NBC news story on Hunter Biden

[Markk]

What is your solution, open borders? If not, what do you think we should do with those that breech the system and come in illegally?

What should we do about their employers?

Fine them or shut them down. Enforce the laws and they will change. At this point because of completive markets, the ones that follow the law can't compete, and it is so "everywhere" I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Do you want open and free borders?

[Markk]

What should we do about their employers?

I think there are already laws on the books in the USA regarding employers but they are not being enforced and the employers aren’t scared of hiring someone who in their mind is here illegally. If penalties were severe including seizure of property they may think twice.

Also, coming here illegally can be full of life threatening risks: exposure to the elements, numerous ways of being exploited and fear of retaliation if an individual comes forward and makes a complaint. I wish there was a better way than the slow process that is in place but they are really placing themselves at risk when coming here in a way other than what is legal.

I remember a report a long time ago about agencies putting gallons of water all throughout an area because of how many people had died of thirst, exhaustion and exposure in that area.

People coming over almost always have to pay the cartels on the southern border. Anecdotally according to people I have talked to it is around 2 or 3 K.

[canpakes]

lol. I wasn’t going to say anything : D

In the case of that particular reply, I think (because he hasn’t responded otherwise) that what Markk was referring to was our older home’s use of natural gas (furnace), and swap-out of an older electric range with a new gas range when we purchased that home some years back ... and that we didn’t rip it all out and put in a solar electrical system.

New electric ranges are more efficient in general than gas ranges, but electrical generation in our state is still about 1/2 from coal, so use of the gas range may actually be better in that situation as regards total (end to end) emissions, according to some sources.

The other weird consideration is that about 25% of the natgas mix in our county is methane captured from landfill offgassing, which is a great way to reduce what would otherwise just be vented off.

Or, you can't afford less polluting cars (electric or hybrid), and generally making your home more green by going to renewable energy. You are just making excuses. You have a lot if if's and buts in your excuses. And it is okay to to say cooking with electric sucks.

Currently, some new induction ranges can heat a pot on the range faster than gas. At the time, though, the better types weren’t as commonly available. Our cookware would be adaptable to both as we use quite a bit of cast iron. It would give us an excuse to toss some of the older aluminum stuff.

When you put your gas range in and took out your electric range did you rip out your wiring, or just "un plug" it and turn off the breaker? Did you remove all your wiring to the panel? My guess is you did not, and that you still have a plug or hardwire box behind your range now.

Although we were amped up about the new stove, we didn’t forget to put those tiny plugs into unused outlets so that the electricity doesn’t just spill out all over the floor. ; ) It was shockingly easy. And the new stove has sparked a fresh interest in cooking new things.

Also putting in a new solar system is hardly abrasive. It fact it is very simple. My system with a panel upgrade only took a few days, less wait time for inspection. They add steel brackets and run a conduit with conductors to your existing panel and install a few devises, surface mounted, on your wall. You already had a electric range, so your panel is most likely fine. Adding a new upgrade panel is also easy. Again, excuses.

Lol, one look at the wiring in our house would have you shouting ‘Ohm-i-gawd, watt a mess’ … but seriously, if we had the cash or time we’d do a total rewire. You know how much that costs. Even then, and even if we took down some trees for proper light access, the condition of the roof decking would need to be addressed as it’s not looking fit for an installation of panels. Call those realities ‘excuses’ if you will, but we see priorities differently. We are 5 years from paying off our home which will allow us to redirect cash towards other house maintenance and repairs, and future college help for our kids. Those come first.

Besides, weren’t you just mentioning how solar wouldn’t have worked for you if not for the availability of those evil, communistic, socialistic rebates subsidized by other people’s tax money? And you probably had a crew of evil illegal aliens with cantaloupe-sized calves install the whole communist, deep state enviro-socialist One World Government ‘green energy’ boondoggle on to your roof. Shame on you, Markk.

[canpakes]

What should we do about their employers?

Fine them or shut them down. Enforce the laws and they will change. At this point because of completive markets, the ones that follow the law can't compete, and it is so "everywhere" I don't see it changing anytime soon.

I think that we need to go further than just shutting them down. These employers have destroyed the middle class and imported millions of welfare terrorists and subsequently bankrupted and ruined America. Not to mention that they aided and abetted the now ubiquitous proliferation of tortilla chips and guacamole, which has made America fat. We need to deport these traitorous, unamerican so-called ‘employers’.

I’ll get a spreadsheet started. Want to be first on the list?

