demonstrate that none of these individuals is qualified or should ever be permitted to lead the U.S. energy strategy by virtue of their monumentally unacceptable global energy and emissions ignorance.
The Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates are devoid of any understanding of global energy and emissions data that must be part of proposing rational and meaningful energy policy.
Let’s stop all fossil fuel use, and ER and the politicians can grow our food, they can carry us on there backs to the hospital and work… They can row boats around the world to get food for us… With out fossil fuels, all future space program will come to a end. Bernie can plow the fields, and build all future homes by hand…
That is not how they see this working and sadly we have given these morons power over us. Sunny, their motto, unspoken to the cameras, is: “Fossil Fuel for me but not for thee.”
Had you been back stage at the CNN gabfest you would have heard what they really think about climate change. It is usually spoken of with knee slaps and guffaws.
Sunny, you fail to understand their true goals….They expect we little people (those that survive) to do all those things for them !
I am not a little people in any way. I have a whole closet full of ‘equalizers’, and an exceptional mind +4σ.
They will still consider you “little people” even if you had a basement full of “toys”…..I never said they were smart ! : )
!,200 years ago the world was flat !
Today a report says that in 1,200 years ” IF” the Greenland ice sheet melts at 2 times today’s average it will be gone in 1,200 years ????? Today the world is round ( or is it ? ) please ask a Politician.
The more they rattle on and display their ignorance, the less likely people are to vote for them.
Even the auto union is grumbling about them now. (Trying to find a reference for that, will post if/when I do, but it was a few days ago that it came up.)
What other clown shows will they come up with? And why start to early? Was it to give themselves more time to show us just how abundantly uninformed, stupid and self-involved they are?
I found what I was referring to, at this link:
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/columnists/daniel-howes/2019/07/25/jobs-jobs-jobs-drive-industrial-midwest-voters/1821175001/
“The more they rattle on and display their ignorance, the less likely people are to vote for them”. – Well, perhaps unbridled democracy is NOT the best, the wisest, type of government after all. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating – this meal, this diet, isn’t tasting the best.
Should we scrap democracy??
Not a good idea, when democracy is scraped politicians and their cronies have everything. The mass get to starve, those that are starving are the luckly one, because anyone not a sheepeople is shot. Oh by the the US does not have unbridled democracy, we are a repesented republic with a number of check and balances, the same checks and balances the wants to get rid of. If they do the murders will start. That the pattren of the left after all the left murdered 200,000,000 people in the twenty century.
We don’t have “unbridled democracy,” we have a Constitutional republic. The Founders explicitly rejected democracy as a system of government. They invented a system never seen before or since, where the government was delegated its powers by enumeration in the Constitution, never to be exceeded. The House of Representatives was elected by the people in the only direct vote, while the Senate was elected or appointed by the governments of the several states, and the President and Vice President by the Electoral College.
Despite all of the safeguards, the system has been perverted over the years, and needs a conscious return to the original intent. The Democrats are taking it in completely the opposite direction.
I think we agree that the 17th Amendment of 1913, which changed the election of U.S. Senators, has had awful results
Here in the US we still largely are a republic. However, there is more and more a push for a full democracy, which would just mean mob rule. The people we select to represent us in our republic are largely ignorant of how a republic works, and why it works.
And then here is AOC, who is largely ignorant of everything, including the majors she got her degree for at Boston U. A good place to send your child if he has mental and emotional problems. He/she/it will still get a degree just for paying tuition.
Re AOC: The “O” stands for Occasional.
Alexandria Occasional Cortex, that is.
Is back-biting a form of government?
The Founders at least tried to put a choke collar on democracy, giving us a representative republic form of gov’t instead. John Adams said, “There never has been a democracy which hasn’t committed suicide.”. They feared democracy, knowing what chaos, violence and ruin it had brought to other countries; mob rule, essentially. The historically ignorant idiots who rule America have been nibbling, and now gnawing and rending, away on our republic ever since.
The center will not hold.–Yeats
Thank you for these legal opinions on democracy – I had no idea. And find it most interesting. It is almost as if some Americans consider full democracy as equivalent to mob-rule. The question we now must ask is whether the United States got it right – or at least better than others with “full democracy”. Or are we all doomed in the end to see our cherished forms of various democratic systems go the way of so many other democracies.
The Greeks started it off – but the end to their whole civilisation came as their many states dissolved into never-ending squabbles and wars with each other. The Romans copied the Greeks for starters – that did not work either, so Caesar went over the Rubicon and fixed it (and Rome recovered and lasted another 500 years!). Our present craze for democracy has only existed a couple of hundred years. How much longer will it last?? I have an ugly feeling that communistic capitalism will win out in the end.
