I know this is a joke, and it gave me a chuckle as well, but there's actually a very disturbing trend I've seen accelerate over the last couple of months, in that anyone who supports Trump or disagrees with MSM interpretation of the summit is labelled a Russian troll.
I know for the fervently anti-Trump crowd, de-legitimization has been a common tactic all along, but mixing it with the concerted effort to paint Russia as a boogeyman really feels like a throwback to McCarthyism now.
It has been proven that US organizations heavily influenced (attempted at least) the last Canadian federal election, mostly through radical environmental NGOs, many supported by billionaires who could care less about the environment and more about their own pockets. Should Canada be indicting and prosecuting US citizens?
I say the internet is free reign for opinions. Literally, we're talking a few memes and some facebook posts.. education is our only option to conquer that now that the technological cat is out of the bag, meaning we need to teach people to think critically. Long shot, I know.
Lastly, I generally support Trump as I think his decisions have demonstrably advanced his country's interests, often at the expense of mine. His personal faults aside, I wish we had such a strong leader many times, and not the usual fluff pieces we see from all leaders of the G7. His job is to advance US interests, not anyone else's, and he's doing that. We can clearly see how much foreign investment has shifted into the US from my country as a result of his policies. I'd put up with a blowhard for real results like that any day. Though I think personal attacks are fair game, most of it is pretty stupid and childish ("big wet orange elephant with bone spurs" - really??), but then again, in general I believe we should be pretty critical of any politician.
Oh please - if you buy his BS that a chief agent within the FBI doesn't have the pull to get what he wants done, I have some land in Florida to sell you.
Blah, blah, and here we have it: the group who jumps out at every Trump discussion and says he's *obviously* a racist in a runaround attempt to stifle debate. It's not obvious at all - I don't think he's a racist at all. Actually, I would agree he's a racist under the new modern definition of racism whereby anyone who doesn't constantly virtue signal to diversity is a racist. We're all racists, including Trump, under the new definition.
I'm not even sure what you mean by the word anymore.. are you trying to convince me Trump hates black people and would never hire them? Clearly false.
What I would read into that is that the Russians were just allocating limited resources, and like everyone else, assumed Trump wasn't going to be elected. There has been data showing they turned their efforts to delegitimizing Trump's presidency after he won.
And the point STILL STANDS. "Easy to find" would imply a simple google search for "ExxonMobil renewable investments" will yield results. What's that? The top story is something about a billion dollar investment in research into synthetic fuels grown by algae?
To be fair to your point, most of the energy companies have been pouring their investments back into natural gas, which they see as the future. The hype (and more importantly, subsidies) for renewable energy are fading and it is a business after all.
I will note the "or easy to find" qualifier in my original assertion. I'd say multiple prominent links on the front page counts.
What are you talking about? Your link perfectly exemplifies what I was talking about - notice the almost overuse of the word energy? "Energy lives here" is their slogan? Energy is the main menu item? One of the first links, "Energy and Carbon Summary", talks about their research and investment in renewables. Even a single google search easily finds articles on the subject.
No, the point is definitely valid, and you're commenting on a market you know nothing about if you disagree. What you think of as "big oil" have all rebranded as energy companies over the last 20 years, and are by FAR the largest investors in renewables. They've literally done more than anyone else building renewable infrastructure. Just go look at any major "oil" company website - I bet your bottom dollar their renewable investments are prominently displayed or easy to find.. bragged about for cred really.
It's a business like any other, and investment in oil and gas isn't even slowing down. "Market collapses" is hilarious; unless some energy miracle occurs (it won't) that is literally fucking fuel buried in the ground and will always have a buyer. Great move by Ireland I say - makes the cash earning shares cheaper for me to buy.
This is nonsense - John A McDonald is definitely held in high regard in Canada as the founder of the country. No decent highschooler will tell you what you've written. That is simply the product of the ultra-liberal movement overtaking universities in Canada and abroad. Due to the way aboriginals were treated (commonplace by anyone at the time), there is a concerted effort to rewrite history and eliminate historical figures that were because they were products of their time.
