1) It's not a treaty. A treaty must be ratified by the Senate to be in force.
Which was what I said.
2) It wasn't signed illegally. It was an Executive Agreement, which is binding on the Executive branch of our government for as long as the Chief Executive says so.
So by your logic, the DPRK is really a Democratic Republic and not a Dictatorship. It's the label that counts, not what's inside the box. Again, read the agreement and you will see that it _is_ a treaty which diverts US Funds from Tax payers to foreign Governments. That last part means precisely that it must be ratified by the Senate as a treaty and not an EO.
The key flaw in your post is that you claim that this works without any evidence positive and countless examples to the negative. The failed stated mentioned all started out as "all of the people will prosper and be wealthy" regimes who claimed to be able to provide the promise if only "they" were given control and people all gave up their liberties. Not a single one has delivered, and the overwhelming majority of those places have turned into violent shitholes where if the Government doesn't kill you Gangs and Ganglords will.
The moral of every Utopia story is that they DO NOT WORK! Human Nature prevents them from working! Why morons continue to latch onto the latest scheme is quite baffling. Do you also fall for the Nigerian Prince scam repeatedly, or is it only Utopia that stumps your intellect?
Good answer Comrade! But then why did China and Russia stagnate for many decades in terms of both production and innovation while the US became the biggest innovator the world has ever seen? Why did China have to move to a partial market economy to promote innovation and productivity, instead of pushing out a bigger and better UBI program than the world has ever seen? Why did Russia also move to a partial market economy to promote innovation and productivity?
The "hard wired producers will always take it up the ass" thought process is a fabrication and fantasy!
Yet somehow, this is socialism's fault instead of good old fashioned greedy latino dictators. This same thing can happen here in the capitalist America
Socialism fails for the same reason Communism fails. In fact, it's the same shortcoming with the Republic described by Socrates in Plato's work by the same name. The systems are nearly identical in implementation, but differ in "How" the system is implemented. You hint at it with your comments on Chavez and Maduro, which is that the systems only work if the leaders are purely altruistic. As seen in every Government across the globe through history, there are extremely few such people and they don't live forever. Most of the time they are not allowed near Government, and get killed by the same. They tend to be recognized more after they are killed than during their lifetime.
Your latter part is true, however, the US has layers of protections built into the system. The founders were not a bunch of yokels without worldly knowledge, they were hundreds of great minds who studied and planned knowing that Governments fail when they obtain too much power. People have been working very hard to tear those protections down, but in terms of Government longevity the US has done pretty well. There is currently a massive push for another Article 5 motion which could hopefully put those protections back up piece by piece.
Your statement is absolutely false, and has no basis in reality. Money does not "fix" addiction, and proof is simply looking at the long list of addicts who are/were extremely wealthy. How about Jimi Hendrix, Bon Scott, John Bonham, Kurt Cobain, or Whitney Houston? Don't like musicians, how about politicians like Rob Fort, Senator Crapo, or Marion Barry? Drugs are not good enough? How about alcohol like Ted Kennedy? How about Porn/Sex like Anthony Weiner? You should be able to do your own research from here, and find that money certainly does not fix addiction.
Tell me, are you trolling or really an ignoramus? If the latter, are you interested in an education or happy repeating things that the other ignoramuses say?
The EPA was never told to stop doing their job, they were told "until further notice, any new regulation requires the cancellation of 2 old regulations". They have not been told to stop prosecuting or even investigating current regulations.
You are either repeating propaganda or making shit up on your own instead of using facts. The correction is based on drive byes who may read your post, AFAIK you are happy being a moron. Continued spewing of ignorant nonsense will be considered trolling. You do have a history of such, so I'm not surprised.
Well, why not sign on? The Paris Accord requires nations to set their own non-binding goals and mechanisms for CO2 reduction. And even without the accord, US carbon emissions have been dropping, thanks to fracking.
There's really only one consequence to exiting the Accord, which is a loss of transparency. The US will not participate in being compared to other countries in its CO2 emissions. Which won't stop people from doing exactly that, but the federal government will not have a hand in the data they use.