Very interesting article.
Yes, but what our liberal elite WANT and BELIEVE in, is more important than the facts that show what they want and believe in can’t be delivered.
tonyb
There is a major difference, tonyb, between PROMISE and DELIVER, too.
By and large Free Market Capitalism* delivers what Top-down Socialism promises.
________
* A tariff war is not FMC.
* Crony Capitalism is not FMC.
* Top-down trade deals are not FMC.
Isn’t it odd that Top Down Socialism and Trump Derangement Syndrome both have the acronym TDS.
Free Market Capitalism is a misnomer, as the whole point of capitalism (the power of money as a form of government) is to prevent a free market by gaining control of it. American examples of an intolerance of FMC are the breakup of AT&T and any forthcoming action limiting the power and manipulations of the public square by Google and Facebook. Microsoft came within a hair’s breadth of being broken up as a monopoly.
Markets are in fact regulated and the rights of labour are recognized alongside the rights of capital. It is not yet perfect, but these three aspects of the economy are well established.
If we grant that everyone has a right life, liberty, food, education and shelter, it doesn’t mean squat about which 18th or 19th Century economic philosophy one favoured as a student. Gross inequality and centrally managed equal outcomes are both intolerable. It seems we still have a lot of growing up to do. All are born with rights and responsibilities. Greed and sloth are missing from the list of human virtues. Moderation is.
Nice try, Larry, and I am a great supporter of nuclear, both for power and desalinization for potable water. What do you think Democrat voters will turn-out and vote on, facts or feelings? Watch the next election cycle everyone, the feelings voters are everywhere. Where does this end? I need a drink.
What does nuclear have to do with desal? Energy requirements are not the only issue with desal. There is a synergy to siting desal near power plants, but this is not exclusive to nuclear.
MJ
Yes, as I see it, the elephant in the room is the waste brine. If any other industrial facility was dumping ‘toxic’ effluent into the ocean, there would be a myriad of environmental groups brings suit.
Nuclear provides long term consistent power perfect for desalinization while also providing electrical power to the region. Nuclear plants are best sited near large bodies of water, as in coastal areas, also near population centers that also need electrical power.
Why burn natural gas, oil or coal to power such plants, nuclear is much better. How long are the current OLD plants lasting? Well over their 40 year original projected lifespan with some licenses soon to be extended to 80 years. If well designed and built new plants could easily last over 100 years. 100 years. 100 years. I personally think the CO2 scare is all BS but my reason for supporting Nuclear is that natural gas and oil have “better” uses and coal mining is largely invasive.
“Properly” designed and built reactors using more highly enriched fuels could run for 25 or more years without refueling and provide more varying energy (heat) output as US navy reactors are designed to do somewhat reducing the need for peaking generation, especially if systems are designed to use excess heat during off peak times.
Average US kwh costs are about 12 cents, Virginia is under 11 cents. When I was a kid then VEPCO built the Surry plant with 2 reactors on the James river that came on line in 1972 and 1973. They later built 2 more at the North Anna Power Station in 1978 and 1980. Surry was originally designed for 4 reactors but only 2 were built. Surry is currently licensed for 60 years and it is intended to extend that licensing to 80 years. (2052 and 2053) Virginia has reliable inexpensive power due to the construction of these plants 40 or more years ago. They provide 33% of Virginia’s electrical power. The failure to build out the last 2 reactors at Surry and a new much higher output 3rd reactor at North Anna limit that percentage. It could easily be over 60 percent nuclear.
So the better question is: “Why not?”
Why not? Decades of scare-mongering by the left (they actually don’t want the public to have cheap, reliable power).
Michael and Clyde, see IAEA Technical Report Series NO. 400: Introduction of Nuclear Desalination, A Guidebook. These nuclear reactors are already providing potable water around the world, and without adverse environmental impacts. The reactor should be anchored where there is open ocean and current so the excess salt is carried away. Los Angeles should consider this as they are robbing water all over the neighboring states.
“…These nuclear reactors are already providing potable water around the world…’
Nuclear reactors are not “providing” any water. They provide power. So do coal, natural gas, and others.
“…and without adverse environmental impacts…”
Are we talking nuclear or desal?
“…The reactor should be anchored where there is open ocean and current so the excess salt is carried away…”
Well the reactor and the brine waste are two separate entities…the reactor is at the nuclear plant while the brine waste is generated by the desal plant. You seem to keep associating nuclear with desal, as if potable water is a byproduct of nuclear power pants.
