Pages: 1 ... 100 101 [102] 103 104 ... 157   Go Down

Author Topic: Impeaching Donald Trump  (Read 36436 times)

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2649
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2020 on: December 13, 2019, 11:13:18 am »

Although I do not condone Trump's twitter feed, I do feel that it was kind of ridiculous to name a 16 year old person of the year.  (Unless perhaps if she was an actual martyr for a noble cause, such as Anne Frank.)  No one at 16 has any clue of how anything truly works.  I mean really, how can you when you have only had the ability of abstract thought for just 2 or 3 years (basic human psychological development) and almost no meaningful life experiences.  Not to mention, it is more then likely the case that your opinions on major topics merely mirrors your parents at that age.  In her case, this is then compounded by the fact that she is protesting by skipping school, which surely is not adding to her intellect or understanding on the subject, not to mention sets a bad example. 

It was a foolish, yet obliviously political, pick, but not the most so.  If you feel climate change should have been the topic, a climate scientist with actual credentials and research experience who could articulate the subject matter would have been a better pick.  Picking a snarky 16 year old who just yells turns off more people, which is not a good thing considering the state of things.
It is not just about her.
Greta Thunberg represents the large group of teenagers around the world that find climate change a real endangering issue,
even important enough to strike from school to go demontrate for measures that will produce a better climate.
Young people can think really well, better than 70 + year old;  a lot of mathematicians have peaked very young.
Trumps tweet is that of an cynic old respectless man...
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5899
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2021 on: December 13, 2019, 11:15:45 am »

News sources are reporting that the Republicans aren't going to call any witnesses at the trial in the Senate. No Joe Biden, no Hunter Biden, no whistleblower, no Adam Schiff. What a disappointment.
I guess they figure the Biden's would refuse to appear so what's the point?  I thought it was better to do it the way a trump wants it done.    But maybe I'm wrong.   Then they'd have to call other witnesses and allow the Democrats to call theirs making more of a spectacle of it.   This way they could claim the whole thing is a farce and vote to dismiss the phoney charges.  The way Biden is doing in any case,  it may be better for  Trump to run against him anyway.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2405
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2022 on: December 13, 2019, 11:17:19 am »

Yes, a disappointment indeed.  From a vindictive perspective, going for blood would surely be tempting.  I would love to see Schiff finally be under oath and have to answer questions about his role with the whistleblower.  I would also love to see his phone records published, especially if it showed he called the whistleblower. 

From a political perspective though, this may not be a good idea.  Support for impeachment is at the lowest it has been since this began and support amongst independents is dropping fast.  This is especially the case in swing states and districts, not to mention no one is really pay attention to it at this point, which is why the  Dems are fast tracking it.  Right now, all of the negativity around impeachment is falling squarely on the Dems. 

If the Senate republicans decide to make this a long trial, at some point this negativity will then be transferred to them and independents will then be asking, "if there is no there there, why are the Republicans spending so much time on it."  McConnell is probably right to make this short.  Now whether or not Trump will agree to this is yet to be seen. 

He may insist on making it painful for the Dems, but doing so could very well throw it back on him. 

However, even is this is a short trail, don't expect it to be good for Dems.  McConnell has already talked about following the federal rules on evidence, which does not allow hearsay.  The only fact witness called was Sondland, who did not give the Dems what they wanted.  Aside from a couple of experts, one called for each side, this is the only witness that may actually be allowed to testify. 
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1011
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2023 on: December 13, 2019, 11:19:12 am »

News sources are reporting that the Republicans aren't going to call any witnesses at the trial in the Senate. No Joe Biden, no Hunter Biden, no whistleblower, no Adam Schiff. What a disappointment.

