Humans will never have an energy shortage. That is what E=mc^2 has given us. Additionally, we have still detected no damage from climate change. Galileo would appreciate that we keep finding politics on the wrong side of physics and physics is both immutable and critical to our lives as humans. We really should close the border, for everyone’s sake. We really should continue burning oil and coal, same reason. We should continue using fertilizer and eating meat.
To date, this is the sum of climate science:
No trend in hurricanes
No trend in drought
No trend in rain
No the fish are not shrinking
No butterflies are going extinct
Polar bears are doing great
Antarctic ice is not shrinking away
Sea level rise is a dead straight line for 150 years
Penguins are doing great too.
Why is the non-change in climate, something we are mandating NON-WORKING lithium powered cars for? Will we not stop building non-working windmills until we hit complete serfdom? You can tell a leftist that masks don’t work to prevent viral spread, you can show them a hundred papers but the lord government (completely randomly) tells them to wear two —- and they do.
ZERO independence of thought is the hallmark of the Democrat party. Compliance and obedience seem to be the goal but when you put it together with energy, fakonomics designed to move fully to government control, you have to wonder, what is the real end-game here?
What level of nonsensical belief will the Democrats finally be happy with?
Unfortunately or fortunately, even the 20:1 leftist government of DC can’t regulate physics. They are still going to try though because their need for control has no logic or center behind it. They just need to control things, for your own good.
The party of slavery has taken control of America and we are absolutely reaping the benefits. Ridiculous inflation, people not working, impossibly low productivity from those who do.
The leftism displayed in the last two years of Trump (dumping all money for the Chinese/US made flu) and the first two years of Biden has been the single most destructive time in my life for America. Worse, those who balance the parties by saying “they are both bad” are as much the problem as anyone on the democrat side. You are the folks who can’t figure it out. Democrats are the folks who think they benefit, independents are flatly confused and conservatives want to follow the law as written. FYI, there are leftists in the Republican party and no conservatives in the democrat party. This is because of the 20:1 ratio of Democrats/Republicrats in Washington.
NO conservatives need apply.
We have all lost our right to vote over this, even Dems. Yes, yes, princess, you can cast a ballot.
But you cannot vote.
In the meantime, vehicles and income are under direct attack by the leftists. Through massively progressive taxation, they are stealing your ability to rise financially to their level. You literally have a wall between you and them by being ‘fair’. I am on the happy side of that wall, just so you understand I’m not bitching. Try to get here….dare you. If you are a leftist or independent AND if you are a high performance individual AND lucky enough to succeed, you will very likely change your politics before it is done. Tax law is an amazing thing and I would bet a lot of money that I’m the biggest expert of my current readers on that as well.
Your ability to travel very much determines your freedom. Forcing you into a lower function, higher-cost vehicle creates additional damage to that freedom. All due to the fake god of climate.
The good news is that there is enough energy and material on our planet that in the timespan of this universe, we will never run out. We literally don’t need to leave Earth — ever.
There is plenty of fossil fuel to use for at least another century. It isn’t hurting anything environmentally and is cleaner than windmills and solar. In the meantime, truly safe nuclear power production has advanced tremendously and should be used right now.
The globe used 6.8033E+24 Joules of energy in 2017
E = mc^2
Solving for m reveals a mass of 75,697 Kg has an equivalent energy to all of the globe’s usage. This means 75.7 cubic meters of water converted into energy would be able to supply our current planetary energy needs for a year if we could get it out efficiently. This is a cube of water 13 feet per side.
This is why nuclear is the future. Mass is where GOD put the energy.
Allegorically, my politics are: Masks still don’t do anything, wear it if you like, I support you, BUT don’t even think about asking me to wear one.
Think about this please, we are approaching the most dystopian future I ever imagined. Yes, it is due to leftism in America and yes it affects the planet.
the Air Vent 
Jeff –
> We really should close the border, for everyone’s sake.
Just to make sure: when you say “everyone” there – is your argument that closing the borders (can I assume you mean just the one with Mexico, and not all the borders?) will benrfit those trying to get in as well as Americans?
> Think about this please, we are approaching the most dystopian future I ever imagined.
Wow. You seem quite alarmed. And they say libruls are alarmist chicken Littles, running around, worrying about dire scenarios:
Republicans are more likely than Democrats to believe nearly all of the scenarios asked about are likely within the next 10 years. Two-thirds of Republicans (65%) believe that total economic collapse is at least somewhat likely, compared to only 38% of Democrats. Around half of Republicans (48%) say it’s likely that the government will confiscate citizens’ firearms; only 17% of Democrats say this. Republicans are also more likely than Democrats to believe there will be a total breakdown of law and order (49% vs. 31%) and that the U.S. will be invaded by a foreign country (41% vs. 24%).
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/09/07/americans-evaluate-dire-political-scenarios-poll
> I would bet a lot of money that I’m the biggest expert of my current readers on that as well.
You know what I’ve found? Look beneath every appeal to authority and you’ll find the beating heart of a woke leftist.
You need to change your information sources. The dude with the broken cross is not your friend.
Do you know anything about US tax law…. at all?
Do you know anything about simple logic? At all?
So I suppose that is a no, meaning that so far, no reader has stepped up to claim knowledge of tax law, meaning I’m right again. Odd that.
Once you have written the checks, tax law becomes amazingly clear. In the US, the bottom 70% does not pay their fair share. Just FYI.
To answer your other question, on whether it would benefit the illegal aliens to close the border, YES it would.
> To answer your other question, on whether it would benefit the illegal aliens to close the border, YES it would.