That’s also a great suggestion you have there of having a desal plant by the ocean lol. Good Lord.
Calm down, Michael. Nuclear reactors boil water, in various forms depending on fuel types, and the steam from the boiling water drives turbines to produce electricity. When sea water is utilized the steam is salt-free, and can be easily condensed into potable water, a common practice on nuclear subs. The trick is to keep flushing accumulating salt-rich brines out of the reactor. Pebble-bed reactors are great for this, wherein the pebbles are ceramic balls, like billiard balls, and the fission fuel is pellets dispersed amongst the ceramic balls. The benefit of this arrangement is the pile cannot go critical, even if all of the coolant is lost.
Elected officials are supposed to know what they’re doing. Any political candidate who calls for a trillion dollars of wasteful spending should be disqualified from holding office.
A business would never appoint a board member who suggested in an interview, “Let’s give away all our product for two years to build market share.” We need to hold public representative to at least THAT standard.
Steve O
“Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach teachers.” Those who can’t even teach teachers, go into politics.
Most are failed lawyers or professional politicians. No wonder we are in trouble. Most of our politicians could master the operation of a wheelbarrow and we let run the government, God help us.
Clyde
I remember it as
Those who can, do.
Those who can’t do, teach.
Those who can’t teach, criticize.
Elections are no more than a sea of criticism, indicating none of them can do.
The reach of social media is such that the public could generate enough buzz to select independent candidates at any level. All ballots should have a line marked: “Other”. There is a call for Canadians to be given the choice “none of the above” but that is a criticism, not a solution. Solutions will always involve making recommendations based on personal assessments of the qualities of others. The root problem is not democracy, or representatives or republicanism, it is Parties. As long as there are parties, the rot is inevitable. A Party is nothing more than a faction and factions perpetuate strife and contention. That’s not a “feature” that’s stupid.
Exactly my thoughts. Only voters who have no idea how to approach problem-solving and planning on a larger scale of even 1/10,000 of what is suggested in any one of these versions of the GND would give more than 1 minute to such obvious drivel. It’s insulting to any intelligent, thinking person. Truly unbelievable that we’re at a point when we have to even listen to the likes of these mind-numbing vacant-brained idiots and their followers.
I’m with Ron Long; grab a bottle. This is going to be long and painful.
I have to ask, is it really conceivable that these parasite politicians are ignorant of the current global energy use and emissions? That would leave open the possibility of honest error and a good faith effort.
No, it must be abundantly clear that addressing a “climate crisis” is a cynical ruse for justifying an avalanche of irrelevant and ineffective spending on their pet projects. Just a grander version of 0bama’s stimulus bill designed to line the pockets of cronies.
About 98.5% of that decade long energy growth ….
bull hooey…it started 2 years after the UN/IPCC was formed…to stop it
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0713_Fig3.jpg
Is there a reference where that calculation has been done, for the World or the US?
Chris
Yes. Prof David Mackay was chief scientist at the UK Dept of Energy and Climate Change. He published this book
https://www.withouthotair.com/
It exposes very clearly the impossibility of relying on renewables and exploded a few green heads. Sadly he died of cancer several years ago. His work was related to the UK but our population is around 65 million so I can guess you can scale it up to the US.
A big problem is that generally speaking the sunniest countries are the ones with least population or industry and the ones least suitable for solar tend to be the cloudiest and most populated who are busily installing it
tonyb
That would be an interesting number. If I trusted myself to do the numbers, I would start by assuming that 100% of solar energy hitting a square meter of earth could be captured; then find the total average world’s useage of electricity in 24 hours, and calculate the area needed to capture that much power in twelve hours. That would give the theoretical minimum area required, without the area required for batteries (for nighttime power).
Then simply multiply by the efficiency of current solar cells, and add in a respectable surplus to accommodate maintenance, repairs, damage, unplanned outages, etc.
My completely off-the-wall guess would be that you could power the world with solar if you had an area about the size of Australia. You could use New Zealand for the batteries.
Anyone up to crunching the numbers?
The calculation is easy. ~1 KW/m^2 comes from the sun. Solar panel efficiency is about 20%. World use is here:
“A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you are talking real money.”
Everett Dirksen’s great-grandson
Would someone please tell the Democrats and the Media:
Atmospheric CO2 is a well mixed greenhouse across the entire world. U.S. contribution does not dominate.