I suspect there will be extensive discussions between the White House and the Senate Republican leadership in the weeks prior to the start of a trial, but if the latter are confident of holding all or almost all of their members―a two-thirds supermajority is required for removal from office―not calling defense witnesses may be a sensible tactical and political decision.  Assuming the full House of Representatives approves the two articles of impeachment voted by its judiciary committee, Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial.  At least, trying to call this particular list of witnesses would risk rulings by the chief justice not to admit their evidence on grounds of relevancy.  That would not only be a public relations embarrassment, but it would also tend to undermine the various arguments Trump's defenders have advanced that it was appropriate for Trump to ask the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens, that the "whistleblower" was a "deep state" plant, and that Adam Schiff conducted a biased investigation in the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5899
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2024 on: December 13, 2019, 11:23:45 am »

It is not just about her.
Greta Thunberg represents the large group of teenagers around the world that find climate change a real endangering issue,
even important enough to strike from school to go demontrate for measures that will produce a better climate.
Young people can think really well, better than 70 + year old;  a lot of mathematicians have peaked very young.
Trumps tweet is that of an cynic old respectless man...

Nothing wrong with her activities or the rest of these teenagers.   But once a person, regardless of their age enters the political arena, they're open to criticism.   You can't have it both ways.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2405
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2025 on: December 13, 2019, 11:26:37 am »

It is not just about her.
Greta Thunberg represents the large group of teenagers around the world that find climate change a real endangering issue,
even important enough to strike from school to go demontrate for measures that will produce a better climate.
Young people can think really well, better than 70 + year old;  a lot of mathematicians have peaked very young.
Trumps tweet is that of an cynic old respectless man...

This is a falsity that came from the Vietnam protests and the chance that young actually got it right.  However, in the majority of cases, young people are horribly wrong.  The Vietnam protests was just a fluke that got it right. 

You really need to take the 10,000 foot view on this.  Can a person with no degree, no lab experience, no research experience really be able to argue on the issue?  Although this may be the case with mathematics, and computer science, which has very little to do with the real world and operate within self-defined artificial realities where you choose to believe independent axioms or not (and in which negating any axioms does not create an invalid mathematical system, only one that is different and unique) is completely different that needing to understand very real world complex interactions that rely on a lot of research and experiments. 

Ignoring this 10,000 foot view is why Elizabeth Holmes got away with her scam for so long.  People thought that since young people can revolutionize silicon valley, why not with medical science?  Because it takes years of knowledge and research and experiments to amass the intellectual base required to excel in this field.  You can't just create a new human body like you can a mathematical system. 

As noted in other threads, I am not a climate change denier and I do feel the climate is changing due to humans.  I however greatly disagree with the notion we should be using a snarky teenager who yells at people, while protesting by hanging out on her parent's yacht, as the face for change.  It is a pretty loosing strategy and certainly, and rightly so, opens up the legitimate case for criticism from climate change deniers. 

And as Alan just noted, the left's notion that Greta should be free of critique because she is a child just does not cut it.  She may be a child, but she is in the political sphere now, and open to receiving political harassment. 

Perhaps the biggest reason this is a loosing strategy is because, at some point, she will no longer be a child.  If we continue to use her as the face for climate change, we will eventually end up with a face of a person who is now an angry adult that has no degrees behind her name, and therefore no legitimacy. 
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 11:39:14 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2649
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2026 on: December 13, 2019, 12:06:32 pm »

You really need to take the 10,000 foot view on this.  Can a person with no degree, no lab experience, no research experience really be able to argue on the issue?  Although this may be the case with mathematics, and computer science, which has very little to do with the real world and operate within self-defined artificial realities where you choose to believe independent axioms or not (and in which negating any axioms does not create an invalid mathematical system, only one that is different and unique) is completely different that needing to understand very real world complex interactions that rely on a lot of research and experiments. 

Ignoring this 10,000 foot view is why Elizabeth Holmes got away with her scam for so long.  People thought that since young people can revolutionize silicon valley, why not with medical science?  Because it takes years of knowledge and research and experiments to amass the intellectual base required to excel in this field.  You can't just create a new human body like you can a mathematical system. 

As noted in other threads, I am not a climate change denier and I do feel the climate is changing due to humans.  I however greatly disagree with the notion we should be using a snarky teenager who yells at people, while protesting by hanging out on her parent's yacht, as the face for change.  It is a pretty loosing strategy and certainly, and rightly so, opens up the legitimate case for criticism from climate change deniers. 

And as Alan just noted, the left's notion that Greta should be free of critique because she is a child just does not cut it.  She may be a child, but she is in the political sphere now, and open to receiving political harassment. 