Horse shit! The consequence of the US signing is that we are _immediately_ forced to pay taxes into two funds which pays money to other countries as a "tax" for producing energy. Other countries had no such obligations, and had custom rules which gave them economic benefit at the expense of the US. Worse, those receiving the funds are sovereign nations and there is no assurance that they actually use the funds for Green Energy production.
In fact, when President Obama signed the accord Democrats all claimed "it's harmless because it's toothless" *wink wink*, which was true for everyone but the US. Now all of a sudden, it's world shattering that this toothless non-binding agreement gets pulled out of. Which is it Leftists?
This was yet another poor tax, where America's least wealthy are required to pay taxes to support a wealth redistribution program helping foreign nations instead of ourselves.
If you are not being sarcastic, I can find tens of thousands of EPA regulations which are in effect. I can find tens of thousands of EPA employees being paid by my tax dollars. I can find a recommendation by the Executive branch to cut funding to the EPA by around 8%, but I have not seen Congress take even that little bit of action.
Who exactly is getting paid for FUD here? Me with facts to back my opinion, or you simply repeating FUD which has no factual basis? Yeah, you are trolling (or Shilling).
First flaw: Ignoring how money gets into the system to pay out a UBI for 330 Million people. Print more like the Weimark Republic which ends up with collapse due to inflation (takes more than the current GDP of the USA to pay a basic living wage to the populace) or tax the producers. The latter already happens at a staggeringly high rate and we can't pay our current bills.
The idea of UBI has been around for at least 70 years and nobody has seen any working models. You already hinted at hating reality, but numerous countries in Central and South America have started out with that ideal and quickly turned into tyrannical authoritarian regimes. You need guns to take from those that have and give to the poor.
Please save your Finland is great arguments. I work with people who worked very hard to leave Finland, which is basically a caste system. There is no social or economic mobility in Finland. Finland in theory should be much easier to control since it's population is less than many cities in the USA. Where is Finland's great UBI program? If you can't and won't do it, why should we?
Central Europe is a Country and Government now? Or perhaps you wish to give a more specific example which you believe is Utopian and capable of giving every member of the country UBI. Caution: There are massive problems in every European Country currently, and none of them could afford to give everyone a UBI including Germany who is making a fortune from loan payments from the rest of Europe.
Are the aliens giving you advanced information from the future? That other person in your head telling you what's going to happen? When is your doom and gloom forecast for, so I can laugh at you after you are another fraud spreading FUD?
Would some people be completely unproductive with their "extra" free time? Absolutely. Problems we have with our current welfare system would be exacerbated greatly. People that currently work to afford drug and alcohol addictions would now have no need to work, so society as a whole gains a dependent class at the expense of those who want to produce. Those that want to produce will simply stop producing when they can't receive the fruits of their labor because it's going to a massive welfare state.
If Socialist utopias worked, Venezuela would be a paradise right now instead of the hellhole it is. Massive amounts of people would be fighting to get into Cuba, China, Russia, the DPRK, and all of the other "Socialist (also known as communism without so many government guns)" countries. They are not doing so, they are all trying to get to the most free countries in the world with Capitalist economies (closest representations at least) and representative democratic Governments.
UBI won't work, any more than any other communist utopian scheme works. Reason: Simple! Human nature!
Not being signed up to a treaty which (was signed illegally by the last President[1]) does not in any way mean that the US is doing nothing. Not only do we still have a fully functional EPA, but some of the toughest regulations in the world for clean air and water. Better still, if you listened to the whole speech by the President, you would have heard that he was already starting to negotiate a new treaty which is more fair for Americans. Specifically, US Tax payers were mentioned in the speech.
Why so many people believe it is so much easier to listen to hours of CNN and MSNBC interpreting the Presidents few minute speech than to listen to the source is astounding. Listen to or read the transcript for all you need to know, instead of relying on propagandists for their "opinion" of something instead of deciding for yourself based on actual facts.
