[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
Depends on your definition of accurate. Some of the problems with the model turned out to be problems with the data:
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/hoax.asp
[/quote]

There seem to be problems with the data in general. There’s evidence that NASA went back and modified the data after the fact. That’s something you should never do in a scientific process. Sure it’s fine apply adjustments to the data in a particular study but you should never change the underlying data. Are they just trying to fit the data to their wrong model or is there something actually wrong with the collection of the data.

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

[quote=zk]

I agree with that paragraph. Yes, to significantly reduce fossil fuel usage without alternative energy sources to replace them would be extremely (possibly disastrously) costly in many ways. But not as costly as catastrophic global warming. So it’s obviously very important to understand global warming and its causes, because if we’re wrong about it in either direction, it’s going to cost us dearly.

This is not an issue on which we can afford to have an agenda other than understanding as best we can global warming and its causes and its consequences.[/quote]

To what lengths are you willing to go to prevent or reduce CO2 emission. It seems like you’d have to being willing to go to war in order to force major global reductions in fossil fuel usage.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
The one that shows CO2 levels fluctuating between 180 and 300 ppm for the past 400,000 years before spiking to 380 over the last 65 years. When I saw it, I wondered how climate change deniers explained it, but I didn’t think I knew any. livinincali, are you saying that “we” aren’t sure that man caused this spike, or that that spike didn’t cause climate change, or that there is no climate change, or something else?[/quote]

There’s certainly more CO2 in the air caused by man but it’s effects on the climate are not completely understood. Yeah sure we know what happens when you pump CO2 into a box and those climate models probably used that as a model, but those models haven’t accurately predicted the warming that would occur. Something more complex is happening that the scientists haven’t figured out yet. CO2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas. 300 parts per million is 0.03%. Maybe changing that to 0.04% isn’t going to have that big of an impact on the climate after all. Of course every time it’s a little hotter than usual or a hurricane hits New York we can blame it on climate change. Then hopefully we can get the people to support a new tax or a new ban on something.

To go back to what it was in the previous millions of years would require us to pretty much completely stop using fossil fuels. So you have a choice, reduce fossil fuel usage significantly and lower the standard of living for all of us. Or replace it with a different technology and understand that you aren’t going to be able to do it with wind and solar. We could probably do it with fast breeder Thorium nuclear reactors. The dream would be solving the mysteries of recovering net positive energy from fusion. Wind and solar might have a place where it makes sense but it’s never going to be more than 10-20% of total power generation without some sort of storage technology break through

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Why is trying to conserve carbon fuels and reduce pollution an extremist position?

Wanting to drill baby drill and use everything we can take out of the ground without conserving for the future is reckless.

Wanting to save money while people toil in poverty and go without seems reasonable, right? That because money is limited. But, in reality, money is a human invention. We can create it and manage it however we want.

But conserving the earth fuel resources (for whatever reason) is extremist? In reality , humans can’t create anymore oil once we use it all. Seems reasonable to conserve our God given bounty.[/quote]

It’s not extremist to want to preserve fossil fuels but some of the purposed solutions could be considered fairly extremist and devastating to an economy that relies on inexpensive energy. This idea that we can just replace our power grid with wind and solar so simply ignores the complexities of how a power grid works and dynamics of supply and demand (i.e. peak power demand does not coincide with peak solar and wind generation). Carbon credits which rewards the currently existing companies at the expense of new companies starting up is certainly going to stifle innovation.

In addition it’s becoming clear that we don’t have this whole global warming thing figured out as well as we thought. Most of the climate models built years ago are not working out as predicted. Obviously the climate has a lot of complexity and numerous factors that we don’t control and probably don’t understand. Unfortunately we don’t really understand man’s influence on the climate. Is it a lot, a little, negligible. Are we going to go back to living like we did in the 1800’s because we figure out we need to cut emissions by 80% to restore the climate. Do we know that restoring the climate to what it was in the 1800’s is better for the planet or worse?

