DJL

It's hard to even mimic the outrage because it's so apparent that same people losing their shit about Latinos coming into the US wouldn't bat an eye about a primarily Caucasian population entering the US.

We would laissez faire our way out of being a global market contender if our government didn't work on our behalf.

I'd be curious to see what would happen if because of some sort of turmoil a flood of Canadians began crossing into the US.

Which is why it's also important to have a strong Space Force.

It takes way too long for industry to ramp up and become permanent. Nothing less than a world war has that kind of power to reshuffle the deck in under 50 years. This is why it's so important for us to get on top of emerging markets and industries. You can never get back what you've lost, you can only grow what is new.

I've had some friends say that I'm acting like I (and people who don't like Trump) want the economy to crash just to prove a point. No, I'm pointing out these signs because I want our leadership to be intellectually honest and take the necessary steps.

I have to copy and paste before the paywall blocks the site so I figured I'd just post it. CLIMATE|Trump’s Rollback of Auto Pollution Rules Shows Signs of Disarray Trump’s Rollback of Auto Pollution Rules Shows Signs of Disarray The Trump administration’s proposal would significantly weaken former President Barack Obama’s auto-emissions standards.CreditCreditJustin Sullivan/Getty Images By Coral Davenport and Hiroko Tabuchi Aug. 20, 2019 Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter. WASHINGTON — The White House, blindsided by a pact between California and four automakers to oppose President Trump’s auto emissions rollbacks, has mounted an effort to prevent any more from joining the other side. Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and General Motors were all summoned by a senior Trump adviser to a White House meeting last month where he pressed them to stand by the president’s own initiative, according to four people familiar with the talks. But even as the White House was working to do this, it was losing ground. Yet another company, Mercedes-Benz, is preparing to join the California agreement, according to two people familiar with the German company’s plans. Mr. Trump, described by three people as “enraged” by California’s deal, has also demanded that his staffers step up the pace to complete his plan. His proposal, however, is directly at odds with the wishes of many automakers, which fear that the aggressive rollbacks will spark a legal battle between California and the federal government that could split the United States car market. The administration’s efforts to weaken the Obama-era pollution rules could be rendered irrelevant if too many automakers join California in opposition before the Trump plan can be put into effect. That could imperil one of Mr. Trump’s most far-reaching rollbacks of climate-change policies. In addition to Mercedes-Benz, a sixth prominent automaker — one of the three summoned last month to the White House — intends to disregard the Trump proposal and stick to the current, stricter federal emissions standards for at least the next four years, according to executives at the company. Together, the six manufacturers who so far plan not to adhere to the new Trump rules account for more than 40 percent of all cars sold in the United States. “You get to a point where, if enough companies are with California, then what the Trump administration is doing is moot,” said Alan Krupnick, an economist with Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan energy and environment research organization. A senior administration official said the California pact was an effort to force Americans to buy expensive vehicles that they don’t want or need. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he called the pact top-down policymaking with California trying to impose its standard on 49 other states. The Trump administration’s proposal would significantly weaken the 2012 vehicle pollution standards put in place by President Barack Obama, which remain the single largest policy enacted by the United States to reduce planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions. The Obama-era rules require automakers to nearly double the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, cutting carbon dioxide pollution by about six billion tons over the lifetime of all the cars affected by the regulations, about the same amount the United States produces in a year. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps the sun’s heat and is a major contributor to climate change. Mr. Trump has billed his plan, which would freeze the standards at about 37 miles per gallon, as a deregulatory win for automakers that will keep down car prices for American consumers. Mr. Trump’s plan would also revoke the legal authority of California and other states to impose their own emissions standards. In an extraordinary move, automakers have balked at Mr. Trump’s proposal, mainly because California and 13 other states plan to continue enforcing their current, stricter rules, and to sue the Trump administration. That could lead to a nightmare situation for automakers: Years of regulatory uncertainty and a United States auto market that effectively split in two. Last week, California officials said that they expected more automakers to join their pact, which commits carmakers to build vehicles to a standard nearly as strict as the Obama-era rules that the president would like to weaken. “Many companies have told us — more than one or two — that they would sign up the agreement as soon as they felt free to do so,” said Mary Nichols, the top clean air official in California. Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board in 2018.CreditDavid Paul Morris/Bloomberg Officials from Mercedes-Benz declined to comment. Executives from the three auto companies summoned to the White House declined to comment publicly on their interactions with the Trump administration. But at a recent media event, Mike Manley, Fiat Chrysler’s chief executive, said of the California pact: “We are absolutely going to have a look at it and see what it means.” In the Trump administration, three senior political officials working on the rollback, a complex legal and scientific process, have all left the administration recently. A senior career official with years of experience on vehicle pollution policy was transferred to another office. That means the process is now being helmed by Francis Brooke, a 29-year-old White House aide with limited experience in climate change policy before moving over from Vice President Mike Pence’s office last year. Given the lack of experienced senior staffers, people working on the plan say it is unlikely to be completed before October. At the same time, staff members at the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department, which are writing the rule, say they are struggling to assemble a coherent technical and scientific analysis required by law to implement a rule change of this scope. Several analyses by academics and consumer advocates have questioned administration’s claim of benefits to the public. An Aug. 7 report by Consumer Reports concluded that Mr. Trump’s proposed rollback would cost consumers $460 billion between vehicle model years 2021 and 2035, an average of $3,300 more per vehicle, in car prices and gasoline purchases. It also found the rollback would increase the nation’s oil consumption by 320 billion gallons. A career staff member at the E.P.A., speaking on condition of anonymity, said the numbers, the public comments and the analysis were at odds with what the White House wanted to do. The White House official called the staff departures “irrelevant” and said that the rule was near completion. While acknowledging that a major change such as this takes times, the official said that people who were opposed to the rule, including some in the automotive industry, were starting to worry that the Trump plan was going to succeed. Policy experts point out that Mr. Trump’s quest to undo his predecessor’s signature climate-change regulation despite opposition from the very industry being regulated is extraordinarily unusual. For automakers, they say, it makes more sense to try to remain globally competitive by building more sophisticated vehicles as the world market moves toward more efficient cars. “I don’t think there is any precedent for a major industry to say, ‘We are prepared to have a stronger regulation,’ and to have the White House say, ‘No, we know better,’” said William K. Reilly, who headed the E.P.A. in the first George Bush administration. For some companies, Mr. Trump’s regulations are already moot. An E.P.A. assessment of the 2017 Honda CR-V, the best-selling S.U.V. in the country that year, showed the car is set to meet 2022 Obama-era targets five years ahead of schedule. Honda is one of the four automakers to have signed on to the California pact, along with Ford, Volkswagen and BMW. Late last month, in the days immediately after deal between California and the four automakers was announced, White House discussions ranged widely about how to respond. At one White House meeting, Mr. Trump went so far as to propose scrapping his own rollback plan and keeping the Obama regulations, while still revoking California’s legal authority to set its own standards, according to the three people familiar with the meeting. The president framed it as a way to retaliate against both California and the four automakers in California’s camp, those people said. Neal E. Boudette contributed reporting from Detroit. For more news on climate and the environment, follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.