[1] The President does not have the authority to sign treaties with foreign Governments. This is the job of the House and Senate. President Obama bypassed his legal authority by claiming this was not a treating and calling it an "accord". Wording in the agreement is exactly that of a treaty with multiple foreign Governments. If a Republican President had signed a similar agreement, Democrats would have yelled for impeachment (rightly so).
3 Companies make the whole total of what they claim has been lost. Yet more than 3 companies have received public bailout money and gone completely out of business. I asked you to provide the whole balance sheet so that you can support their claim, and you can't any more than the articles you pointed to can.
These are cooked numbers, and it's obvious that they are cooked. That makes the articles, who fail to produce balance sheets _PROPAGANDA_. I can't stop you from believing fairy tales, but I'm not going to agree with you that a fairy tale is reality. I demonstrated with easy to verify information that they are fantasy.
You still have not even bothered to answer the biggest question, which is why my money gets taken by force to support these bullshit programs which make people the Government selects extremely wealthy and me less capable of building my own future. Nearly half my money goes to taxes each year. I, like many Americans, pay more than my fair share.
The US Congress and Senate can't make double digit approval numbers. I don't believe we are outliers, just that more people have not been out in mobs trying to clean the scum out of the system.
Giving me another article repeating a claim without facts does not help your argument. Where is the balance sheet which substantiates the claim? Basic information available to search demonstrates that the allegation as written is false. The numbers I gave for 3 companies are simple to find.
I believe you are confusing Liberalism with Leftist Progressivism. Liberalism in history was about personal Liberty (human rights). The Progressive leftist movement coopted Liberalism in the US and consumed the Democratic Party (and much of the Republican party as well).
No, they are not. You may have better luck saying "in certain States" or something. I also live in CA and find all of my representatives to be about the same as an oozing boil. I'd much rather see them lanced and removed than sit around and fester longer. I know plenty of people in other States who feel the same way.
I do like your comment about changing machinery, especially given the gas guzzling pieces of inefficient crap you guys drive 500m to collect a bag of groceries.
I happen to walk to the Grocery store or drive less than a few miles to get to a specialty market. And since I don't have time for a 9 hour drive to a store, I tend to limit my shopping to very few times a week. You will find that the same is true for all Americans. Not only does the majority of people not have a gas guzzling car, but we don't have the free time for driving hours a day for shits and giggles.
The American people are the most generous in the world, with the most concern for other nations in the world. While we don't always take the "right" actions, the intent from the public is never "screw them other guys".
Oh fuck off. You only need to look at some of your threads, talk to your fellow Americans or try and decipher the sounds coming out your presidents mouth to realise you're living in a reality distortion field strong enough to bring Jobs back to life.
In terms of actual numbers, the US has been the leader in charitable donations (by massive margins) for nearly a century. Per Capita, we are number 1 except for 2 years where a single country passed the US. Not Germany, not France, not China, not Russia, not the UK, but Myanmar. Sources are very easy to find, if you are willing to actually look. You are simply a biased moron.
I should add, that "you" in this case is synonymous with the person you are defending. I'm not the person claiming the science is settled, I'm asking legitimate questions about the science which the know-it-all people consistently refuse to answer and jump right to hyperbole and ad hominem to answer. I think there is a whole lot we should be doing to reduce pollution and clean up the Earth, but nowhere on my to-do list is "pay lots of taxes to an entity who is completely invisible and unaccountable".
You are in essence, asking me to prove a negative. As previously stated, we know for a fact that Climate has changed throughout all of History. In fact, in the last hour here the climate has changed by at least 10 degrees. I'm asking you, the person who claimed that the science was settled for numbers to back your claims. You can't, so are just a troll.
My comment was that Solyndra went bankrupt after receiving _more_ than Half a Billion. Considering all of the other loans and grants, taking a selective view of one successful company getting a loan can only be described as selective stupidity. Let me prove the point:
Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.