Thanks for answering the question. That’s what I thought you were saying – just wanted to confirm. And so would you want to close both borders?
> So I suppose that is a no,
Clearly, that applies to my question – which was indeed rhetorical as the answer is quite obvious.
>And so would you want to close both borders?
I like your quote style. Going to steal it.
yes, vetting at our borders is needed. Why the hell would you assume that it wouldn’t be? Do you think it is a race thing?
Jeff –
> Do you think it is a race thing?
lol. It seems you really can’t get past your obsession with cartoonish lefties.
I note that you didn’t answer.
You can pretend to hide your nature all day long. I put mine right there, on line, for all to see.
Say what you mean. That’s all.
> You can pretend to hide your nature all day long
Lol.
Again we see your falling prey to the fundamental attribution error – equating my views with my “nature.”
And I guess now we can add mind-reading to the long list of areas where you appeal to your own expertise?
There can be a range of reasoning behind nativist ideology. I don’t know you so I don’t attribute any particular reasoning on your part (if/until you spell it out).
Unlike you, I don’t make assumptions about a person’s “nature.” simply because of stated beliefs.
Now we can add this to the long list of topics where you’ve been dead wrong.
I am not making assumptions, I’m making observations based on the nature of your comments. To not do so would be irresponsibly inhumane.
> Now we can add this to the long list of topics where you’ve been dead wrong.
Name them, you’ve done nothing but middle ground equivocation to prevent damage to your overly fragile ego, double dog dare you.
Jeff –
> I am not making assumptions, I’m making observations based on the nature of your comments.
No, you made an assumption about my view. And you were wrong. i’ll add it to the list.
I have lived in a few different countries in different parts of the world, and traveled extensively in far more. I’ve worked construction and in factories and “elite” academic institutions and community colleges and in retail and a fast-growing software company. In the US I’ve lived in predominantly minority, poor communities, and wealthy suburbs, and semi-rural areas (that’s where I live now) and areas like Appalachia.
In my life experience, I’ve found that someone’s ideological persuasion is not a very good predictor for their “nature.” I’ve met what I consider to be good people of many different persuasions and what I consider to be bad people of many different persuasions and what I consider to be unremarkable people of all different persuasions. I’ve found that ideology is likewise, not a good predictor for how well, or the nature of how, people reason.
But irrespective of my personal experiences, I understand that I don’t have a basis to judge ideological persuasion as a predictor of character just merely from my experiences in life. First, there’s always a problem of “selection bias” when using anecdotal evidence to judge correlations, let alone causation. Second, there’s always going to be a problem with my own biases influencing my assessments. So I look to empirical evidence to help assess this kind of issue. Of course, there’s always the very real potential of problems with (1) bias in my examination of empirical evidence and (2) the biases of those collecting and analyzing that evidence. I haven’t seen empirical evidence to support your absolute confidence in the correlation you think you see so uniformly.
That all said, with the caveats I mentioned applied, merely on a logical basis I see little reason to think that your theories about how you can judge people’s “nature” based on their ideological persuasion, let alone a few opinions voiced on a tiny number of issues, let alone on the basis of nothing other than few comments on a blog, can stand up to much scrutiny. If nothing else, even if there were differences on average, the idea that there isn’t more diversity within groups along these dimensions than there is between groups (which would make it highly problematic for your reverse engineering about my nature based on a few opinions I’ve expressed) seems naive to me.
Now I get that you have supreme confidence in your own infallible abilities to reverse engineer and assess character and how people reason and what opinions they hold based on a few opinions they’ve expressed on a blog – and I wouldn’t hope to convince you that you could be wrong about that. In fact, in just this little exchange we’ve had, your thinking about your abilities has proven wrong, more than once. But given your faith-based belief in unfalsifiable mechanisms, it seems likely you’ve locked out any chance that your open to any chance that you could ever have been wrong.
Good lord bud. Regarding your redefinition of what I meant by nature, some of my best friends are politically incorrect. You really did jump the shark on that one.
Read more carefully.
>your thinking about your abilities has proven wrong
I’ve admitted being wrong more than anyone I’ve ever met, even right here at this blog. I’ve also done more than anyone I’ve ever met so I expect they correlate.
You have still not provided any real examples. Don’t be afraid, I’ll wait. I’m certainly not afraid to lose the discussion, are you?
Jeff –
> You have still not provided any real examples. Don’t be afraid, I’ll wait. I’m certainly not afraid to lose the discussion, are you?
Add another error to your list. I’m not looking at this discussion as zero sum. The win/lose framing is, IMO, banal and uninteresting and juvenile.
Jeff –
> Regarding your redefinition of what I meant by nature, some of my best friends are politically incorrect.
I said nothing about your friends, nor anything related to what kinds of friends you might have. So that’s a non-sequitur (which seems to be a very frequent pattern with you). Not to mention, “politically incorrect” is completely orthogonal to what I was discussing.
Please try to stay on topic.
Thr middle is the comfort zone of the intellectually challenged. I shall send you a pillow.
Jeff –
> Thr middle is the comfort zone of the intellectually challenged. I shall send you a pillow.
I’m not in “the middle.” Wrong again. Your number of errors grows almost exactly proportional to your number of comments.
But I am impressed with the macho posturing. You seem like a real Internet tough guy.
(Can you make it one from the “My Pillow” guy? They’re my favorites.)
Float like a butterfly
Sting like a small, annoying insect.
Leftists are amazing.
I agree with your thesis on a scientific level. It is true. I did not read Josh-fakenewsRUS as I do not have the time, and he does not have the intelligence!
Sorry, I have too many wakes to go to, to bother with someone that cannot form a cogent argument!