Perhaps the biggest reason this is a loosing strategy is because, at some point, she will no longer be a child.  If we continue to use her as the face for climate change, we will eventually end up with a face of a person who is now an angry adult that has no degrees behind her name, and therefore no legitimacy.

I can see why you prefer Trump;
A 70 year old and still respectless man with    LAB experience? ... that knows everything - including everything about climate change and its causes and he does not need to consult anybody ( scientist) to know he has got it right

70 years of golf experience? and still not able to pay respect to a 16 year old or any other person because he himself would like to be Time's person of the year...
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 12:16:08 pm by kers »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13424
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2027 on: December 13, 2019, 12:11:42 pm »

Time's "Person of the Year" has been a joke for many years now. What difference does it make that a useless propaganda organ puts a 16 year-old tool of the crazy left on its cover? Who cares?
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2405
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2028 on: December 13, 2019, 12:22:13 pm »

I can see why you prefer Trump;
A 70 year old and still respectless man with    LAB experience? ... that knows everything - including everything about climate change and its causes and he does not need to consult anybody ( scientist) to know he has got it right

70 years of golf experience? and still not able to pay respect to a 16 year old or any other person because he himself would like to be Time's person of the year...

Ahhh, yes, nice ad hominem.  By the way, I play golf too.  Does that mean my opinion drops even more, since, you know, I share a hobby with the president? 

LOL  At least I'm not a hunter and have no chance of accidentally shooting a person in the face, so you cant lump me together with Cheney. 

And to then ignore the fact that I have come out, several times on this forum, in support of climate science is more of a refection of your skills then mine.  By the way, if you really want to talk about the left's strategy of using wind power and solar power, and whatever other rainbows sprout out of unicorns, all I just need to do is point Germany with their abject failure in decreasing emissions while at the same time greatly increasing the cost of energy. 

And the idea that I should elect individuals who want to completely change the entire economy to a system that has been proven to fail everywhere it was implemented, namely socialism, is kind of absurd.  Just like it is absolutely absurd to imply someone should vote only on one subject, as you just did here.  Get out there and resurrect some Blue Dog Dems who are pro-capitalist, and you could lure me back to your side. 

But getting back to the point, let's say little Greta was instead super interested in medical science and wanted to be a doctor.  She spent her days looking at medical books and was just as enthusiastic on the subject.  Would you abandon your medical doctor and start taking advice from her?  Would you feel it would be appropriate to use her as the face of medical science? 

You would have to be a fool to do so, in either case.  She would not have the necessary experience, even if she had a pretty expended knowledge base on anatomy, to qualify as a person to give medical advice.  And using her as the new face of doctors would greatly decrease the public standing of the profession. 

Same thing here.  Use a climate scientist with years of research to back his/her arguments to defend climate change and the need for action. 
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 12:28:08 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2649
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2029 on: December 13, 2019, 12:41:43 pm »

Ahhh, yes, nice ad hominem.  By the way, I play golf too.  Does that mean my opinion drops even more, since, you know, I share a hobby with the president? 

LOL  At least I'm not a hunter and have no chance of accidentally shooting a person in the face, so you cant lump me together with Cheney. 

And to then ignore the fact that I have come out, several times on this forum, in support of climate science is more of a refection of your skills then mine.  By the way, if you really want to talk about the left's strategy of using wind power and solar power, and whatever other rainbows sprout out of unicorns, all I just need to do is point Germany with their abject failure in decreasing emissions while at the same time greatly increasing the cost of energy. 

And the idea that I should elect individuals who want to completely change the entire economy to a system that has been proven to fail everywhere it was implemented, namely socialism, is kind of absurd.  Just like it is absolutely absurd to imply someone should vote only on one subject, as you just did here.  Get out there and resurrect some Blue Dog Dems who are pro-capitalist, and you could lure me back to your side. 

But getting back to the point, let's say little Greta was instead super interested in medical science and wanted to be a doctor.  She spent her days looking at medical books and was just as enthusiastic on the subject.  Would you abandon your medical doctor and start taking advice from her?  Would you feel it would be appropriate to use her as the face of medical science? 

