[quote=@SleepingSilence]
I dunno, when everyone's favorite engineer plays environmental expert, Bill Nye, awful show on nexflix guy. Says we should be jailing the opposition, I think the hysteria that has almost no agreeable evidence. It's a bit much.
[/quote]

Sure, that's inappropriate, I'm not talking about jailing people.

[quote]I don't think anyone -worth talking about- is actually debating, the earth is very, very gradually changing in temperature. It's soon going down half a degree for 50 plus years, no matter how many Prius's will be bought the following year. Or arguing that pollution is bad. But how much does this "climate change" caused mostly by humans? (If cow farts cause more damage than most things?) And how dangerous really is it? And should the people running the post office...actually be in charge of something so 'serious'? (the reason people stopped using the other so much of the global warming predictions were completely wrong and were proven to be 'small potatoes') So they switched labels...[/quote]

Ehh... We are having an effect. 

[img]http://www.epa.ie/media/faq-2-1-figure-1-l.JPG[/img]

How dangerous is it is up in the air. Like I said, there are a lot of models out there...

[img]http://images.gawker.com/185t8zxuqjc17png/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636.png[/img]

...which makes it desirable to hedge our bets and assume that a bad scenario might occur, since if we attempt to avoid it and it doesn't occur all we've done is advanced our technology, whereas if it does occur and we did nothing than our shit is fucked. 


[quote]I also think if it's a waste of time, all the money we wasted on this technology to provide less effective means of energy, would have been a pretty shit deal all around.[/quote]

Inefficient now. The purpose of subsidizing long term research now is to bring the tech to a point where it is efficient enough for the more short-term nature of the market to take over later. Right now the market can't drive it because the market deals in short-term investment. Eventually, like with computer technology before, an event horizon will be crossed where market forces can start turning a profit with the tech. This assuming you aren't arguing that green tech can never be made efficient, which would be a weird place to decide human advancement must stop. 

[quote]
Bernie was just a coward during his election, he "endured" nothing. (less you meant endearing) But I think the days, of bernie sanders "nice guy whose looking out for you" has been over for quite some time now.[/quote]

Yup, meant endeared. I disagree with the coward description and find it sort of sad that [i]you[/i] want your politicians to be bloodthirsty too. But I suppose this particular character assassination shows that even libertarians can be Machiavellian in their approach to politics =p 

[quote]Also Trump proved you don't need more money to win the presidency. [s](and that politics really is an american idol contest. Personality wins -at least- three entire presidencies in a row.)[/s][/quote]

Nope. He didn't use as much money during the campaign because CNN covered that for him by just repeating all his speeches and campaign promises over and over and over again. But he needed to be rich to have the access that he had, to spend so much time building his political brand and campaigning without real hurt to himself, and of course to have ever been enough of a public figure to make waves in the first place. If next campaign season you or I managed to pull off the same thing, well, [i]that[/i] would be proof you don't need money. At this point though, the wealthiest candidate won. 


[quote]Edit: I curse too much. Sorry. xP[/quote]

[img]http://www.quote-coyote.com/album/small/Mark-Twain-Fun-Quotes93.jpg[/img]

[quote]I had respect for Sanders before, because he was so adamant about his message wrong as I think it might be, but he lost any shred of respect other than station to me when he surrendered without reprisal or retribution. [/quote]

This imagines the politician as the power hungry individual by necessity, and that by not fighting for personal power above all else he showed himself a bad leader. Personally I respected his decision because he seemed more the policy-centered statesman, who backed down because he saw Republican destruction of policy he supports as more dangerous than Centrist Democrat wheel spinning. The reverse version of this idea would be why Ted Cruz ended up phone banking for Trump.