Then you need to join in the effort to stamp out the context that the word "nationalism" has become associated with. The words patriotism and nationalism were at one point interchangeable but nationalism has come to mean to exalt a static identity of your nation, exclude any outside cultural influence.

I'm in agreement on this on the grounds that peak oil and fossil fuel depletion is not relevent to our market even for the next 50 years (but probably closer to 100 years). We've gotten better and better at finding new things to burn, it won't be a quick process so I think the alarm is disingenuous when compared to the need to switch out simply because of environmental reasons.

Well, I know you are but what am I?

That probably helps to highlight the difficulty in even agreeing to what we're talking about. We're not talking about mass shootings any more but gun crime. Soccer moms are not going to see any gun crime because they're usually not going to live in places where there is gun crime. Murders mostly occur within the same community and many of those are between people engaged in illegal activities. It's not dishonest to say that Chicago is safer because you can find more areas, to include gated communities and high-rise condos with secure entrances, well lit streets, etc that make it safer to live in. Those things are a product of wealth, opportunity, and tax dollars to name just a few.

Let's not forget that Trump is the master of taking credit for a disaster he created. The real issue institutional Republicans have with him is the economy, which is heading toward stagnation and showing signs of a recession. I'd put money on the table that just in time for it to matter for the elections he'll pull the plug on his trade disputes and tout any recovery as a masterful manipulation of the international market.

Never gonna happen. They didn't have the stones or political weight to Primary him when he was the candidate, they'll never do it with him sitting in the oval office. He would punish them every day until the inauguration.

Previously it took an El Nino to hit these temps so the question is where this data point will end up in the trend. Is it a spike on the graph and we're going to see lower July temps in the next few years or is it the new normal? Assessing the Global Climate in July 2019 July was the warmest month on record for the globe https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-201907

The next car I get will be all electric. I'm content that we're there, I do the kind of driving that suits it well and the fuel cost can't be beat.

If we did wagers based upon the outcomes we're talking about I bet we'd hear some different tunes.

From that article (which I haven't read all of) I'm taking it's message to be that short term fluctuations are more directly related to regional issues such as ocean temperature rather than Climate Change, models for Climate Change aren't very good at predicting weather, and as you point out we're still having difficult differentiating between natural causes and things that are caused by AGW. Doesn't seem too contentious. We know that the Arctic Circle is seeing record melting and that will affect weather patterns, one of those being the cooler wetter conditions in the US this year. It's more difficult to say that a years worth of storm systems or dry periods along the equator is a result of climate change.

I disagree but I don't fault that point from you. The article is about them bracing for both the short term affects of what was a seven year drought and acknowledging that they need to prepare for the long term effects of how climate change increases the frequency and severity of weather events. They also quote someone who hypothesizes that a condition of drought may be there to stay despite short term regional relief but the state announced an official end of that drought early this year. They're keeping their policies in place, which are that utilities need to provide a longer term usage plan when signs of drought arise.

Does the article claim that the Drought in California was literally never going to end?

I think these articles are running into the "too dumb to argue with" category. This is blatant trolling.

To be Honest, I love these Clinton Hit List conspiracies.

Conspiracies aside, why would you keep such a short suicide watch for the most high profile person in the facility?

You really have no idea about this subject. He's likely referring to a blog post on realclimatescience.com run by Tony Heller, pen name Stephen Goddard. We've already shown that guy to be a fishnet wearing street corner hooker for whoever will pay him to write climate denial stuff so I think Mr. BrentHutch was hesitant to post it. In the blog post he compared two NOAA data maps in a fairly misleading way (One from a land surface temp network, one from a land and sea surface temp network) and claimed the second must be faked because when compared to a third from a satellite network by a different group that measures Upper and Lower Trophospheric temperatures using microwave radiometers, which would inherently show different data from surface air readings, there was a tiny area in SE Africa that didn't match up. (So therefore CO2 doesn't affect air temps....or something, I don't know.)

That's the opposite of what you've been saying for the last several pages. We're good, I get it that you're just giving them shit about dramatic language and we all know they're making a warning of doom and gloom for things that might happen in the next 100 years. Drop off some one that low country food in Richmond on your way back North.

You know what sure, call it many people, call them legion. Do you take their words to mean you will have to cancel your vacation plans next week or are THEY referring to a longer scale on the human timeline when they say "imminent" and "catostrophic"?