You would have to be a fool to do so, in either case.  She would not have the necessary experience, even if she had a pretty expended knowledge base on anatomy, to qualify as a person to give medical advice.  And using her as the new face of doctors would greatly decrease the public standing of the profession. 

Same thing here.  Use a climate scientist with years of research to back his/her arguments to defend climate change and the need for action.

Sorry i am not trying to offend you, but i just do not agree with your points...
It might help not to call every opinion a politcial one- i do not think left vs right at all.
your idea of socialism is a caricature - even the US under Trump is a mix of Socialism and Capitalism.
Paying tax is a kind of socialism- needed to get certain things done, like building roads.
When looking at alternatives for fossil fuel; Wind and solar energy are already economically concurring with fossil fuel in many fields.
Even more if you calculate the pollution fossil fuels produce. No unicorns and rainbows needed.






Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2405
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2030 on: December 13, 2019, 01:14:13 pm »

Sorry i am not trying to offend you, but i just do not agree with your points...
It might help not to call every opinion a politcial one- i do not think left vs right at all.
your idea of socialism is a caricature - even the US under Trump is a mix of Socialism and Capitalism.
Paying tax is a kind of socialism- needed to get certain things done, like building roads.
When looking at alternatives for fossil fuel; Wind and solar energy are already economically concurring with fossil fuel in many fields.
Even more if you calculate the pollution fossil fuels produce. No unicorns and rainbows needed.

Advanced studies on the economics of wind and solar do not show them being economically viable alternatives.

I have gone over this before.  It has been shown in nearly every circumstance, that when wind and solar start supplying around 12% of the power supply, the viability of them drop significantly and the overall price for energy starts to raise.  If you look at Germany, which gets about 23% of their power from wind and solar (with around 50% capacity of production), electricity cost is nearly three times that of France.

The only two real life cases of this not being the case is in TX and AZ.  With TX, the natural gas boom has greatly decreased the price of natural gas, which is offsetting the increase in cost from solar/wind.  In AZ, the fact that nearly 80% of the state is owned by the Federal government, the cost of land for solar and wind farms, which is a huge part of the cost, is extremely low and those farms can be located near major metro areas, decreasing the need for long distance lines, another major cost.  Neither of these cases can be applied to anywhere else though, especially in Europe. 

Even in the case of solar panels on house roof, it is twice as expensive to get electricity from roofing panels then from solar farms.  On top of that, increase in urbanization means the roof space per capita is greatly decrease in time, eliminating this as a viable alternative.  Not to mention, roof panels would never be able to supply the needed power for commercial usage. 

Furthermore, even if you ignore the direct cost of solar/wind, the indirect cost of storing is extremely high as well.  All batteries loose at least 20% of energy when you store energy with in them to extract later, but could be as high as 40%.  On top of that, the shear amount of batteries, which are expensive, you would need to make this work is huge, which would cause even more damage due to the drastic increase in mining necessary to get the raw materials.  CA has been trying to lead here, but still has less then 6 minutes of battery usage in the entire state, even if you count every single battery in the state (like those in flashlights).  Also, all other energy storage solutions have enormous pit falls, such as the idea of storing water in dam like structures.  Here, the obvious problem is you need an area to build an dam like structure, and there are limited areas to build such things.  On top of that, you need to use fresh water and only 1% of the world's water is fresh water, so it is a limit resource. 

The only solution that could be an alternative is nuclear.  Unlike wind and solar, it uses very little land.  As an environmentalist, one of the biggest gripes I have with wind/solar the shear amount of land you need, all of which is destroyed.  Nuclear is very different.  Nuclear fuel is incredibly power dense, so you don't need to use a lot of it per capita.  Nuclear waste is completely self contain.  Unlike wind or solar, it can produce energy on demand and a plant can operate 80+% of the time.  Best case, solar and wind only produce energy 30% of the time.  Additionally, unlike geothermal where you need geothermal vents nearby to use, nuclear can be implemented anywhere. 

Overall I hear the left demonize nuclear (with the exception of Bill Gates, but I cant invest in his company yet), whereas the right does not, albeit some are afraid of it.  So I will vote for where the workable solution is, and until the left starts excepting nuclear as the only main alternative, it's not there. 
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 01:56:43 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2649
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2031 on: December 13, 2019, 02:34:37 pm »

Advanced studies on the economics of wind and solar do not show them being economically viable alternatives.