Nobody in Canada supports that hippy garbage. Yes their faults and strengths as humans are generally well known if you read any history, but only the most militant SJWs would use those four adjectives to primarily describe him.
What I see the problem to be is that people refuse to accept anyone's interpretation or viewpoint if it differs from their own, and so people are much quicker (well, perhaps this hasn't changed through history) to demonize their opponents and see them as less worthy. Of which your post and the mod points perfectly exemplify.
I know plenty of Trump supporters who aren't racists, or at least would heavily debate what your definition of that word is. Are they stupid, or are you not willing to listen?
I call BS on this anecdote after reading into it.. most agricultural zone systems have levels separated by multiple degrees (F), and there's no place on earth that's experienced that level of warming over a single decade. The periods like that which I can find (they do exist) were typically in the past and part of random noise in the data; eg. there were always periods of very cold winters to follow. No different from flipping heads 10 times in a row - it does occur in large variable data sets but not common. Even the reference documentation I can find (all climate change advocate sites) note changes to ag zones typically occur over 30 year periods or more.
While local fauna may no doubt have to adapt to new threats in the future, the much, much larger and quicker threat is invasive species introduction by human means.
Oh and know what else that ag zone shift means? The area can support growing much more food, and much more valuable food.
Count me in as one who has heavily invested savings into "oil and gas" companies recently. In some cases due to price dips because of renewables hype.
Don't get me wrong, I think growing solar and wind options are great.. I'm just realistic. When I read summaries like this (having a background in math), I can immediately spot where they are using statistics to distort the facts. Energy consumption is additive as new technologies come online, and this growth is not at the expense of fossil fuel growth, which continues to grow as well. Remember, more energy used == higher quality of life. People aren't going to stop using any source of energy they find.
Second, what you think of as "oil & gas" companies largely don't exist, they have all long since diversified to "energy" companies. In most cases, the big "oil" players are the world's heaviest investors into renewable energy installations and infrastructure. Kind of funny to think the same companies you blast as "big oil" are probably doing far more for renewables than you or any activist I've ever heard of...
Interesting side note: some of these companies I have invested in have started in the last two years or so to sell their solar and wind assets. In not so many words, their reasoning is: current hype has these assets so overvalued it makes sense to sell them and reinvest that money elsewhere into something that makes better money.. usually back into Oil & Gas (natural gas is a popular one lately). In particular I hear reference to falling subsidies, which make the shaky economics even worse.
Lastly, rather than just hype about maybe making money in the future, most of these companies earn lots of steady cash, which you should count on for dividends far more than share price growth. If you understood any hydrocarbon market dynamics or fundamental uses of fuel, you'd realize it's not going anywhere. In the best scenario, say solar power replaces all transportation fuel; absolutely great! There will still be people lined up around the block to buy it for other uses. It will always be valuable.
Nonsense. Requiring quarterly profit statements brings much needed accountability to organizations. If you feel you need a pass for a number of quarters, discuss it with your shareholders (eg Musk).
The pressure for companies to deliver regular results is one of the things driving our economies (read: quality of life) so much higher. If you were smart, you'd demand the same thing of your software projects and force a regular production deployment.
If you're just going to complain about how things aren't fantastic for those living in North America, or that things are getting worse, well... probably means you can't see the forest from the trees. Objectively compare standard of living at the end of each decade over the last century and there is only one logical conclusion.
As both a Canadian and a free-market enthusiast (who has studied the dairy supply control/tariffs in depth before), I have to say it is actually a case I have struggled to know what the right answer is.
See, it looks as simple as protecting a share of profits from some group of your voters, but the real reason is self-preservation. Imagine the case where large US dairy farms (who are noted to produce too much product) continually dump cheap dairy onto the Canadian market. The real issue is that Canadian producers eventually go bankrupt, or those that are left cannot serve the entire Canadian market. For something as critical as dairy, it seems an unacceptable risk to rely on a foreign country to meet your quota. What if there was some sort of depression or natural disaster.. do you not think the US would limit dairy exports to provide for their own people first?