Do you want open and free borders?

Do you think that we have them now?

[Dwight]

Yeah, I got that, but I kind of went back and forth and decided to go for the dig. We are in a similar boat on some things. There are some things we are 100% in, and others that due to the nature of our house it isn't necessarily the most green thing to go with everything, since there is a material and junk cost.

Like what?

There is a material cost to making batteries for cars, so if you could wave a wand and switch all gas cars to electric that would be good, but to scrap otherwise good cars would have a price. It is better to switch over, and I can agree that for some people electrics don't quite make sense yet, but we like ours and can use it for 95% of our needs outside of we got a smaller Fiat 500e and it just doesn't work for taking skis, and there is no roof box option. So we still drive our well maintained relatively quite efficient gas car for that.

Similarly our solar panels don't get much sun in the winter when we use the bulk of our electricity heating the house. We have fancy efficient ones, but even more efficient and environmentally friendly would be if our house had been built with standard radiators and it would then make clear sense to have a geothermal hole drilled to get most of our heating from the earth since moving water around is less energy intensive than heating air. We still want to do it, it just is less straight forward and since our radiators are most likely to just be scrapped we have to take into account that they still have plenty of life in them, so it would be wasteful to trash perfectly good, if higher energy using, things.

[canpakes]

There is a material cost to making batteries for cars, so if you could wave a wand and switch all gas cars to electric that would be good, but to scrap otherwise good cars would have a price.

This. For a while, the ‘cradle to cradle’ cycle for electric cars wasn’t quite as efficient as for ICE vehicles. At least battery recycling has made great strides as of late. Either way, if I’m using a well-maintained older ICE vehicle, I’m not demanding the resources required to manufacture a replacement.

[Dr Exiled]

The point is, if you dare to leave the "approved" narrative for a minute, is that the earth's temperatures have fluctuated greatly regardless of what humans have done or not done.

That’s not the point of the climate change conversation. That’s the straw man ‘point’ of a typical denialist. No one denies that “the planet has been hotter before”. Sure, it was even a hot cinder covered in volcanic activity once, even.



Hey, look at that. Yecch. It was a totally natural occurrence, too. But I don’t think that those conditions fared well for coddling human life, and that’s the point. Not that ‘it was hot before’, but, what will keep us all happy and healthy today?

It looks like there are forces beyond our control at work and prohibiting gas stoves isn't going to make a bit of difference.

Yes, I’d think that prohibiting gas stoves won’t make too much of a difference with regard to any global warming. It would still have some effect because physics can’t be waved away. But that’s only half of the argument, with the other concern being that natgas exposure may not be so great for young lungs. And the proposed limits are restricted to new construction, so no one is coming to take your gas stove away. You didn’t buy into that one, did you?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/202 ... 126667002/

If I were an up and coming scientist, I'd propose research on how the Sun and the solar cycle may have caused the fluctuations in temperature as well as volcanic activity and perhaps asteroids hitting the earth may have affected the fluctuations in temperature.

You’re not the first person to suggest this. All of these have been studied for years.

Of course such research wouldn't get approved and funded precisely because it might throw some shade on the "approved" narrative.

Not quite. You just haven’t looked for it. It’s out there but perhaps doing the work to find and read it would clash with your own ‘approved’ narrative that you’ve constructed around straw man arguments.

Here’s an example from 15 years ago:
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115207

ETA: Back in the 70's the alarmists were predicting another ice age.

ETA: No, they weren’t.

Yes they were, but that probably isn't that important now because the narrative has shifted to warming alarmism and we must follow. So sayeth our masters! Anyway, here is the evidence of their silliness: https://realclimate.science/2013/05/21/ ... #gsc.tab=0

I don't know if those predicting such silliness were on the right and I don't suppose they knew what fascism would be unleashed in the future with Trump and his acolytes supporting this crazy theory, and so they probably need to be forgiven. All the popular people were supporting the ice age scare, including ... wait for it ... the CIA ...

Given that they were academics in the 1970's, it's probably a safe bet that they supported Carter and not Reagan or Nixon. They obviously weren't enlightened and probably looked at the facts instead of reducing everything down to a political narrative.

[Markk]

Or, you can't afford less polluting cars (electric or hybrid), and generally making your home more green by going to renewable energy. You are just making excuses. You have a lot if if's and buts in your excuses. And it is okay to to say cooking with electric sucks.