I have gone over this before.  It has been shown in nearly every circumstance, that when wind and solar start supplying around 12% of the power supply, the viability of them drop significantly and the overall price for energy starts to raise.  If you look at Germany, which gets about 23% of their power from wind and solar (with around 50% capacity of production), electricity cost is nearly three times that of France.

The only two real life cases of this not being the case is in TX and AZ.  With TX, the natural gas boom has greatly decreased the price of natural gas, which is offsetting the increase in cost from solar/wind.  In AZ, the fact that nearly 80% of the state is owned by the Federal government, the cost of land for solar and wind farms, which is a huge part of the cost, is extremely low and those farms can be located near major metro areas, decreasing the need for long distance lines, another major cost.  Neither of these cases can be applied to anywhere else though, especially in Europe. 

Even in the case of solar panels on house roof, it is twice as expensive to get electricity from roofing panels then from solar farms.  On top of that, increase in urbanization means the roof space per capita is greatly decrease in time, eliminating this as a viable alternative.  Not to mention, roof panels would never be able to supply the needed power for commercial usage. 

Furthermore, even if you ignore the direct cost of solar/wind, the indirect cost of storing is extremely high as well.  All batteries loose at least 20% of energy when you store energy with in them to extract later, but could be as high as 40%.  On top of that, the shear amount of batteries, which are expensive, you would need to make this work is huge, which would cause even more damage due to the drastic increase in mining necessary to get the raw materials.  CA has been trying to lead here, but still has less then 6 minutes of battery usage in the entire state, even if you count every single battery in the state (like those in flashlights).  Also, all other energy storage solutions have enormous pit falls, such as the idea of storing water in dam like structures.  Here, the obvious problem is you need an area to build an dam like structure, and there are limited areas to build such things.  On top of that, you need to use fresh water and only 1% of the world's water is fresh water, so it is a limit resource. 

The only solution that could be an alternative is nuclear.  Unlike wind and solar, it uses very little land.  As an environmentalist, one of the biggest gripes I have with wind/solar the shear amount of land you need, all of which is destroyed.  Nuclear is very different.  Nuclear fuel is incredibly power dense, so you don't need to use a lot of it per capita.  Nuclear waste is completely self contain.  Unlike wind or solar, it can produce energy on demand and a plant can operate 80+% of the time.  Best case, solar and wind only produce energy 30% of the time.  Additionally, unlike geothermal where you need geothermal vents nearby to use, nuclear can be implemented anywhere. 

Overall I hear the left demonize nuclear (with the exception of Bill Gates, but I cant invest in his company yet), whereas the right does not, albeit some are afraid of it.  So I will vote for where the workable solution is, and until the left starts excepting nuclear as the only main alternative, it's not there.

You must realize that we are only at the starting point of this green economy; The period of the first airoplane or FORD so to speak; It seems you only can think of a faster carriage with more horses, not knowing what a car is.

Many problems you mention - like energy storage, are just a matter of time to be tackled; Already viable ideas are tested; In our country we are building some energy stores with plain salt, no mining needed.
I find solar farms to be interesting only in desert area's because of the wasted space; in urban areas all roofs should be solar roofs; prices of solarpanels have dropped by 50% the last years and will be dropping more.
IKEA even sells them - after 7 years you have earned the investment back and the panels work at least 25 years.
(decentralizing energysupply has also some benefits)
The problem with nuclear power is that in that case the cost of nuclear waste storage and the dismantling of such a reactor is always left out of the economic equation. Not to mention when something goes really wrong.
I am not saying that we can tackle all energy needs with wind and solar, but a lot of them. Also we are learning to make our energy slurping devices much more efficient. We waste a lot of energy.
To move around our-80KG-selves, we drag along a car of 2000KG powered by gasoline; How stupid that sounds.