550M to Solyndra, 140M to Fisker, 70M Abound, you are at the 780 million who allegedly defaulted. Yet there is another several Billion in defaults which magically vanish from this article's point of view (linking to the Government loan office is not a link to the sheets), and another few hundred billion in Grants.
All of which is done by confiscating money from people like me, who pay our taxes. Given to people the Government decides should be "winners" instead of letting consumers decide.
In other words, you have nothing. There are unsubstantiated allegations in one link, repeated in another, and the last 2 links have no information. Not surprising from the communist news network.
Facts should sway opinions, not unsubstantiated claims. If the DOJ takes action and there are findings, we can talk. Until then, it has the same weight as me claiming that you are a pedophile and child rapist. It's an unsubstantiated claim with no value, even if it's true.
Thanks for proving my point about you being an imbecile, always appreciate the assistance.
So what percentage of the current climate shift is natural versus induced by man?
It's about 110% caused by man, and -10% by nature. You can find the details in the latest IPCC report.
Haha, that is too funny. So now, we have never had any climate changes in history, and the only change is caused by man. Despite knowing facts to the contrary. Ice age 20,000 years ago, mini-ice age 400 years ago, ice cores showing massive increases in CO2 throughout history, waves of extinction due to climate shifts, etc.. I'd say stop smoking that stuff, but you may not smoke. In which case, I'll say start smoking that stuff. In other words, your number is a fairy tale made up to support a narrative and is most assuredly not Science.
Better still, if we shut down all Petroleum Production and usage today, what would the economic impact be and how many people would die because of it?
That has nothing to do with AGW science.
It absolutely does have something to do with the debate, but not necessarily the science. If I said "2+3=5" but I need 72, my "Science" (equation) is right but of no value to the needs. Shutting down energy production has vast impact on humanity, and you have to determine the best path forward.
Sending confiscated wealth from a populace to unnamed and unaccountable sources is not a Fix. Hence, I'm glad we were just removed from the illegal Paris Accords.
Slashdot Mirror
1) It's not a treaty. A treaty must be ratified by the Senate to be in force.
Which was what I said.
2) It wasn't signed illegally. It was an Executive Agreement, which is binding on the Executive branch of our government for as long as the Chief Executive says so.
So by your logic, the DPRK is really a Democratic Republic and not a Dictatorship. It's the label that counts, not what's inside the box. Again, read the agreement and you will see that it _is_ a treaty which diverts US Funds from Tax payers to foreign Governments. That last part means precisely that it must be ratified by the Senate as a treaty and not an EO.
The key flaw in your post is that you claim that this works without any evidence positive and countless examples to the negative. The failed stated mentioned all started out as "all of the people will prosper and be wealthy" regimes who claimed to be able to provide the promise if only "they" were given control and people all gave up their liberties. Not a single one has delivered, and the overwhelming majority of those places have turned into violent shitholes where if the Government doesn't kill you Gangs and Ganglords will.
The moral of every Utopia story is that they DO NOT WORK! Human Nature prevents them from working! Why morons continue to latch onto the latest scheme is quite baffling. Do you also fall for the Nigerian Prince scam repeatedly, or is it only Utopia that stumps your intellect?
Good answer Comrade! But then why did China and Russia stagnate for many decades in terms of both production and innovation while the US became the biggest innovator the world has ever seen? Why did China have to move to a partial market economy to promote innovation and productivity, instead of pushing out a bigger and better UBI program than the world has ever seen? Why did Russia also move to a partial market economy to promote innovation and productivity?
The "hard wired producers will always take it up the ass" thought process is a fabrication and fantasy!
Yet somehow, this is socialism's fault instead of good old fashioned greedy latino dictators. This same thing can happen here in the capitalist America
Socialism fails for the same reason Communism fails. In fact, it's the same shortcoming with the Republic described by Socrates in Plato's work by the same name. The systems are nearly identical in implementation, but differ in "How" the system is implemented. You hint at it with your comments on Chavez and Maduro, which is that the systems only work if the leaders are purely altruistic. As seen in every Government across the globe through history, there are extremely few such people and they don't live forever. Most of the time they are not allowed near Government, and get killed by the same. They tend to be recognized more after they are killed than during their lifetime.