Currently, some new induction ranges can heat a pot on the range faster than gas. At the time, though, the better types weren’t as commonly available. Our cookware would be adaptable to both as we use quite a bit of cast iron. It would give us an excuse to toss some of the older aluminum stuff.

When you put your gas range in and took out your electric range did you rip out your wiring, or just "un plug" it and turn off the breaker? Did you remove all your wiring to the panel? My guess is you did not, and that you still have a plug or hardwire box behind your range now.

Although we were amped up about the new stove, we didn’t forget to put those tiny plugs into unused outlets so that the electricity doesn’t just spill out all over the floor. ; ) It was shockingly easy. And the new stove has sparked a fresh interest in cooking new things.

Also putting in a new solar system is hardly abrasive. It fact it is very simple. My system with a panel upgrade only took a few days, less wait time for inspection. They add steel brackets and run a conduit with conductors to your existing panel and install a few devises, surface mounted, on your wall. You already had a electric range, so your panel is most likely fine. Adding a new upgrade panel is also easy. Again, excuses.

Lol, one look at the wiring in our house would have you shouting ‘Ohm-i-gawd, watt a mess’ ... but seriously, if we had the cash or time we’d do a total rewire. You know how much that costs. Even then, and even if we took down some trees for proper light access, the condition of the roof decking would need to be addressed as it’s not looking fit for an installation of panels. Call those realities ‘excuses’ if you will, but we see priorities differently. We are 5 years from paying off our home which will allow us to redirect cash towards other house maintenance and repairs, and future college help for our kids. Those come first.

Besides, weren’t you just mentioning how solar wouldn’t have worked for you if not for the availability of those evil, communistic, socialistic rebates subsidized by other people’s tax money? And you probably had a crew of evil illegal aliens with cantaloupe-sized calves install the whole communist, deep state enviro-socialist One World Government ‘green energy’ boondoggle on to your roof. Shame on you, Markk.

Your just side stepping CP. Unless you went to all the trouble of removing the line voltage to the stove, it is still there, so not added costs. The added costs was for gas.

Your roof decking should in no way be an issue. They simply put blocking in the rafters and screw through the sheathing, or directly into the rafters. It is not that difficult. My home was built in 1962, and they just screwed through the roofing, through the old strip sheathing into the rafters....it took a few hours to install the rack.

You don't need to re-wire. Solar goes through your panel, it has nothing to do with re wiring your home. Electricity from the grid is no different than electricity from solar, in fact it loops with the grid. You can upgrade your new panel, or use your existing if you have enough space. And yes I understand construction costs, I do it for a living, and estimate almost daily in some fashion or another.

Solar would not have worked for me if I had to pay almost twice as much....the math does not work. And no one should have to get it if they don't want to. It would not have worked for me when my children were in school, no way. I sent them to private schools and collage. Even now it is more of a cash flow thing and being able to crank the AC down with it is 100 plus degrees outside.

And my point is, like you, you have better things to do with your money. And like most Americans it is not in the cards. So given that we need fossil fuels. It would probably take 50 years or more to assimilate fully to renewable energy, and only if everybody was on board. Just think about every house, restaurant, and business in America, with gas ovens, dryers, heaters, water heaters, pools and spas...etc., having to remodel and revamp, on their dime, their homes and businesses. And where are we going to get all the copper. What about lithium? How much plastic and rubber for insulation and wire nuts. Transformers, sub stations, let alone clean energy generation facilities.

It is a joke in many ways here is California. You can build a new home with all Gas utilities...yet are mandated to put solar panels on.

Your just making excuses when you should just say I don't want it.

[Markk]

There is a material cost to making batteries for cars, so if you could wave a wand and switch all gas cars to electric that would be good, but to scrap otherwise good cars would have a price. It is better to switch over, and I can agree that for some people electrics don't quite make sense yet, but we like ours and can use it for 95% of our needs outside of we got a smaller Fiat 500e and it just doesn't work for taking skis, and there is no roof box option. So we still drive our well maintained relatively quite efficient gas car for that.

Similarly our solar panels don't get much sun in the winter when we use the bulk of our electricity heating the house. We have fancy efficient ones, but even more efficient and environmentally friendly would be if our house had been built with standard radiators and it would then make clear sense to have a geothermal hole drilled to get most of our heating from the earth since moving water around is less energy intensive than heating air. We still want to do it, it just is less straight forward and since our radiators are most likely to just be scrapped we have to take into account that they still have plenty of life in them, so it would be wasteful to trash perfectly good, if higher energy using, things.

