[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
[url=https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/]At this point, the consensus on global warming does lean the one way. Pretty heavily.[/url]
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: "
[/quote]

That was in this article and that is a patently not true statement. Making me not take anything in that article seriously.

That was a shitty survey done in 2009, with 200 people and even in THAT survey it didn't conclude that. :/

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
I doubt that fossil fuel is the pinnacle of civilization. That seems incredibly unlikely considering all we have accomplished thus far. If it's not wind power it'll be something else. Though it is my understanding that the energy potential is mostly being hampered by battery tech at the moment.

The problem with market deification is that the market is a very limited tool that requires quick returns, which scientific research can't always be expected to produce. We cannot expect the market to do everything for the same reason we can't expect any other single portion of our society to do all the heavy lifting. 
[/quote]

I think we'll find even more efficient ways to use those fuels. We've already made it much cheaper through fracking.

The EPA admits it has no proof it does anything, and the drinking water part they now claim, has been debunked.

http://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/12/13/epa-fracking-contamination-drinking-water

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/12/15/yes-direct-injection-of-fracking-fluid-into-groundwater-causes-contamination/#47ad93a919d3

But I'll be an optimist, and say I'd love to see alternative energy make progress because there's nothing wrong with competition. They just need to stop being subsidized, $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 25 times how many fossil fuels are getting. (and shouldn't be getting either for the record.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#55d32ffb128c

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/renewables-get-25-times-the-subsidy-that-fossil-fuels-do/#2885216519d8

And if the product was cheap and effective, and was actually a viable source. That's made a lot of progress in you're own words, It should be able to profit without so much effort. 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/08/112-solar-companies-have-closed-their-doors-in-5-years/

And not be this much of a futile effort.

 [hider=Obama's dead alternative energy companies that literally took the money and run and provided nothing.]
 Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
    SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
    Solyndra ($535 million)*
    Beacon Power ($43 million)*
    Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
    SunPower ($1.2 billion)
    First Solar ($1.46 billion)
    Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
    EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
    Amonix ($5.9 million)
    Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
    Abound Solar ($400 million)*
    A123 Systems ($279 million)*
    Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
    Johnson Controls ($299 million)
    Schneider Electric ($86 million)
    Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
    ECOtality ($126.2 million)
    Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
    Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
    Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
    Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
    Range Fuels ($80 million)*
    Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
    Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
    Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
    GreenVolts ($500,000)
    Vestas ($50 million)
    LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
    Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
    Navistar ($39 million)
    Satcon ($3 million)*
    Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
    Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
[/hider]

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
The BLM thing fit in with the "This is about the people, I want to hear your voice" schtick. If he had them dragged out that probably would have ended his career right there tbh. It wouldn't have fit his message. 

That he didn't bash people for the sake of political gain seems fine to me. He stayed on his message, that was pretty much his focus, and didn't focus on attacking his opponents. Like I said, I can respect the living shit out of a non-mudslinger. If it is true he lost and Trump won primarily because Trump was more vicious, well, that reflects poorly on us as a society.  
[/quote]

I honestly wouldn't defend that, but even if you believe so. Him not going after Clinton was his own undoing. Him supporting her after the fact, certainly completely went against his own message.

And no Bernie lost, mainly because his message wasn't viable and more people knew it at the time. And he was snubbed/cheated by Clinton/democrats herself.

Trump won because he would call terrorism, terrorism. He didn't call half of america, deplorable people. He won because he didn't demonize an entire race and gender for being evil and the cause of all the worlds problems. If we're going to talk about bitter venom losing an election, that's on the progressive left side. That you can thank for that.

I can't respect Bernie in the slightest, for someone who basically said "White people can't be poor and don't understand what it's like being in a ghetto" in fact, I've said it before, I'll say it again. He can go f himself. 

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
Donald Trump couldn't have done what he did if he weren't rich. That's all I am saying. If he were normal folk, he would have had to dump money. What he showed is that celebrity and wealth allows you to get the Presidency with a smaller campaign budget. Which, to me, isn't really that inspirational.

In an ideal situation I would prefer to be an independent, of course. That probably wouldn't be realistic though... they don't usually do very well. I mean, it's what, Bernie Sanders and Ross Perot that managed to snatch national attention as Indepenents? Cool company, but not super successful company. 

And yeh, that break down is pretty good, but it goes further back then that. 
[img]https://americanorchard.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/harrison-log-cabin-campaign.jpg[/img]
William Henry Harrison was a man you voted for because he drank hard liquor like a proper country boy.
[/quote]

Okay, just because I think is paragraph is implying Bernie isn't loaded.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-slams-billionaires-gets-reminded-he-owns-3-houses/article/2620865

He's a six figure socialist, so that's a touch ironic. And a millionaire. Change only starts with yourself, why not redistribute his own wealth? Because when people want to steal money because "poor" well there's always someone worse off than you...why aren't you doing anything about it? It's because it's not for helping, it's being envious your neighbor has a bigger house.

And if Donald was poor, but got the funding from somewhere else and he was still as known as he was. It wouldn't of changed a thing...But yes, it's difficult for "anyone" to become president in that sense. But I mean, it's not hard to understand why that's the case...

(I'm also not entirely sure his well-known persona, made anyone take him seriously) I honestly thought for quite a while he'd pull what he did last time, say he'd run, then never do anything about it...

Oh, I'm sure it's been more than just them...I'm not saying that it isn't a sad thing, when even Hitler himself knew putting himself in a picture with a dog would make him seem more human. People are emotional, irrational and stupid. (“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”)