The use of nuclear energy might be an option in the case of a Thorium plant; I read that the US had stopped the development of this type of nucleair plant in the 1960 because it was not providing nucleair material for warheads.
But this type is one of the savest, having a passive cooldown system that always works in case of failure. Also the nucleair waste is only radiating 300 years after use, instead of 10.000 years with plutonium.( that is also 3x more scarce)
Of coarse the real sollution for our energy hungry (space) intentions has to come from nucleair fusion. But there is no reason to believe that will come to us soon.

At the moment the Chinese are investing a lot of money in green energy; They look 50 years ahead instead of 4, and know it is the only solution to create a future China where you can live.
In Europe we are at the start of a green deal; we all have to find out what will become of that, but the intention is there and a lot of money will be invested in it.
In 2050 Europe has to be climate neutral. A lot of positive thinking crazy people here; that is a good start. You need that otherwise you stay stuck with burning carbon things.

PS don't start again about left and right please... not everything is persé political oriented. Disengage.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 03:18:25 pm by kers »
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2405
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2032 on: December 13, 2019, 03:03:04 pm »

You must realize that we are only at the starting point of this green economy; The period of the first FORD so to speak; It seems you only can think of a faster carriage with more horses, not knowing what a car is.

Many problems you mention - like energy storage, are just a matter of time to be tackled; Already viable ideas are tested.
If you put solar panels on all the roofs, making them solar roofs you have already tackled one big area problem you mentioned. (decentralizing energysupply has some benefits)
The problem with nuclear power is that in that case the cost of nuclear waste storage and the dismantling of such a reactor is always left out of the economic equation. Not to mention when something goes really wrong.
I am not saying that we can tackle all energy needs with wind and solar, but a lot of them. Also we are learning to make our energy slurping devices much more efficient. We waste a lot of energy.
To move around our-80KG-selves, we drag along a car of 2000KG powered by gasoline; How stupid that sounds.

The Chinese are investing a lot of money in green energy; They look 50 years ahead instead of 4, and know it is the only solution to create a future China where you can live.
In Europe we are at the start of a green deal; we all have to find out what will become of that, but the intention is there and a lot of money will be invested in it.
In 2050 Europe has to be climate neutral. A lot of positive thinking crazy people here; that is a good start. You need that otherwise you stay stuck with burning carbon things.

All physicists that I have listened on the topic of increasing efficiency of solar wind power all agree we are far past the point of diminishing returns.  Wind and solar has been around for decades, but only just started to be implemented due to higher fuel costs in the last decade.  Increases in efficiency will be minimal unless a new technology is developed.  Not to mention there is the large downside that neither wind nor solar produce energy on demand. 

Insofar as alternate storage devices, none of them have been proven to work on a large scale.  Maybe there is some hope here, but since wind/solar are so energy dilute and intermittent, if we can not get those to work, none of that really matters. 

If you disagree, please show me examples of countries that have greatly increased their wind and solar reliance with prices going down.  Like I said, I only know of TX and AZ, and in each case there is a factor outside of the wind/solar economy that can not be replicated in other geographies which made that happen.  Whereas with nuclear, Franc gets 96% of their electricity from it and they have fairly low electricity prices.  Energy runs the economy; if the price goes up, GDP will be greatly effected. 

Insofar as your car issue, increases in urbanization is handling that issue more effectively then changes in energy production.  And as I stated before, when people start living in apartment building, solar roof panels start to loose their advantage.  Large single family houses is where that makes sense.  I dont know what it is like where you are, but suburbia is loosing it appeal. 

With nuclear power, when something goes really wrong, often the effects are not nearly as bad as it is made out to be.  With Chernobyl, all of the initial deaths were caused by the explosion and fire, and only about 120 deaths are estimated to have had happened from exposure with nearly all happening long after the fact from thyroid cancer.  With Fukushima, the only cause of death was from mass hysteria from a not needed evacuation. 

The Chinese do invest a lot in nuclear as well. 

Kind of off topic, but I am a little weary on China though.  As with all urbanized countries, their birth rate is below the 2.1 children per female needed to maintain the population, plus they are very restrictive on immigration and the one child policy created a situation where there are many more males in prime age then female, all of which will bring a crash in their population in the next decade or two.  Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson have some interesting research on this.  I would say, better to look to India then China, at least with investments.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 03:06:17 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13023
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2033 on: December 13, 2019, 03:49:42 pm »

The Democrats three year effort to impeach him for political reasons has weakened his negotiation hand.  The Democrats have hurt America and other countries who suffer from unfair Chinese trade practices.     