Why you can recycle the steel cheaper than mining it, and processing it. It is much cheaper and saves the environment. Recycling is good practice. And buying new is good for the economy. And people like driving new cars, gas or electric. in my opinion, from what I have read, the key is the batteries, electric cars and solar will only grow in practicality as battery technology allows.

[canpakes]

Yes they were, but that probably isn't that important now because the narrative has shifted to warming alarmism and we must follow. So sayeth our masters! Anyway, here is the evidence of their silliness: https://realclimate.science/2013/05/21/ ... #gsc.tab=0

lol. No, they were not. Using a larger font doesn’t change the facts.

Good Doctor, I’m not quite convinced that you have actually brought to bear your full set of lawyerly skills, upon this page. Did you actually peruse the content, or did you just grab this ragtag collection of chopped snippets from the impulse shelf at the quick checkout lane in the climate denialist dollar store?

1. The first image is a mystery graph with vague scaling, about ‘something’. There’s a link that just refers back to itself. The headline for this entry is from the author of the contemporary web page (ie, there’s no connection to the historical image).
2. The next graph, labeled, ‘A mean temperature of the northern hemisphere’, only graphs recorded temperatures. It makes no predictions or claims about anything, let alone gives any mention of an impending ice age.
3. Third item is a partial sentence composed of a chopped quote supposedly taken from a source that cannot (again) be accessed by the ‘link’ given for it.
4. The fourth item appears to be an article from an English newspaper (not a scientific journal) about the opinion of a particular fellow named Hubert Lamb, director of climate research at the University of East Anglia (it’s always the University of East Anglia), in which the following is stated:
   
   “The full impact of the new Ice Age will not be upon us for another 10.000 years and even then it will not be as severe as the last great glacial period.”
   
   How is predicting something happening ten thousand years down the road … and mildly, at that … ‘alarmist’? I don’t think this rises to the standard you claim.
5. The next snippet doesn’t even mention an ice age, just that temperatures seemed to be leveling off from their otherwise upward trend.
6. The next snippet is about the opinion of that same fellow from University of East Anglia again. Repeating the same fellow twice is still only one guy.
7. The next two snippets only mention that snow and ice cover had experienced anomalies during the early seventies. Neither claims an ice age was on the way.
8. A live link is finally given! This one goes to a CIA paper which … does NOT predict an ice age. What it does do is examine the destabilizing effect of climate variability on worldwide food supplies. Interestingly, this paper mentions that the prevailing climate prediction ‘school of thought’ is the Lambian model. That is, the conclusions pushed by Hubert Lamb, the same fellow already referred to in two other references above.
   
   The paper goes on to state that the Lambian approach is losing traction to other methodologies (Wisconsin Study and others). So there is no scientific consensus on an impending ice age.
9. The next four references are dead links and give no context about the opinions referenced.

At this point, the trend seems to be clear. There was one or a few climate thought leaders (Hubert Lamb and friends) who had their opinion. It wasn’t universal, but it was based on the best land-based observations of recent trends. I’m sure that their proclamation of a mild ice age not even as bad as the Little Ice age of the late 1600’s - this time forecasted for some 10 thousand years down the road - made for tantalizing headlines in the local papers, with a bit of massaging. But this isn’t, as you claim, ‘all scientists forecasting an ice age soon’.

I don't know if those predicting such silliness were on the right and I don't suppose they knew what fascism would be unleashed in the future with Trump and his acolytes supporting this crazy theory, and so they probably need to be forgiven. All the popular people were supporting the ice age scare, including ... wait for it ... the CIA ...

Except that the CIA didn’t do anything of the sort. You didn’t read the paper. If you had, you’d have noted that the CIA took a neutral stance towards predictions and was about economic and food instability from climate variations regardless of direction. Its strongest focus on those trends relates to droughts.

Given that they were academics in the 1970's, it's probably a safe bet that they supported Carter and not Reagan or Nixon. They obviously weren't enlightened and probably looked at the facts instead of reducing everything down to a political narrative.

Of course, your take on those same academicians is that as we got smarter, accumulated more data, and deployed more tools including satellite reconnaissance and temperature monitoring, and over several more decades of trend watching, that somehow the scientists all decided to become political lackeys of some mysterious organization somewhere that wanted you to use solar panels. Because socialism, or Democrats, or something. So you stopped believing what they had to say. Right?

It’s a good thing that the oil industry was there to fight that trend, and to spread the kind of narrative that has led you to your present conclusions.
; )