[@Vilageidiotx]

http://www.redstate.com/diary/HeartlandInstitute/2017/01/04/climate-change-101-evidence-humans-aren%E2%80%99t-destroying-climate/

[quote]
However, the evidence suggests human greenhouse-gas emission are having a limited impact on global climate, with virtually all the alarmists’ model predictions routinely failing to match reality. Anthropogenic warming theorists’ climate models assume temperatures should climb alongside rising carbon-dioxide levels, yet temperatures fell from the 1940s through the 1970s, even while emissions were rising dramatically. For the past two decades, carbon-dioxide levels have continued to increase, but global satellites have recorded no significant temperature increase for 18 years.

According to the average of all climate models, Earth’s temperature should be one degree F warmer now than what is currently being measured. The gap between measured temperatures and predictions is most likely due to the fact Earth is less sensitive to additional molecules of greenhouse gases than calculated by most climate models.

Climate models have assumptions built into their design concerning the secondary effects of carbon dioxide on Earth’s atmosphere, which they assume will enhance or amplify Earth’s warming. Simpler models that don’t build in these secondary effects track actual temperatures much more closely than the complex models do, and it’s the complex models upon which climate disaster projections are built.
[/quote]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down

Again, I don't think the science is consistent and I don't know how much is actually human impact. And the like I said, the heat will go down half a degree for 50 years at least...supposedly. How the hell does that work if humans are the primary cause?

Will/can we argue, we aren't the biggest problem, but we are a PART of it? (and the 90 percent agree thing is total falsehood.) I mean I guess that would at least maybe stop a bit of the crazy hyper rich humans are killing the planet thing. (when third world countries are bound to be doing worse...but I think asking them to rid of their gas, when they have no electricity, is a bit pushy.) when our own air, water is cleaner than ever and we have more tree's than when we first settled in America...So I think we already are doing a pretty good job ourselves, like I said, our emissions are already going down. Yet Europe's is going up and they seem to be implementing a lot more environmental restrictions. Doesn't add up does it?


[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
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]

I understand that's what they're trying to do, but it's proven so far to be a giant expensive sinkhole. I'm not saying solar panels couldn't help assist, but I doubt it will ever fully replace anything. But I also highly disagree with all subsides, of government picking winners and losers for companies. It makes the free market, much less free...this could go into many different directions, but I just think it would be more even competition without subsiding either side. And see who comes out on top, for providing energy, effective and cheap energy. (The answer isn't giant windmills. ;P)

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
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]

That's not what I'm not saying at all. That doesn't represent what I think. I don't enjoy that most of politics is to try to make the other side look as evil as possible. Without proving your worth and merit on your own issues and where you stand. But almost everyone does seem to want bloodsport. Or use ad-hominems like they're going out of style.

I meant he showed that he had no backbone. I don't want a president without a backbone. With things that needed a man who could say, NO. One moment was when he let two BLM protestors take over his speech, call his racist (when the dude walked in the civil rights movement.) backing down so quickly to something clearly hostile/shallow like that. I can't imagine how that would go in a more serious way. Dealing with terrorism or other nations for example. But it wasn't just that, nearly every move he made in his campaign was way too passive. That won't win elections. That's a fact. And it wasn't only to be civil either, because he bashed plenty of people, just not the people he needed to.

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
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]

Yes, the media giving him show much screen time and everyone being so damn desperate to stop him, probably did help. But I think it was everyone's/media's behavior with the people in general that got him elected. But no, The Clinton's had way more money than he did. Donations and everything. And if I ran, it be third party. So I'd have no chance. (I'd assume same for you?) -.-

But like I said, Bush one 'because you could have a beer with em' Obama won because black and pot. And Trump won because the left pulled a Microsoft...during their Xbone 1 reveal. Telling everyone, including their fans to fuck right off and deal with it. And Ps4 Trump won by doing basically nothing. "Hello, America. I don't hate all of you. Vote me."

*uproarious applause*

#Electionsinanutshell