ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"Trump's America has the world's best carbon footprint"

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article174814149/CO2-Werte-Ausgerechnet-Trumps-Amerika-hat-die-weltweit-beste-Klimabilanz.html

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"Trump's America has the world's best carbon footprint"

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article174814149/CO2-Werte-Ausgerechnet-Trumps-Amerika-hat-die-weltweit-beste-Klimabilanz.html

Correlation does not imply causation. Even the article say so.

They are talking about how bizarre it is that Trump does not affect U.S. carbon footprint. The CO 2 savings are due to the increased consumption of renewable energy. This is following a trend to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The use of natural gas to generate electricity in the US is more cost-effective than burning coal. Trump's commitment and policies on coal power has little or no effect on consumption of coal.

"

deathflower wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"Trump's America has the world's best carbon footprint"

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article174814149/CO2-Werte-Ausgerechnet-Trumps-Amerika-hat-die-weltweit-beste-Klimabilanz.html

Correlation does not imply causation. Even the article say so.

They are talking about how bizarre it is that Trump does not affect U.S. carbon footprint. The CO 2 savings are due to the increased consumption of renewable energy. This is following a trend to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The use of natural gas to generate electricity in the US is more cost-effective than burning coal. Trump's commitment and policies on coal power has little or no effect on consumption of coal.

While it's true that correlation doesn't imply causation, the lack of a correlation does imply a lack of causation. If dropping heavy regulations on the coal industry doesn't create a significant increase in coal consumption, then we can logically conclude that adding heavy regulations to the coal industry didn't cause a significant - and intentional - decrease in coal consumption. In other words, dismantling the EPA and allowing the market to self-regulate wouldn't look too much different, in terms of carbon footprint, from what we have now, arguably because green energy is competitive enough in the marketplace (thanks in part to voluntary carbon footprint awareness) that even without the forms of government assistance Pruitt withholds, its marketshare grows.

Please note that none of the above is in any way climate change denial; it is "big government is effective" denial.

"

deathflower wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"Trump's America has the world's best carbon footprint"

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article174814149/CO2-Werte-Ausgerechnet-Trumps-Amerika-hat-die-weltweit-beste-Klimabilanz.html

Correlation does not imply causation. Even the article say so.

They are talking about how bizarre it is that Trump does not affect U.S. carbon footprint. The CO 2 savings are due to the increased consumption of renewable energy. This is following a trend to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The use of natural gas to generate electricity in the US is more cost-effective than burning coal. Trump's commitment and policies on coal power has little or no effect on consumption of coal.

I don't find it bizarre at all. I expected the market to handle it, and it did. Hail capitalism!

The article is interesting to me for another reason: while apparently the entire world talks about how we're doomed because of climate change, nobody acts according to what they say. A handful of countries lowered their CO2 by a rather pitiful amount, and most countries even increased their CO2 output. Makes me skeptical of all the climate change panic. I always tend to look at what people do, not at what they say.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"Trump's America has the world's best carbon footprint"

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article174814149/CO2-Werte-Ausgerechnet-Trumps-Amerika-hat-die-weltweit-beste-Klimabilanz.html

Correlation does not imply causation. Even the article say so.

They are talking about how bizarre it is that Trump does not affect U.S. carbon footprint. The CO 2 savings are due to the increased consumption of renewable energy. This is following a trend to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The use of natural gas to generate electricity in the US is more cost-effective than burning coal. Trump's commitment and policies on coal power has little or no effect on consumption of coal.

While it's true that correlation doesn't imply causation, the lack of a correlation does imply a lack of causation. If dropping heavy regulations on the coal industry doesn't create a significant increase in coal consumption, then we can logically conclude that adding heavy regulations to the coal industry didn't cause a significant - and intentional - decrease in coal consumption. In other words, dismantling the EPA and allowing the market to self-regulate wouldn't look too much different, in terms of carbon footprint, from what we have now, arguably because green energy is competitive enough in the marketplace (thanks in part to voluntary carbon footprint awareness) that even without the forms of government assistance Pruitt withholds, its marketshare grows.

Please note that none of the above is in any way climate change denial; it is "big government is effective" denial.

That's wrong.

If something becomes impossible, then you have to adapt. Sometimes (actually, quite often) the adaptation is superior to the old way, so if the old become possible again, it's not interesting anymore.

That said, if the old way didn't become impossible, adaptation wouldn't have been needed and it's highly probable that it would still be used because people resist change rather than embrace it (just look how long it took for electric cars to be used widely).

"

faerwin wrote:

That's wrong.

If something becomes impossible, then you have to adapt. Sometimes (actually, quite often) the adaptation is superior to the old way, so if the old become possible again, it's not interesting anymore.

That said, if the old way didn't become impossible, adaptation wouldn't have been needed and it's highly probable that it would still be used because people resist change rather than embrace it (just look how long it took for electric cars to be used widely).