Your latter part is true, however, the US has layers of protections built into the system. The founders were not a bunch of yokels without worldly knowledge, they were hundreds of great minds who studied and planned knowing that Governments fail when they obtain too much power. People have been working very hard to tear those protections down, but in terms of Government longevity the US has done pretty well. There is currently a massive push for another Article 5 motion which could hopefully put those protections back up piece by piece.
Your statement is absolutely false, and has no basis in reality. Money does not "fix" addiction, and proof is simply looking at the long list of addicts who are/were extremely wealthy. How about Jimi Hendrix, Bon Scott, John Bonham, Kurt Cobain, or Whitney Houston? Don't like musicians, how about politicians like Rob Fort, Senator Crapo, or Marion Barry? Drugs are not good enough? How about alcohol like Ted Kennedy? How about Porn/Sex like Anthony Weiner? You should be able to do your own research from here, and find that money certainly does not fix addiction.
Thank goodness you are not a psychologist!
Tell me, are you trolling or really an ignoramus? If the latter, are you interested in an education or happy repeating things that the other ignoramuses say?
The EPA was never told to stop doing their job, they were told "until further notice, any new regulation requires the cancellation of 2 old regulations". They have not been told to stop prosecuting or even investigating current regulations.
You are either repeating propaganda or making shit up on your own instead of using facts. The correction is based on drive byes who may read your post, AFAIK you are happy being a moron. Continued spewing of ignorant nonsense will be considered trolling. You do have a history of such, so I'm not surprised.
Well, why not sign on? The Paris Accord requires nations to set their own non-binding goals and mechanisms for CO2 reduction. And even without the accord, US carbon emissions have been dropping, thanks to fracking.
There's really only one consequence to exiting the Accord, which is a loss of transparency. The US will not participate in being compared to other countries in its CO2 emissions. Which won't stop people from doing exactly that, but the federal government will not have a hand in the data they use.
Horse shit! The consequence of the US signing is that we are _immediately_ forced to pay taxes into two funds which pays money to other countries as a "tax" for producing energy. Other countries had no such obligations, and had custom rules which gave them economic benefit at the expense of the US. Worse, those receiving the funds are sovereign nations and there is no assurance that they actually use the funds for Green Energy production.
In fact, when President Obama signed the accord Democrats all claimed "it's harmless because it's toothless" *wink wink*, which was true for everyone but the US. Now all of a sudden, it's world shattering that this toothless non-binding agreement gets pulled out of. Which is it Leftists?
This was yet another poor tax, where America's least wealthy are required to pay taxes to support a wealth redistribution program helping foreign nations instead of ourselves.
If you are not being sarcastic, I can find tens of thousands of EPA regulations which are in effect. I can find tens of thousands of EPA employees being paid by my tax dollars. I can find a recommendation by the Executive branch to cut funding to the EPA by around 8%, but I have not seen Congress take even that little bit of action.
Who exactly is getting paid for FUD here? Me with facts to back my opinion, or you simply repeating FUD which has no factual basis? Yeah, you are trolling (or Shilling).
First flaw: Ignoring how money gets into the system to pay out a UBI for 330 Million people. Print more like the Weimark Republic which ends up with collapse due to inflation (takes more than the current GDP of the USA to pay a basic living wage to the populace) or tax the producers. The latter already happens at a staggeringly high rate and we can't pay our current bills.
The idea of UBI has been around for at least 70 years and nobody has seen any working models. You already hinted at hating reality, but numerous countries in Central and South America have started out with that ideal and quickly turned into tyrannical authoritarian regimes. You need guns to take from those that have and give to the poor.
Please save your Finland is great arguments. I work with people who worked very hard to leave Finland, which is basically a caste system. There is no social or economic mobility in Finland. Finland in theory should be much easier to control since it's population is less than many cities in the USA. Where is Finland's great UBI program? If you can't and won't do it, why should we?