Most of the warming is in the daily low temperatures in the colder climates. Reasons: Urban heat island effect
is increasing with population growth (buildings and road pavements hold heat at night) and less water vapor in
colder climates allows competing greenhouse gas CO2 to have a larger effect.
The Obamanation was only half retarded on climate and energy. That didn’t work, so now they’ve gone full retard on climate and energy. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Try this for starters , Chris:
https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/
Quote:
-“Starting with some conservative assumptions from a 2013 National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) report, we know that it takes, on average, 3.4 acres of solar panels to generate a gigawatt hour of electricity over a year. Given the U.S. consumes about 4 petawatts of electricity per year, we’d need about 13,600,000 acres or 21,250 square miles of solar panels to meet the total electricity requirements of the United States for a year.”-
I am sure others will be able to supply additional, perhaps more up to date,estimates but this should give you a feel for the requirement . To put in context , the area of Texas is about 270,000 sq m.
If we only needed electricity when the Sun was shining those numbers might make some sense. Otherwise they are nonsense without a storage strategy and sufficient reserve generation.
Comparing wind and solar, solar PV is twice as stupid as wind turbines, but both are still stupid energy.
Salute!
I didn’t see the transmission losses or costs of all the new cabling strung from Nevada to Portland or ‘frisco. Martha’s Vineyard is another good place to do the economics and watts/meter per day/week for solar and wind studies.
Additionally, consumption versus generating capability is not a good metric for comparing the renewables to traditional power sources.
Gums sends…..
Your number are off by at least ten if not a hundred. Even if they are accurate, it would not solve the problem since solar panels never recover the energy it took to produce them.
Obviously, the “democrat” candidates and CNN are guilty of conspiring with the Russians to get President Trump re-elected in 2020 ! I can’t see any other logical conclusion to that pathetic Clown Show ! Let the investigations begin !
“on the assumption that the climate is in crisis,” and limit themselves to calling for action and faulting inaction.”
Sure, because without that assumption, there might, a VERY slim might, have been a climate change debate (I know, given the participants, not a chance). Instead it was, and still is, a debate on how much of our money they want to spend to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.
From God’s mouth to my ear – this is how the majority of America’s gradeschool teachers feel about what they hear from the Democrats. Connect the dots. They may lose now, but the future is bright for turning America into another 3rd world country.
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” Adolph Hitler
Truth over facts as Biden said may be the intention. If believed it becomes truth regardless of facts.
Used when there is a goal without justification and to deceive.
From God’s mouth to my ear – this is how the majority of America’s gradeschool teachers feel about what they hear from the Democrats – whether those who aren’t stupid like it or not. The Leftist teacher union leaders have them by the short hairs. So connect the dots. The Dems may lose now, but the future is bright for turning America into another 3rd world country.
How can we expect the morons in Democratic Party candidate field to be anything but a bunch of Billy Madisons when they get energy advice from corrupt scientists like…
Marcia McNutt, President of the NAS, here:
“Time’s up, CO2.”
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6452/411
“However, even those who do view climate change as an important national issue rank it well down the list after health care, jobs, and the economy. Geoscientists must work collaboratively with health care professionals, economists, and engineers to link the changing impacts of extreme events and their aftermath to climate change while the effects are still being experienced. This approach could well convince people that climate change is about health, jobs, and the economy.”
Ms. McNutt is arguing for scientists to become advocacy activists and abandon all pretenses of uncertainty on attribution. In other-words, scare people on things they can’t see or change. She’s an irresponsible partisan hack NOT a scientist, one who has no business as President of the NAS.
Then there’s Jonathan Overpeck at UMich writing,
“A call to climate action”
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6443/807
”Climate extremes are inflicting serious economic losses on nations, and climate-driven issues such as sea-level rise, regional aridification, food shortages, disease spread, and massive biodiversity loss only promise ever-worsening costs.
From this once so-called “scientist” now a dean of something at UMich, it’s climate extremes (not weather extremes) inflicted damage. Climate extremes?? 30+ year trends doing those damages? The guy is a nutter. The reality is it is radical climate change policy prescriptions of blocking fossil fuel access/affordability that will bring those damages (and many others) he dishonestly warns of.
So when Dumbocrats are getting their science from Green Slime-bought hacks like Ms. McNutt and Dean Overpeck, how can they also be anything but nutters too?
Sadly much of the population has been convinced that if nuclear power is introduced on a big scale it will cause everyone to start to glow green in the dark and develope cancer. Rational discussion will no longer convince them to the contrary.
