metalslug

That's your take now? Some typos? That's the surest sign that you have nothing left in the tank. Half the posts of everyone here have some grammatical slip somewhere. If you can convince yourself you're 'winning' by finding them then carry on...

Yup, they have certainly being banging their heads a lot here. ..and that is an indicator why Phil believes his document 'contradicts everything I post'. He either hasn't read his own document, or hasn't read what I've posted, or fails to properly comprehend either.

That's always been the hallmark of your posts here. Unsure and from an alternate reality. I can't help you there. The one recognised by the DOJ and other legal authorities. Have patience. He'll be found guilty of that charge.. or not.

Wow, a whole 24? And what global percentage reduction have they collectively achieved in that time? Some reports suggest global emissions have gone up by more than 50%. Other than less smog over their own cities (your LA example) , do those 24 nations regard that as money well spent? In a perfect world their efforts might be admirable but until such time as the largest contributors (notably India, China, Russia) start feeling real domestic pressure to act then I don't expect it will happen. The money and effort they saved by not taking climate action has in part been spent on their war machines (China & Russia) and somehow that feels more concerning to me right now that the rest of the world has not. Those nations, right now, can do a lot more damage than climate change over the same period and have expressed a willingness to do so. The UK and parts of Europe have walked back on many of their COP26 commitments in view of Russian sanctions. Despite a heatwave in the UK right now it hasn't triggered them to again shut down all their coal powerplants today, as curiously electrical power is actually needed to run hospitals and cooling systems. It's fairly common sense to address the things that are going to matter most right now. You choose to interpret it as a contradiction because your analogy doesn't fit. How about "Lets take a collection to buy pizza for everyone in the room but only willing contributors need to pay regardless of how much you can afford to give. Then we'll do the same each day and every day for the next several years, and it will always be the same people expected to pay, and you'll gradually all go hungry anyway as the collection is insufficient to adequately feed everyone." Would it not be more effective by allowing the gluttonous freeloaders to go hungry until they actually decide to chip in on the next round? And since nobody is getting global pizza until then you could buy yourself some local burgers instead to make do until they come around.

Which is not what is happening, hence it should not yet be a priority over more immediate concerns, especially for smaller contributors. You can recite that to yourself if it makes you feel better. Doesn't make it true. It's right up there with "anything that sounds bad" which of course can only have a conservative cause. I'm sure when your next pizza delivery is late there will also be a conservative to blame for that too.

?? That must be the reason why there are no females, blacks, trans people or scientists that vote Republican. I'll happily agree that Trump is unintelligent, narcissistic and unpresidential. Enough faults to discount him without needing to make additional shit up. The ludicrous lefty dogma that just gets invented on the fly is hilarious.

Oh, that's hilarious. You're one of the people who believe that Aussies reducing their 1.3% of global emissions contribution will somehow reduce bushfires and flooding there? This ties with your AI 'all jobs are doomed' as the biggest whopper you've written yet. 'Scientist' indeed. OTOH building dams and flood levies will actually have a meaningful impact in NSW regardless of whether China, Russia or India reduce their emissions.

The discussion of money came up when were discussing budgets for preparing for local change vs preventing global change. I advocated that the former should take precedence, at least for a decade or two, and within an Australian context I'm fine for government to keep using existing coal and LNG power as the best current cost vs reliability balance while they conserve budget to build dams, flood levies, military spending, national debt reduction, etc. Once those things are at an acceptable level (subjective opinion) then gradually swap coal power sites for nuclear, whereby some of the expenses are mitigated by existing infrastructure at those sites and modular reactor costs might even be lower than present. I accept that other countries may have different scenarios.

That's fascinating but has fsckall to do with what you replied to. Australia, Kazakhstan and Canada have the largest reserves of Uranium. I'm sure we'll get by if governments are willing to commit. Edit to FYI; Namibia is friendly to the US at least.

Well, except for offshore wind farms in a few places. Most significantly is that nuclear is also the most reliable type of power. That reliability comes at a premium price. For me, reliable energy (in the context of home and business electricity) should be the only kind that exists in a 1st-world economy. As to cost comparison; You're now reverting to older threads that have already been debated to exhaustion. The costs have lot of variables for comparative energy density and billeisele has mentioned some other aspects of 'green' expenses in the previous post. Also consider supply chain; Which countries have expertise in nuclear energy and/or large reserves of uranium and are they friendly to us ('the west')? Contrast that against solar panel fabrication, cobalt, zinc... How is our relationship with these suppliers in the current political climate? ..and how could that affect future pricing?

..and lefty fantasies do not imply that he did do something. Believing that a mere 2000 civilian yahoos in mob formation constitutes a viable coup attempt against a force as significant as the US... is like trying to make a legal argument that a spitwad strike constitutes 'attempted murder'. Good luck with that in any court of learned legal judgement. You really should leave this one to the professionals.

You have repeatedly demonstrated a need for such explanations being fed to you. This is why I'll rather defer to the DOJ's judgement over yours.