Central Europe is a Country and Government now? Or perhaps you wish to give a more specific example which you believe is Utopian and capable of giving every member of the country UBI. Caution: There are massive problems in every European Country currently, and none of them could afford to give everyone a UBI including Germany who is making a fortune from loan payments from the rest of Europe.
Are the aliens giving you advanced information from the future? That other person in your head telling you what's going to happen? When is your doom and gloom forecast for, so I can laugh at you after you are another fraud spreading FUD?
Would some people be completely unproductive with their "extra" free time? Absolutely. Problems we have with our current welfare system would be exacerbated greatly. People that currently work to afford drug and alcohol addictions would now have no need to work, so society as a whole gains a dependent class at the expense of those who want to produce. Those that want to produce will simply stop producing when they can't receive the fruits of their labor because it's going to a massive welfare state.
If Socialist utopias worked, Venezuela would be a paradise right now instead of the hellhole it is. Massive amounts of people would be fighting to get into Cuba, China, Russia, the DPRK, and all of the other "Socialist (also known as communism without so many government guns)" countries. They are not doing so, they are all trying to get to the most free countries in the world with Capitalist economies (closest representations at least) and representative democratic Governments.
UBI won't work, any more than any other communist utopian scheme works. Reason: Simple! Human nature!
Not being signed up to a treaty which (was signed illegally by the last President[1]) does not in any way mean that the US is doing nothing. Not only do we still have a fully functional EPA, but some of the toughest regulations in the world for clean air and water. Better still, if you listened to the whole speech by the President, you would have heard that he was already starting to negotiate a new treaty which is more fair for Americans. Specifically, US Tax payers were mentioned in the speech.
Why so many people believe it is so much easier to listen to hours of CNN and MSNBC interpreting the Presidents few minute speech than to listen to the source is astounding. Listen to or read the transcript for all you need to know, instead of relying on propagandists for their "opinion" of something instead of deciding for yourself based on actual facts.
[1] The President does not have the authority to sign treaties with foreign Governments. This is the job of the House and Senate. President Obama bypassed his legal authority by claiming this was not a treating and calling it an "accord". Wording in the agreement is exactly that of a treaty with multiple foreign Governments. If a Republican President had signed a similar agreement, Democrats would have yelled for impeachment (rightly so).
3 Companies make the whole total of what they claim has been lost. Yet more than 3 companies have received public bailout money and gone completely out of business. I asked you to provide the whole balance sheet so that you can support their claim, and you can't any more than the articles you pointed to can.
These are cooked numbers, and it's obvious that they are cooked. That makes the articles, who fail to produce balance sheets _PROPAGANDA_. I can't stop you from believing fairy tales, but I'm not going to agree with you that a fairy tale is reality. I demonstrated with easy to verify information that they are fantasy.
You still have not even bothered to answer the biggest question, which is why my money gets taken by force to support these bullshit programs which make people the Government selects extremely wealthy and me less capable of building my own future. Nearly half my money goes to taxes each year. I, like many Americans, pay more than my fair share.
The US Congress and Senate can't make double digit approval numbers. I don't believe we are outliers, just that more people have not been out in mobs trying to clean the scum out of the system.
Giving me another article repeating a claim without facts does not help your argument. Where is the balance sheet which substantiates the claim? Basic information available to search demonstrates that the allegation as written is false. The numbers I gave for 3 companies are simple to find.
Thanks! I needed the good laugh!
I believe you are confusing Liberalism with Leftist Progressivism. Liberalism in history was about personal Liberty (human rights). The Progressive leftist movement coopted Liberalism in the US and consumed the Democratic Party (and much of the Republican party as well).
No, they are not. You may have better luck saying "in certain States" or something. I also live in CA and find all of my representatives to be about the same as an oozing boil. I'd much rather see them lanced and removed than sit around and fester longer. I know plenty of people in other States who feel the same way.