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]Honestly:
(1) America deserves Trump
(2) The ecnhnamy tends to do worse under a GOP presidency
(3) “HP Meg” says that Trump’s policies are likely to cause a recession

So, if you want to profit from lower home prices and moreclosures of the unemployed, vote TRUMP 2016. Foreclose on the world, then sell it short![/quote]

It probably really doesn’t matter who is elected the next president. It’s highly likely the next president will inherit an economy in recession or be president when the economy eventually enters recession again.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]This is just crazy, and highly unlikely, but a 4-way race would be fascinating. Clinton vs. Rubio vs. Trump vs. Bloomberg. I think Bloomberg would have a real shot in that race. Or any race he’s in, really.[/quote]

You do remember this factor correct? In a 4 person race the odds are probably even higher for congress to get the privilege of electing the next president.

[quote=zk]Then I read the about the twelfth amendment, which includes this:
The person having the greatest number of [electoral] votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote…
Am I reading that wrong? If no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, than it no longer matters who the people voted for? And even if the representatives from each state were conscientious enough to vote for the candidate who won their state’s popular vote, Wyoming and Alaska and Alabama added up would count the same as California, New York, and Texas added up?
Please tell me I’m reading that wrong.[/quote]

[livinincali]

[quote=flu]
And it doesn’t affect my bottom line.[/quote]

It does if they try to fill the hole with property tax increases.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
If it’s Hillary vs. Trump, I don’t think the democratic turnout will be low. Not because anybody’s super-excited about Hillary, but because they’d be super-excited about making sure Trump didn’t win.
[/quote]

I suppose that’s possible, but I think you’d have to really really hate Trump to be motivated to vote just so he doesn’t win. Depending on how the campaigns end up I could see that as a late selling point. Go vote somebody other than Trump because he will ruin America. The 25 years olds and blacks were really excited about voting for Obama, are they really going to be motivated by don’t vote for Trump or are they just not going to care and not show up.

I could certainly make the argument that for many Trump v Clinton, who really cares. What difference does it make.

[livinincali]

Only problem with fighting it and winning is there’s a day coming when another cop on another day is going to pull you over again and write you a ticket for tint. Maybe it is worth getting the tint removed.

BTW in CA no tint is allowed on the front windshield other than the top 4 inches. Clear UV coating is allowed but no tint. Since different states have different laws it probably doesn’t matter if it’s factory or not.

[livinincali]

[quote=poorgradstudent]
Sounds like a truly awful model.

Trump wins the nomination, the Hillary Machine grinds him under her heels. He’s taken advantage of quirks in the Republican party and republican primary system. Moderate republicans don’t like him. Swing voters HATE him. He’s very poorly positioned to pivot to the middle for the general election campaign. He lacks the strong ground game Barrack Obama had in certain key swing states that helped give him the edge in 2008.

A Trump nomination could be catastrophic to Republicans down-ticket. Right now, if the Republicans nominate Rubio, I can see them keeping the Senate with 51 votes to 49 Democrats (and keeping the House by a healthy margin until 2020 because of gerrymandering). With Trump? The Democrats are likely to take the Senate and might even give the House a fight.

There hasn’t been a candidate quite like Trump before, so any model is likely going to have some issues.[/quote]

I don’t know about this analysis. Doesn’t Hillary share a lot of these same draw backs. I don’t know a lot of Democrats that are all that excited about voting for her. They probably will when push comes to shove against Trump, but Hillary certainly doesn’t seem to excite the liberal base. Those that want to preserve the status quo like her but that’s about it. Trump may be pompous and a bully, but policy wise he’s pretty in the middle. Maybe his rhetoric on illegal immigration is a little extreme but doing something to prevent more illegal immigration is certainly popular. He’s not going to be calling for banning gay marriage or abortions as far as I can tell.

Also does Hillary even have a machine. I mean you lost to Obama the last go around when you were the sure thing. You’re scrapping by Sanders this go around and you have the potential to be indicated for improperly handling classified information. I’d almost be willing to bet Trump is the Republican nominee before I’d bet Hillary is the Democratic nominee at this point.