This was actually the first instance where tariffs, something I vehemently oppose normally, can be used for good measure.
I wish there was more debate around positive feedback/effects. What makes me supremely skeptical of the climate change lobby is how all of the conclusions call for disaster of huge proportion. I can trust and interpret the data NASA puts out, but:
- I see numerous articles with a very disingenuous spin on climate change effects (see the recent story on effects of CO2 on rice production).
- Geological history seems to paint a picture whereby increased temperatures, humidity, and CO2 is a huge benefit for plant and animal life.
- Many predictions of disaster simply aren't coming true (see Polar Bears).
- Humans are especially prone to group think, and scientific communities are no different.
- It does seem climate science doesn't take conclusions of positive effects with an open mind.
Ah, spoken all scary-like by someone not in the industry. Those price fluctuations can be all attributed to political events, as well as technological changes in extraction making new deposits economical to extract. Politics increases prices, technology decreases them. Sound familiar? No need to use terms like "Peak Oil" which mean nothing. If the price rises above a certain point, production ramps up, if it falls below, it ramps down (but demand rises which starts the cycle over again).
Why isn't the harsh criticism warranted? There's a reason it's the most shorted stock in history, and hint, it's not just because someone out there has a big hate-on for Musk.
Tesla is already worth more on the stock market than Ford Co. It needs perfect execution and exponentially growing sales to the point of one of the world's largest automakers to be worth CURRENT price, let alone any growth at all. This is clearly what we used to call "irrational exuberance".
While cost is always a big focus in layoffs (you're trying to save money!), from a practical perspective I find the larger reason I would skew towards some of the older folks in our organization is that they are far more resistant to changing their ways when business realities dictate we do so. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but as a generality holds true. My organization has done a number of takeovers and integrated their IT departments into ours. More often than not, the older folks (50+) have no interest in changing culture and processes to the new company, and this ends up costing money that could be well invested in someone else.
If your list is comprised of bad things, I don't see how you could put Paris on that list. A handful of other posters on here have brought it up, and I can't fathom any other reason than those people have not studied the agreement or it's impact at all - rather it's simply fashionable to pile on that wagon. Group-think after all, is very strong and affects us all.
The actual agreement was a completely ridiculous, 100% implausible foundation for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That it took someone like Trump to come along and bulldoze through the politics of everyone smiling with thumbs up, should tell everyone who opposes this something about their own critical thinking abilities.
As nice as that would be, you underestimate the amount of energy we use, especially for industrial uses. It would take almost 600 of these entire power plants to run my city FOR JUST AN HOUR in the summer or winter. The larger one in Australia would almost get us an entire minute of power.
Cost and abundance are valid components of this equation for business and homes alike, and aren't going away. Coal, in providing a much larger and cheaper amount of power might not go anywhere soon. Some businesses rely on large amounts of steady power. I'd say if someone invents a way to reduce coal plant emissions to zero and recapture all the carbon, it may still dominate the market.
The climate change hysteria is getting out of hand. I can't even notice a slight difference in winters from my childhood (40 years ago now), but somehow we have imminent disaster coming? It doesn't pass most people's sniff test.
It's not up to the bitcher to know or define how wide their market segment is, only to complain that it doesn't meet their needs. The hope is that if enough people bitch, it will signify a wide market segment.
"acknowledged him as the legitimate ruler" - this is a very weak point I think something only an anti-Trump zealot would highlight as a negative here. Whether "acknowledged" in some official manner or not, he is most definitely the top person in power in NK and running the show there, the de facto ruler. Whether or not you agree with their form of government (I sure as hell don't), not acknowledging him as leader sounds like the old way of doing things, and we saw how well that worked.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is a joke, and it gave me a chuckle as well, but there's actually a very disturbing trend I've seen accelerate over the last couple of months, in that anyone who supports Trump or disagrees with MSM interpretation of the summit is labelled a Russian troll.