Facebook identifies 58 different genders for their community, 26 of which are variations of trans-something. Other similarly 'woke' platforms acknowledged just a few more or a few less. Would you assert that there's a scientific basis for all for these? Somebody somewhere is having a shitload of funsies.

Fair enough. She had given testimony on more than one event and you had not specified which. I retract my reply to your comment. The 'multi-quote' is not a 'game', it's a forum feature. You can edit my quoted reply down to the relevant lines that you wish to reply to or you're of course welcome to withhold replies. None of us here owe each other.

But that's not what happened. Besides that fact; Were you not even reading the post? ; "...prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements." Taking over (control of) the armed forces and neutralising (existing) military leaders is almost exactly what I said does constitute a coup. Please try to keep up. FYI Cassidy Hutchinson wasn't even there and the agents who were there dispute it. They might as well ask you to testify to the event as I'm sure you also 'heard about it' somewhere. Hence why the DOJ has not charged him. It's also evident why yourself, bill & Joe are not contracted to the DOJ for your legal expertise.

Edited correction; I had incorrectly included the words 'start to' in my previous post above. In fairness to bill's reply; some people have indeed started to care already. I'm with you there, I've already stated on this forum that I support modern nuclear. It's not about people, it's about money. Both prevention and preparation will require huge budgets. What we disagree on is the timeline that determines the relative priorities of each.

Everyone will only start to care about the problem when everyone is up to their necks in water, metaphorically speaking. In the shorter term it makes more sense to prepare for changes locally than to expect to prevent changes globally.

The answer is literally in the very post you're replying to. 'future' and 'now' are not the same thing.

If we're using metaphors, here's mine; Do you think it's worthwhile for countries with smaller emissions to spends many billions on a bigger bilge pump while other countries are punching much larger holes in the hull and saving their own billions in the process? There's a potential military war looming in the Pacific within a few years and countries like Australia seem more interested in throwing billions at 1.3% emissions concerns than preparing themselves for events of a much more grave and immediate nature.

No, but inevitably they will ...in pursuit of reducing global emissions as it would amount to brazen hypocrisy if they didn't. Between this and an expected reduction in domestic consumption (much of it through legislation), the oil companies will not invest new capital until the future of their business looks brighter. So while fuel demand will remain high for a while, capacity will not, and the resulting pricing will have the consumers considering that at the polls. That party essentially betrayed their base by trying to 'out-left' the left and pandering to COP26, the very opposite position of what won them the election barely three years before. The Aussie left has now sold the electorate the lie that reducing Australia's 1.3% of global emissions will (a) not cost them anything extra and (b) will reduce flooding and bushfires. It remains to be seen how long they remain duped by that. Conservatives don't deny their 1.3% at all, they just deny the cost-benefit of eliminating it as China alone emits more emissions in just 16 days than Australia does in a whole year and will be increasing that output within just a few years.

Say what? Do you expect that lefty US administrations will be pushing to reduce US emissions by exporting the same volume of fossil fuel products to be combusted in another part of the world? ...as though that will reduce a perceived global problem? Your argument makes a lot less sense than mine. No future bans on petroleum vehicles? Good to know. .....who have in part been sold a lie that it won't cost them anything extra and who might balk when they realize the actual financial impact and express that disfavour at the polls.

That's probably because the DOJ actually understands legal definitions. Insurrection; yes. Sedition; yes. ...but 2000 civilian nutters does not make a coup. Even a 'Trump told them to do it' argument would be a tough sell as no direct authority exists by a president over a civilian that compels them to the action. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. On that day Trump already had legal control of all those forces and did not use them to usurp control at the Capitol and did not countermand Pence's call for the National Guard. DOJ knows this even if Speaker's Corner does not.

Ah, the NPR ; "we'll beat your right-wing talking points with our left-wing talking points..." The oil companies have seen where government sentiment on fossil fuels is headed; They cannot reasonably be expected to invest big capital in capacity improvement when the future expectation is reduced consumption through legislation. The government has set that market mood. Not worry though as, according to you, "it's not a supply problem". You might agree that 'not making up their minds' is an accepted lefty standard. I suppose it's some consolation that he didn't defer to "So what". I had said all that was relevant there, although I should perhaps feel flattered that you're more interested in my projects than the OP of that thread.

Well, make up your mind. You've said in earlier posts that the US has record exports of refined products and that there's no supply problem. So where is the refinery capacity restriction that you speak of? The most recent significant reduction was caused by hurricane damage, although I'm sure you'll be blaming that on climate change caused by the refinery itself. Those crafty petroleum magnates.

Not so fast there, or you'll trip over the goalpost that you're moving (for some odd reason). My post that you were replying to concerned oil only, not total products. Since 2021 the US has been importing more oil than it exports, per https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports-of-crude-oil and https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/imports-of-crude-oil Biden suspended oil & gas leasing, not refining capability. To have to import oil, that could be drilled locally, and then refine that to export it again, is not entirely optimum for pricing. To be fair, the US is not the only country with curious energy practices. Domestic users of LNG in Australia are paying a high price (globally compared) and even substantially higher per unit than the international customers that they export to, in a country that sits on a lot of LNG.