[livinincali]

[quote=matt]Sprouts + trader joes for me… Especially Wednesday’s at sprouts when you get both last weeks and this weeks deals… Costco has great quality but you pay for it… Favorite items frozen berries for smoothies, seaweed, chocolate raisins…. Rite aid seems to have the best deals on beer… I generally check the weekly flyers and plan accordingly[/quote]

Costco for me is primarily meats and cheese. I get most of my produce from sprouts and if I want a good steak or pork chop then Siesels. If you live close to a Mexican market or an Asian market then those can be pretty good too. Vons and the other corporate grocery stores are trash, it’s a waste of time unless you are only shopping their deals. Of course most people just shop their local grocery store so sometimes you’re stuck with want you got where you live. It’s just too much of a pain or hassle to go somewhere else.

[livinincali]

[quote=XBoxBoy]
That seems to be the fault of those people, and to be a symptom of moving from defined benefit plans to 401ks. To me the problem mostly stems from people not being savvy enough or responsible enough to plan for their retirement. I don’t know how to fix that lack of knowledge and responsibility. But mostly definitely don’t take that to imply the govt. should fix it.[/quote]

It’s not a problem with defined benefit plans. Those have been around for such a short period of time in human history, nobody knows if they were going to work in the long run. Evidence is starting to pile up that they were never going to work in the first place. A few early retirees in those plans made out but it’s becoming increasingly likely that those nearing retirement in those plans will have them cut in some form once they are retired.

The real problem is that comfortable independent living retirement might not be workable. Our expectations of retirement are a relatively new phenomenon that’s never really been tested for multiple generations. For those in the top 20% that might be workable but it might not be workable for the masses. Multi-generational living or group living is probably going to end up being the solution. The old won’t die destitute but the standard of living is probably going to fall way short of expectations.

[livinincali]

[quote=harvey]
It would (and should) take a supreme court ruling to remove a leading candidate from the ballot because of natural born citizen challenge.
[/quote]

I agree that the supreme court probably needs to define what natural born means but once that’s decided then it’s easy enough for a commission to confirm your eligibility. Obviously that doesn’t help us right now. I guess we’ll see if this case ends up going somewhere.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/ted-cruz-birther-lawsuit-illinois/

[livinincali]

[quote=harvey][quote=kcal09]For those who don’t “get” Trump’s appeal, […][/quote]

Perhaps you don’t get Trump’s appeal.

Here’s a little secret: The”pent up American frustration” is manufactured, just like a reality show.

Turn off the TV, and it’s gone.[/quote]

What about Sanders appeal. The president and congress have sub 50% approval ratings. Congress is less than 20%. I think there’s at least something to the anti-establishment movement.

[livinincali]

[quote=harvey]There’s no clear legal definition and almost no case-law history defining the “natural born citizen” requirement for the president. The rules aren’t even close to “spelled out” for Cruz’s situation.

Sure, it’s theoretically possible that Trump or someone else could prevail if they challenge Cruz’s eligibility.

Do we really want the person who wins a democratic election to be removed from office because the opposition challenges an obscure technicality?

Anyone who promotes such an outcome should never be president.[/quote]

I agree that natural born doesn’t have a prescient established yet. Depending on how a court defines it could mean Rubio wouldn’t be eligible. He was born here to parents that were Cuban citizens. Do your parent need to be citizens to establish “natural born”?

I also wouldn’t wait for people to vote on a candidate and then have the opposition challenge eligibility. Just have each candidate vetted by the election commission before they are allowed to run.

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]Here’s the thing — I think the founders intended him to be eligible. Born abroad of American parents as clarified by the citizenship law of 1795’ish.

But at the same time, birther rubbish coming back and kicking his butt would be poetic justice.[/quote]

Well only his Mom was a US citizen and it’s possible at the time of his birth in 1970 she might not have even been an American citizen. It appears that she was registered to vote in Canada which would mean she needed to have Canadian citizenship, but at the time (1970) you couldn’t have dual citizenship as a Canadian so she would have had to renounce her American citizenship. In addition if he was a US citizen born abroad he should have a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America and he should be able to produce it. Unfortunately, I don’t think he has it because he would have produced it to make the doubts go away.

[Author]

Posts