I know for the fervently anti-Trump crowd, de-legitimization has been a common tactic all along, but mixing it with the concerted effort to paint Russia as a boogeyman really feels like a throwback to McCarthyism now.
It has been proven that US organizations heavily influenced (attempted at least) the last Canadian federal election, mostly through radical environmental NGOs, many supported by billionaires who could care less about the environment and more about their own pockets. Should Canada be indicting and prosecuting US citizens?
I say the internet is free reign for opinions. Literally, we're talking a few memes and some facebook posts.. education is our only option to conquer that now that the technological cat is out of the bag, meaning we need to teach people to think critically. Long shot, I know.
Lastly, I generally support Trump as I think his decisions have demonstrably advanced his country's interests, often at the expense of mine. His personal faults aside, I wish we had such a strong leader many times, and not the usual fluff pieces we see from all leaders of the G7. His job is to advance US interests, not anyone else's, and he's doing that. We can clearly see how much foreign investment has shifted into the US from my country as a result of his policies. I'd put up with a blowhard for real results like that any day. Though I think personal attacks are fair game, most of it is pretty stupid and childish ("big wet orange elephant with bone spurs" - really??), but then again, in general I believe we should be pretty critical of any politician.
Oh please - if you buy his BS that a chief agent within the FBI doesn't have the pull to get what he wants done, I have some land in Florida to sell you.
Blah, blah, and here we have it: the group who jumps out at every Trump discussion and says he's *obviously* a racist in a runaround attempt to stifle debate. It's not obvious at all - I don't think he's a racist at all. Actually, I would agree he's a racist under the new modern definition of racism whereby anyone who doesn't constantly virtue signal to diversity is a racist. We're all racists, including Trump, under the new definition.
I'm not even sure what you mean by the word anymore.. are you trying to convince me Trump hates black people and would never hire them? Clearly false.
What I would read into that is that the Russians were just allocating limited resources, and like everyone else, assumed Trump wasn't going to be elected. There has been data showing they turned their efforts to delegitimizing Trump's presidency after he won.
And the point STILL STANDS. "Easy to find" would imply a simple google search for "ExxonMobil renewable investments" will yield results. What's that? The top story is something about a billion dollar investment in research into synthetic fuels grown by algae?
To be fair to your point, most of the energy companies have been pouring their investments back into natural gas, which they see as the future. The hype (and more importantly, subsidies) for renewable energy are fading and it is a business after all. I will note the "or easy to find" qualifier in my original assertion. I'd say multiple prominent links on the front page counts.
What are you talking about? Your link perfectly exemplifies what I was talking about - notice the almost overuse of the word energy? "Energy lives here" is their slogan? Energy is the main menu item? One of the first links, "Energy and Carbon Summary", talks about their research and investment in renewables. Even a single google search easily finds articles on the subject.
No, the point is definitely valid, and you're commenting on a market you know nothing about if you disagree. What you think of as "big oil" have all rebranded as energy companies over the last 20 years, and are by FAR the largest investors in renewables. They've literally done more than anyone else building renewable infrastructure. Just go look at any major "oil" company website - I bet your bottom dollar their renewable investments are prominently displayed or easy to find.. bragged about for cred really.
It's a business like any other, and investment in oil and gas isn't even slowing down. "Market collapses" is hilarious; unless some energy miracle occurs (it won't) that is literally fucking fuel buried in the ground and will always have a buyer. Great move by Ireland I say - makes the cash earning shares cheaper for me to buy.
This is nonsense - John A McDonald is definitely held in high regard in Canada as the founder of the country. No decent highschooler will tell you what you've written. That is simply the product of the ultra-liberal movement overtaking universities in Canada and abroad. Due to the way aboriginals were treated (commonplace by anyone at the time), there is a concerted effort to rewrite history and eliminate historical figures that were because they were products of their time.