Your ability to deform facts to have them fit your political agenda is impressive.

Pretty much every word in your sentence departs from reality.

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13023
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2034 on: December 13, 2019, 05:24:19 pm »

I guess they figure the Biden's would refuse to appear so what's the point?  I thought it was better to do it the way a trump wants it done.    But maybe I'm wrong.   Then they'd have to call other witnesses and allow the Democrats to call theirs making more of a spectacle of it.   This way they could claim the whole thing is a farce and vote to dismiss the phoney charges.  The way Biden is doing in any case,  it may be better for  Trump to run against him anyway.

Or, more realistically, they know that Biden would be found to be innocent of any of the fantasy crimes the Republicans have been daydreaming about. Which would have further confirmed the fact that what Trump is accused of can only be true.

The smart play of the Democrats would be to have Biden testify. How great would that not be? I can imagine the Republican clan shaking at this thought.

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13023
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2035 on: December 13, 2019, 05:34:29 pm »

All physicists that I have listened on the topic of increasing efficiency of solar wind power all agree we are far past the point of diminishing returns.  Wind and solar has been around for decades, but only just started to be implemented due to higher fuel costs in the last decade.  Increases in efficiency will be minimal unless a new technology is developed.  Not to mention there is the large downside that neither wind nor solar produce energy on demand. 

Insofar as alternate storage devices, none of them have been proven to work on a large scale.  Maybe there is some hope here, but since wind/solar are so energy dilute and intermittent, if we can not get those to work, none of that really matters. 

If you disagree, please show me examples of countries that have greatly increased their wind and solar reliance with prices going down.  Like I said, I only know of TX and AZ, and in each case there is a factor outside of the wind/solar economy that can not be replicated in other geographies which made that happen.  Whereas with nuclear, Franc gets 96% of their electricity from it and they have fairly low electricity prices.  Energy runs the economy; if the price goes up, GDP will be greatly effected. 

Insofar as your car issue, increases in urbanization is handling that issue more effectively then changes in energy production.  And as I stated before, when people start living in apartment building, solar roof panels start to loose their advantage.  Large single family houses is where that makes sense.  I dont know what it is like where you are, but suburbia is loosing it appeal. 

With nuclear power, when something goes really wrong, often the effects are not nearly as bad as it is made out to be.  With Chernobyl, all of the initial deaths were caused by the explosion and fire, and only about 120 deaths are estimated to have had happened from exposure with nearly all happening long after the fact from thyroid cancer.  With Fukushima, the only cause of death was from mass hysteria from a not needed evacuation. 

The Chinese do invest a lot in nuclear as well. 

Kind of off topic, but I am a little weary on China though.  As with all urbanized countries, their birth rate is below the 2.1 children per female needed to maintain the population, plus they are very restrictive on immigration and the one child policy created a situation where there are many more males in prime age then female, all of which will bring a crash in their population in the next decade or two.  Darrel Bricker and John Ibbitson have some interesting research on this.  I would say, better to look to India then China, at least with investments.

Joe,

About Fukushima, I was there, you have no idea what you are talking about... yet you are talking about it with a great degree of confidence...

There was no mass histeria and even less a mas histeria that caused people to die. Evacuation was obviously needed although people didn’t want to evacuate.

I don’t disagree about the value of well designed and state ran nuclear power though. Fukushima has been the obvious proof that private operators cannot deal with the consequences of accidents and there is no reason why citizens should let them ripe the benefits without dealing with the actual costs. A sound society must be built on accountability.

Cheers,
Bernard

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2405
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2036 on: December 13, 2019, 05:44:22 pm »

Or, more realistically, they know that Biden would be found to be innocent of any of the fantasy crimes the Republicans have been daydreaming about. Which would have further confirmed the fact that what Trump is accused of can only be true.

The smart play of the Democrats would be to have Biden testify. How great would that not be? I can imagine the Republican clan shaking at this thought.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not really. 