Had they made electric cars widely available in the US for a reasonable cost about 10 years ago, they would have sold them like crazy, and they would likely dominate the market. The car companies screwed around with the idea and waited, and waited and waited.

Change doesn't require something to be broken, and you will get more change with positive incentives than with mandates. The solar power industry is a great example of what incentives can do - when given to the end user, not direct funds to some big company.

"

Xavderion wrote:

I laughed out loud at this tbh.

Spoiler

LUL. The not-so-obvious joke in funnier than the obvious one, tho. Some european regimes are doing everything to bring more jew-hating muslim & arab immigrants into Europe.

RE: climate change - as long as China, India... are allowed to pollute and emit all they want for decades still, it's all a farce designed to extract more resources from gullible westerners.

The coal & oil that wont be burned by the West, will be burned by China, India, Rusia, Brasil, Africa... which will somehow save the "melting ice caps".

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

That's wrong.

If something becomes impossible, then you have to adapt. Sometimes (actually, quite often) the adaptation is superior to the old way, so if the old become possible again, it's not interesting anymore.

That said, if the old way didn't become impossible, adaptation wouldn't have been needed and it's highly probable that it would still be used because people resist change rather than embrace it (just look how long it took for electric cars to be used widely).

Had they made electric cars widely available in the US for a reasonable cost about 10 years ago, they would have sold them like crazy, and they would likely dominate the market. The car companies screwed around with the idea and waited, and waited and waited.

Change doesn't require something to be broken, and you will get more change with positive incentives than with mandates. The solar power industry is a great example of what incentives can do - when given to the end user, not direct funds to some big company.

10 years ago, there was hybrid cars, it didn't sell like crazy. They didn't wait, they purposely avoided it because they didn't want to spend money on it and I wouldn't be surprised if a good deal of them had/have investments in oil industries. It was deliberate.



You are right that change doesn't need something to be broken (or given the impression that it's broken), but it helps tremendously. The only notable exception I can think of is arms races (wether physical or through softwares).

Another chemical attack that makes no sense* supposedly happened in Syria and the globalist deep state is already on the war path. No need for an independent verification or actual investigation, just trust the same terrorists that you are sponsoring to destabilize the region.

U.S. weighs multinational military response to Syria attack

Do you guys 'member when the US/UK had to actually invent somewhat credible shit and go present it in front of lenghty UN debates ("Iraqi WMD"), before invading sovereign countries? And some western countries (eg. France) would actually oppose you? Now this process has been cosiderably shortened and involves relying on instant fake news on social media. And everyone is on board.

(* isn't it odd how chemical attacks always happen when western-soponsored "rebels" are loosing ground?)

E:

I agree with Morbo. The chemical attack smells like pure BS to me as well.

There is quite literally zero motive for the Assad government to do this. Especially considering Trump was talking about getting out of Syria. Why provoke the USA into staying? Just doesn't make any sense. But what does make sense is to plan a false flag attack as justification to keep the USA involved in the region.

If I had to make a guess who did it, if a chemical attack even happened at all, it was probably the Israelis. They have the most to gain by the removal of Assad, and the most to gain from the conflict continuing.

I haven't seen compelling evidence that a chemical attack happened at all. I mean, I saw a video of some bodies, which isn't uncommon at all in a war zone, and people getting washed off with hoses. That's it. Given the completely bizarre circumstances, and questionable motives, I'm not satisfied with the proof they provided. Do I trust our "intelligence" community to tell us the truth about this? Hell no.

Israel is in a pretty bad situation currently. If Assad remains in power, then they got someone who's going to be an enemy right next door. And someone who's going to work with the Iranians and Hizbullah. With the Russians arming them all.

The 2006 war in Lebanon didn't work out well for the Israelis. They got their ass handed to them by Hizbollah, and that's putting it nicely. The teenager in me wants to say they got #rekt. They lost a shitload of tanks in the conflict, because they woefully underestimated their opponents. And we're talking about those supposedly invincible Merkava tanks that anti-tank missiles are supposed to bounce off of, and not leave a dent. LMAO. About as immortal as Persians were against a line of 300 Spartans. Because that's how bad they freaking got rekt.

And Hizbullah is stronger than they were even in 2006. The Israelis have no chance of a successful ground campaign into either Syria, or Lebanon. Their best option is for their enemies to be distracted fighting a 3rd party (ISIS), so they can go in for air strikes, and watch their enemies wear themselves down in a drawn out conflict.

The Israelis got nukes, but with the Russian factor in play, the consequences would likely be Russia wiping them clean off the map. Russia could remove Israel for not even 0.1% of their nuclear arsenal. Then I guess all those holy land cults would have to become something like the Children of Atom from fallout 4.

So yeah, my gut tells me this was staged by the Israelis.