Nobody in Canada supports that hippy garbage. Yes their faults and strengths as humans are generally well known if you read any history, but only the most militant SJWs would use those four adjectives to primarily describe him.
What I see the problem to be is that people refuse to accept anyone's interpretation or viewpoint if it differs from their own, and so people are much quicker (well, perhaps this hasn't changed through history) to demonize their opponents and see them as less worthy. Of which your post and the mod points perfectly exemplify.
I know plenty of Trump supporters who aren't racists, or at least would heavily debate what your definition of that word is. Are they stupid, or are you not willing to listen?
I call BS on this anecdote after reading into it.. most agricultural zone systems have levels separated by multiple degrees (F), and there's no place on earth that's experienced that level of warming over a single decade. The periods like that which I can find (they do exist) were typically in the past and part of random noise in the data; eg. there were always periods of very cold winters to follow. No different from flipping heads 10 times in a row - it does occur in large variable data sets but not common. Even the reference documentation I can find (all climate change advocate sites) note changes to ag zones typically occur over 30 year periods or more.
While local fauna may no doubt have to adapt to new threats in the future, the much, much larger and quicker threat is invasive species introduction by human means.
Oh and know what else that ag zone shift means? The area can support growing much more food, and much more valuable food.
Count me in as one who has heavily invested savings into "oil and gas" companies recently. In some cases due to price dips because of renewables hype.
Don't get me wrong, I think growing solar and wind options are great.. I'm just realistic. When I read summaries like this (having a background in math), I can immediately spot where they are using statistics to distort the facts. Energy consumption is additive as new technologies come online, and this growth is not at the expense of fossil fuel growth, which continues to grow as well. Remember, more energy used == higher quality of life. People aren't going to stop using any source of energy they find.
Second, what you think of as "oil & gas" companies largely don't exist, they have all long since diversified to "energy" companies. In most cases, the big "oil" players are the world's heaviest investors into renewable energy installations and infrastructure. Kind of funny to think the same companies you blast as "big oil" are probably doing far more for renewables than you or any activist I've ever heard of...
Interesting side note: some of these companies I have invested in have started in the last two years or so to sell their solar and wind assets. In not so many words, their reasoning is: current hype has these assets so overvalued it makes sense to sell them and reinvest that money elsewhere into something that makes better money.. usually back into Oil & Gas (natural gas is a popular one lately). In particular I hear reference to falling subsidies, which make the shaky economics even worse.
Lastly, rather than just hype about maybe making money in the future, most of these companies earn lots of steady cash, which you should count on for dividends far more than share price growth. If you understood any hydrocarbon market dynamics or fundamental uses of fuel, you'd realize it's not going anywhere. In the best scenario, say solar power replaces all transportation fuel; absolutely great! There will still be people lined up around the block to buy it for other uses. It will always be valuable.
Nonsense. Requiring quarterly profit statements brings much needed accountability to organizations. If you feel you need a pass for a number of quarters, discuss it with your shareholders (eg Musk).
The pressure for companies to deliver regular results is one of the things driving our economies (read: quality of life) so much higher. If you were smart, you'd demand the same thing of your software projects and force a regular production deployment.
If you're just going to complain about how things aren't fantastic for those living in North America, or that things are getting worse, well... probably means you can't see the forest from the trees. Objectively compare standard of living at the end of each decade over the last century and there is only one logical conclusion.
As both a Canadian and a free-market enthusiast (who has studied the dairy supply control/tariffs in depth before), I have to say it is actually a case I have struggled to know what the right answer is.
See, it looks as simple as protecting a share of profits from some group of your voters, but the real reason is self-preservation. Imagine the case where large US dairy farms (who are noted to produce too much product) continually dump cheap dairy onto the Canadian market. The real issue is that Canadian producers eventually go bankrupt, or those that are left cannot serve the entire Canadian market. For something as critical as dairy, it seems an unacceptable risk to rely on a foreign country to meet your quota. What if there was some sort of depression or natural disaster.. do you not think the US would limit dairy exports to provide for their own people first?