Clearly, the only rational approach to the USA’s reducing the use of fossil fuels is to replace fossil fuel fired power plants with nuclear power plants but the Democrat Party candidates are against that idea. It would seem that their approach is to turn back the energy technology clock roughly 200 years to a time when mankind made no significant use of fossil fuels. The problem with that is that the old technology cannot support out current human population density so switching to the older energy technology would result in the early demise of billion of humans all over the world. In my neighborhood, if government outlawed the use of goods and services that make use of fossil fuels, most would die in very short order. Such a result might be unpopular with the voters. I would think that reducing the human population gradually by reducing the birth rate is far more humane then reducing the human population more rapidly through starvation as would happen if the Democrat Party candidates got their way.
Many looked at Al Gore’s first movie and cam away thinking that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming and apparently that is what all of the Democrat Party candidates think. It all comes from a chart that Al Gore displayed showing temperature and CO2 for the past 600,000 years and according to Al Gore the chart shows that CO2 acts as a global warming thermostat and that fossil fuel usage has pushed the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere so high that we are in for a devastating amount of warming in the future. But a closer look at the data reveals that CO2 levels in the atmosphere lag and do not cause temperature change. The physics is clear, higher temperatures cause ocean temperatures to rise which causes more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler water. Another observation is that past interglacial periods were warmer than our current one yet CO2 levels were much lower than today’s. Furthermore the additional CO2 levels caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels have not caused any additional global warming. Al Gore’s chart actually shows the opposite of what Al Gore said that it showed. It shows that CO2 has no significant effect on global climate yet the Democrat Candidates do not understand that.
The Democrat Party candidates also seem to have no understanding of economics. They are all proposing an economic plan that would devastate the US economy and maybe the world economy with it with the hope that doing so would somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing but we know that such would not happen. But even if we could somehow stop Mother Nature from gradually changing the Earth’s climate, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. So for the US tax payer, there is no benefit at all to be gained by devastating the economy but that is what the Democrat Party candidates propose to do. I thought the Democrat Party was in favor of making things better for the majority of Americans especially the middle and lower classes but apparently that is not the case. What the Democrat Party really needs are candidates who actually want to improve the economy and make things better for the majority of Americans.
Nothig changes ( only the weather )
CNN Chit Not News!
Is back-biting a form of government?
To Crispin: No, of course back-biting is not a form of government. If you think it could be, then you don’t understand what “form of gov’t” means. It is, rather, a form of criticism of the ignorant, arrogant, and stupid, such as AOC. Anyway, front-biting would be the accurate term; that is, I’d be happy to say it to her face, if she ever spewed her nonsense directly at me. The problem is that someone with an ego as huge as hers probably doesn’t speak much to critics, which may be a main reason why she’s never learned much. She lives in a self-congratulatory echo chamber, along with her fellow fools.
James ” I’d be happy to say it to her face” :
say it on her homepage:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNTM78E5KmmmTNCyLsZ5fy0eVjNwXA%3A1568080490544&ei=agJ3XbDsIK6wrgS_o6qIAQ&q=alexandria+ocasio+cortez+contact&oq=alexandria+ocasio+cortez+contact&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
The Reality is that the demoRat green policies which will pauperize the USA middle class are the 2020’s equivalent of Stalin’s collectivization policy in the Ukraine which was of course intended to destroy the independent small farmers who were the greatest enemy of the communist dictatorship.
I just finished reading “Pacific”, one of the best written books I have ever read. The Author Simon Winchester reports dullish facts in a lifley way, and gives the gloomy outlook of climate change activists a much more calm and well supported view. On page 264 et seq he states in part ” Yet a consensus of a sort appears to be building. It is all to do with heat, with radiation from the sun, and with the manner in which the planet deals with it. Not a few climatologists are coming now to believe that because of its (the Pacific’s) immense appetite for absorbing the (destructive) solar heat…and excesses of carbon emissions, … and, rather than allow it to scorch dead the inhabited earth, employ it to warm itself up, slowly and sedately, as benefits the dominant entity (+-33%) on the planet, and thereby enable itself to carry the world’s heat burden on its own.” On pages 325 et seq, he provides some of the bases for how the Pacific can perform in such a manner, including the discovery of the hydrothermal vents by the submersible Alvin and others, over 325 clusters in all the oceans (another +-37% of the planet’s surface), and the existence of life near them in an environment not thought by Science to support life because of the absence of light. Other information relating to the +- 10 year recycling of all the oceanic water, chemosynthesis, etc. appear in this most important of tomes.
They are politicians. Why expect anything other than ignorance?