Biden testifying would (edit, could) certainly hurt him, even though it was not illegal.  It is pretty obvious, or that is the perception, Hunter was selling White House access; there is no way around this.  This is technically not illegal to do with foreign companies, but still not a good look.  Same thing with the Chinese firm, and Biden really has some explaining to do about it.  It is like the Hillary email thing, if she had owned up to it and apologized, it would not have become such a big issue. 

The growing fear on the Republican side is if they bring Joe Biden in to testify, he can then talk about his other son who was dying of cancer at the time the Hunter thing was going on.  This could then garner sympathy from public and the Hunter issue fades away.  Biden has already put this strategy into effect with a recent interview. 

The interview on its own is not enough to squash the issue though (and he going to have to own up to it or loose).  But being grilled by Senate republicans could, which is not what the republicans want. 

To be honest though, I cant see any of this being an issue with the Dem primary.  I feel it is going to be a contested convention, and in that situation, it benefits the Dems to pick someone who is not even in the race.  Why?  Well if it is contested, by the time it makes it to the summer, each candidate's group will be so entrenched with hating the other candidates, picking someone is currently running is guaranteed to alienate more than half the party.  And then say hello to Hillary again. 
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 06:18:34 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2405
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2037 on: December 13, 2019, 05:47:02 pm »

Joe,

About Fukushima, I was there, you have no idea what you are talking about... yet you are talking about it with a great degree of confidence...

There was no mass histeria and even less a mas histeria that caused people to die. Evacuation was obviously needed although people didn’t want to evacuate.

I don’t disagree about the value of well designed and state ran nuclear power though. Fukushima has been the obvious proof that private operators cannot deal with the consequences of accidents and there is no reason why citizens should let them ripe the benefits without dealing with the actual costs. A sound society must be built on accountability.

Cheers,
Bernard

From Wiki, "A May 2012 United Nations committee report stated that none of the six Fukushima workers who had died since the tsunami had died from radiation exposure. According to a 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

 It was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[10] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines. Despite this, there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome. Given the uncertain health effects of low-dose radiation, cancer deaths cannot be ruled out.[11] However, studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected." 

And why does it always have to be state-run?  It is not like state run entities are incapable of disaster.  Chernobyl was state run.  And since when were companies not being held accountable?  The last major energy screw up in the USA was the BP oil spill.  They were ordered to pay out $5.5B; that sounds like a pretty serious dose of accountability. 

And are government run entities always held accountable?

PS. I don't want to highjack this topic with energy talk.  So in 2040, we can converse again and see if (A) we are running on wind/solar power, (B) running on nuclear, or (C) still running on fossil fuels.  I highly doubt it will be A, hoping it will be B, but feel it will probably be C. 
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 06:39:25 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5899
    • Flicker photos
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2038 on: December 13, 2019, 08:54:45 pm »

I'l be happy if I am just alive in 2040.   Any fuel will be perfectly ok to me. 

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1356
Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
« Reply #2039 on: December 13, 2019, 09:12:57 pm »

Not really. 

Biden testifying would (edit, could) certainly hurt him, even though it was not illegal.  It is pretty obvious, or that is the perception, Hunter was selling White House access; there is no way around this.  This is technically not illegal to do with foreign companies, but still not a good look.  Same thing with the Chinese firm, and Biden really has some explaining to do about it.  It is like the Hillary email thing, if she had owned up to it and apologized, it would not have become such a big issue. 

Answer me this - it's a totally honest question, and I truly don't know the answer (and am genuinely curious).  Why is this such a problem for Biden, when half of Trump's campaign team was neck-deep in Russian influence (forget about "collusion" - I'm just talking about acknowledged, publicly know work like what Manafort was doing)?  And why does Hillary's email issue matter, when it's widely acknowledged that Trump, Pompeo, Sondland etc. have been continuously loose with communications security protocols?

Basically, I don't think anyone denies that Trump (and let's restrict it to these two issues for the sake of clarity) and his team do everything Hunter Biden is being accused of with regard to foreign entanglements, and everything HRC was accused of ("lock her up!!!") on a more frequent and less secure basis.

So why is this such a killer for Biden/Hillary but a nonissue for Trump?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 100 101 [102] 103 104 ... 157   Go Up