27 total posts
The list of what is real has become much shorter than
the list of that which is fake. We face falsehoods on a daily basis. Fake news is sponsored by deceptive (fake) advertising. We argue based on incomplete (fake) historical data that was produced mostly for the purposes of arousing anger. Almost anything we see or hear through media channels has been filtered, editorialized and presented for a purpose other than to be wholly truthful.
In a few minutes, I'll be able to see the light in the morning sky. It will be real and not "Photoshopped". A good start, at least....
... and it's the information system that powers the election
of your government officials.
This just in ... as it often happens.
BBC video of a gubernatorial meet and greet. Captioned.
The party politics don't interest me, but his responses should disturb anyone with a brain.
> Dismissing a voting-age person as "young and naïve" is not smart campaigning.
> His handlers or news choices or classroom teachers or whatever have taught him that 'climate change is caused by human body heat'. [She attributed such a statement to him, which he did not deny.] This astonishes even me, and that takes a lot, these days. Does anyone have contrary input? Is it in fact caused by body heat? [If so, Dr Swift and I have a solution...]
> He objected further to the question because 'I'm running for Governor, not scientist'. Is that the electorate's choice, then, in the 20th* century? A politician, or an educated person? And, does he understand that's the choice he implies?
* Say, you're right. it IS the 21st century. Worse yet!
The young women was naive
She thinks this is about right and wrong.......it's not.
This is about getting elected.
What does your voter base want?
What does the big money that funds your campaign want?
Climate change seems to be a verboten subject for the repubs.
If climate change is such a big problem and it's largely
being caused by humans, we don't need to throw this into the laps of politicians to fix. If we are using too much energy, we find ways to reduce it and endure whatever hardship comes with it. The blame for excess heat and CO2 falls on us anyway so why the need for politicians? Lets buck up and do this ourselves. Start by tossing your smart phones and swearing to never purchase another. Start staring at the earth around you rather than a gorilla glass screen.
I think we do have such a thing and mankind has a hand in it.
We keep moving to a higher % of electric vehicles on the road.
We keep moving to a higher % of grid power being supplied by clean energy.
For the grid power that needs fossil fuels we move to a higher % of the less polluting fuels.
Where do we get the energy needed to build those electric vehicles?
Where do we get the energy needed to do whatever fabrication is necessary to build wind mills, solar panels or whatever else we consider is "clean" energy?
I think we forget that the mining and manufacturing processes themselves are heavily dependant on a source of energy and, until such as solar and wind powered generating systems can produce the energy needed to also replicate themselves, we'll probably need what was stored in ground for us eons ago.
We need the energy systems we have today to build the energy systems for tomorrow.
The change over from dirty to clean won't happen in a day.
Unless the pols accept this and start a plan it won't happen at all.
Baby steps and move forward.
My original suggestion stands
The more we can do ourselves without asking or inviting politicians to help, the better we are. All they know how to do is regulate and fight about regulation. While I'm not claiming that "climate change" isn't real, I'm not wanting it to become the next predicted disaster that only a squabbling bunch of bureaucrats is qualified to deal with. With them jet setting from all over the world with their large entourages of other people, all I see is wasted jet fuel spewing over the oceans and adding to the problem they're claiming needs to be solved. They may be very much a part of it, IMO.
there is any number of NGOs
"addressing" these issues.
Inquiring minds want to see your promised improvements.
Too many obstacles and this is why
it's perfect for politicians as they don't need so show proof of success. It's only been short time since the thermometer was invented and it's taken quite a while since then to improve its accuracy and standardize our system of measurement. From what I read, the measured increase since then is but a fraction of a degree but there's plenty of evidence that the earth has been much hotter than it is now. Any plan to reverse the trend would call for a way to take measurements and those measurements would likely cross many, if not hundreds, of generations. Don't fossil records indicate that both land and water tables have shifted over the course of time and well before there was evidence of humans or cell phones? Now, to add a religious tone (just to stir things up), I have heard from some that God created the earth to already have the appearance of age and that all of the bones and other fossils we find that are estimated to be tens of thousands of year old were there when the earth was created and never inside of a living creature. In any event, "promised improvements" aren't going to be possible to show.
OK. hard to disagree with your points. well intentioned.
What inquiring minds point out - trolls that they are - is that your first sentence here seems to refute your claim for NGO solutions in the first place. If the world is indeed divided into 'bad guy' officials and 'good guy' warmandfuzzy helpers, the latter greatly outnumbering the former*, how is it that the good guys are losing?
A particularly sad story right now is the fate of the White Helmets of Syria. They are mostly Syrian nationals, photographed - undeniable, right? - in the worst war zones without weapons. Pure NGO; pure 'good guy'. But, it was necessary for governments - 'bad guys' - to rescue them from their own leader as the fighting collapsed.
It's left as an exercise for the reader to determine why a legitimate government would deny the established, factual, undeniable truth about a group of its own people. That's the sort of thing poor winston
* On the economic front, anyway. 99% to 1%. They say.
Winston Smith had to put up with.
On the contrary
I suggested that we, as individuals, should find the personal incentive to act. I think you and I are NGOs and we don't need to wait for politicians to enact legislation that force persons or businesses to do that of which they are disinclined. I'm much more agreeable to volunteering to take out the trash than being ordered to by my spouse.
Yep. There are ways of factoring in that cost.
Being done, but not much talked about, so maybe the news on that front is bad.
Social costs: Lithium and cobalt, to name two, ar our latest blood minerals.
So, lookin' good, humans!
Here's what I think is going on.
That out of the way, I picked up a Nissan 2014 Leaf in 2016. I'm about 2 years in and for my ICEcar it's on its second tank of gas. So it does make a big difference.
Also, this baby...
Post was last edited on July 24, 2018 3:14 PM PDT
Fusion power is feasible.
And, I think 2014 electric is certifiably antique,
Things I miss.
1. Gas stations.
2. Smog testing.
3. Going to the shop every 3 to 6 thousand miles.
As to antique, advances are so fast that it feels like a 2 year old smart phone.
Speaking of which, I'm guessing yours doesn't
have a bluetooth phone link on its radio; everybody has that!
All you have is transportation.
Actually it has that and more.
After they issue another firmware update I can also check my car out over the Internet via web pages and an app on the phone.
I have the 2014 Leaf SV so it has almost all the goodies you see today.
And, you're authorized to hug trees!
Not why I got it. Besides
Trees in Massachusetts were often covered in Poisson Ivy. Have since moved but would not hug trees.
I got it off lease at just over 2 years old for 12K. I wanted a car for errands and such and have an ICEcar in great shape but only 20-25 MPG. So I googled it like this:
Worst resale cars. The Nissan Leaf was second on the list and I thought, hey, I know that car. The hunt was on.
The BMW i3 is also on the list with examples that are close to 49K USD new but 21K used for 2 or 3 years. That's the model with the range extender, self parking, adaptive cruise control, lane keeper and more. This one is like the Chevy Volt in design.
No. She was being 18, which you and I are not.
Some of us prefer a system that concerns itself
with right and wrong. Some of have such a system.