I do like your comment about changing machinery, especially given the gas guzzling pieces of inefficient crap you guys drive 500m to collect a bag of groceries.
I happen to walk to the Grocery store or drive less than a few miles to get to a specialty market. And since I don't have time for a 9 hour drive to a store, I tend to limit my shopping to very few times a week. You will find that the same is true for all Americans. Not only does the majority of people not have a gas guzzling car, but we don't have the free time for driving hours a day for shits and giggles.
The American people are the most generous in the world, with the most concern for other nations in the world. While we don't always take the "right" actions, the intent from the public is never "screw them other guys".
Oh fuck off. You only need to look at some of your threads, talk to your fellow Americans or try and decipher the sounds coming out your presidents mouth to realise you're living in a reality distortion field strong enough to bring Jobs back to life.
In terms of actual numbers, the US has been the leader in charitable donations (by massive margins) for nearly a century. Per Capita, we are number 1 except for 2 years where a single country passed the US. Not Germany, not France, not China, not Russia, not the UK, but Myanmar. Sources are very easy to find, if you are willing to actually look. You are simply a biased moron.
I should add, that "you" in this case is synonymous with the person you are defending. I'm not the person claiming the science is settled, I'm asking legitimate questions about the science which the know-it-all people consistently refuse to answer and jump right to hyperbole and ad hominem to answer. I think there is a whole lot we should be doing to reduce pollution and clean up the Earth, but nowhere on my to-do list is "pay lots of taxes to an entity who is completely invisible and unaccountable".
You are in essence, asking me to prove a negative. As previously stated, we know for a fact that Climate has changed throughout all of History. In fact, in the last hour here the climate has changed by at least 10 degrees. I'm asking you, the person who claimed that the science was settled for numbers to back your claims. You can't, so are just a troll.
My comment was that Solyndra went bankrupt after receiving _more_ than Half a Billion. Considering all of the other loans and grants, taking a selective view of one successful company getting a loan can only be described as selective stupidity. Let me prove the point:
Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.
550M to Solyndra, 140M to Fisker, 70M Abound, you are at the 780 million who allegedly defaulted. Yet there is another several Billion in defaults which magically vanish from this article's point of view (linking to the Government loan office is not a link to the sheets), and another few hundred billion in Grants.
All of which is done by confiscating money from people like me, who pay our taxes. Given to people the Government decides should be "winners" instead of letting consumers decide.
In other words, you have nothing. There are unsubstantiated allegations in one link, repeated in another, and the last 2 links have no information. Not surprising from the communist news network.
Facts should sway opinions, not unsubstantiated claims. If the DOJ takes action and there are findings, we can talk. Until then, it has the same weight as me claiming that you are a pedophile and child rapist. It's an unsubstantiated claim with no value, even if it's true.
Thanks for proving my point about you being an imbecile, always appreciate the assistance.
So what percentage of the current climate shift is natural versus induced by man?
It's about 110% caused by man, and -10% by nature. You can find the details in the latest IPCC report.
Haha, that is too funny. So now, we have never had any climate changes in history, and the only change is caused by man. Despite knowing facts to the contrary. Ice age 20,000 years ago, mini-ice age 400 years ago, ice cores showing massive increases in CO2 throughout history, waves of extinction due to climate shifts, etc.. I'd say stop smoking that stuff, but you may not smoke. In which case, I'll say start smoking that stuff. In other words, your number is a fairy tale made up to support a narrative and is most assuredly not Science.
Better still, if we shut down all Petroleum Production and usage today, what would the economic impact be and how many people would die because of it?
That has nothing to do with AGW science.
It absolutely does have something to do with the debate, but not necessarily the science. If I said "2+3=5" but I need 72, my "Science" (equation) is right but of no value to the needs. Shutting down energy production has vast impact on humanity, and you have to determine the best path forward.
Sending confiscated wealth from a populace to unnamed and unaccountable sources is not a Fix. Hence, I'm glad we were just removed from the illegal Paris Accords.