This was actually the first instance where tariffs, something I vehemently oppose normally, can be used for good measure.
I wish there was more debate around positive feedback/effects. What makes me supremely skeptical of the climate change lobby is how all of the conclusions call for disaster of huge proportion. I can trust and interpret the data NASA puts out, but:
- I see numerous articles with a very disingenuous spin on climate change effects (see the recent story on effects of CO2 on rice production).
- Geological history seems to paint a picture whereby increased temperatures, humidity, and CO2 is a huge benefit for plant and animal life.
- Many predictions of disaster simply aren't coming true (see Polar Bears).
- Humans are especially prone to group think, and scientific communities are no different.
- It does seem climate science doesn't take conclusions of positive effects with an open mind.
Ah, spoken all scary-like by someone not in the industry. Those price fluctuations can be all attributed to political events, as well as technological changes in extraction making new deposits economical to extract. Politics increases prices, technology decreases them. Sound familiar? No need to use terms like "Peak Oil" which mean nothing. If the price rises above a certain point, production ramps up, if it falls below, it ramps down (but demand rises which starts the cycle over again).
Why isn't the harsh criticism warranted? There's a reason it's the most shorted stock in history, and hint, it's not just because someone out there has a big hate-on for Musk.
Tesla is already worth more on the stock market than Ford Co. It needs perfect execution and exponentially growing sales to the point of one of the world's largest automakers to be worth CURRENT price, let alone any growth at all. This is clearly what we used to call "irrational exuberance".
While cost is always a big focus in layoffs (you're trying to save money!), from a practical perspective I find the larger reason I would skew towards some of the older folks in our organization is that they are far more resistant to changing their ways when business realities dictate we do so. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but as a generality holds true. My organization has done a number of takeovers and integrated their IT departments into ours. More often than not, the older folks (50+) have no interest in changing culture and processes to the new company, and this ends up costing money that could be well invested in someone else.
If your list is comprised of bad things, I don't see how you could put Paris on that list. A handful of other posters on here have brought it up, and I can't fathom any other reason than those people have not studied the agreement or it's impact at all - rather it's simply fashionable to pile on that wagon. Group-think after all, is very strong and affects us all.
The actual agreement was a completely ridiculous, 100% implausible foundation for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That it took someone like Trump to come along and bulldoze through the politics of everyone smiling with thumbs up, should tell everyone who opposes this something about their own critical thinking abilities.
As nice as that would be, you underestimate the amount of energy we use, especially for industrial uses. It would take almost 600 of these entire power plants to run my city FOR JUST AN HOUR in the summer or winter. The larger one in Australia would almost get us an entire minute of power.
Cost and abundance are valid components of this equation for business and homes alike, and aren't going away. Coal, in providing a much larger and cheaper amount of power might not go anywhere soon. Some businesses rely on large amounts of steady power. I'd say if someone invents a way to reduce coal plant emissions to zero and recapture all the carbon, it may still dominate the market.
The climate change hysteria is getting out of hand. I can't even notice a slight difference in winters from my childhood (40 years ago now), but somehow we have imminent disaster coming? It doesn't pass most people's sniff test.
It's not up to the bitcher to know or define how wide their market segment is, only to complain that it doesn't meet their needs. The hope is that if enough people bitch, it will signify a wide market segment.
Are you saying you'd feel better if no one ever asked these types of questions, nor had the opportunity to do so?
"acknowledged him as the legitimate ruler" - this is a very weak point I think something only an anti-Trump zealot would highlight as a negative here. Whether "acknowledged" in some official manner or not, he is most definitely the top person in power in NK and running the show there, the de facto ruler. Whether or not you agree with their form of government (I sure as hell don't), not acknowledging him as leader sounds like the old way of doing things, and we saw how well that worked.