White House says Trump expected to pull US from Paris deal

Your insurance carrier has spent some money because a sleep study isn't cheap!

 

Just think, if dumb drunken Hillary had picked Bernie or Warren for Veep, rather that that clown from VA, she would be making these decisions.

Bullet Dodged!

 

Hear! Hear! Wasp nests of corruption, nearly every damn one of them!

 

oh yeah, ever hear of darpa, guess what they do.

keep trying to force those square pegs in the round holes

 

It would never occur to me that someone would not know that .

 

Uhh... you're fabricating again. We don't effectively tax the rich, and I want to see them taxed effectively. Every single level of complexity in the tax code, every subsidy and carve-out is yet another place for their army of accountants to help them avoid taxation.

That is why I support a flat national sales tax, set at the point needed to balance the budget. No deferred collection, no loopholes, no gimmicks, everyone participates proportionally based on their consumption. We can have all the government we are willing to pay for.

But you of course, love to see the rich skate on their tax bills, so you of course are against this. You have outed yourself!

 

well this is the internet, have to play it for what it is. it is truly amazimg how naive they can be. the fact that us funded research is used to help industry is another reality some rwers cannot face

 

I've stated that i'm fine with us pulling out of paris, IMO we can still make technological improvements on renewables without some voluntary signature on a piece of paper that says "we'll try"

however, I have NO problems with the US investing money and so i'm clear, a LOT MORE than 2.2 billion in technology that would improve our chances of success in improving current technology or developing whatever this new energy might be.

If that means we piss away 50 billion I have zero issues with that, as long as its done right. In the big picture its a drop in the bucket.

ie: I don't think we can just throw money at it, there has to be an intelligent, coordinated effort which might include gov't employees, grants, loans, whatever, or just simply being a little patient and waiting for someone else to develop and idea that can be taken to the next step.

In the meantime, we'll gradually get more efficient every day just by attrition, as old technologies get replaced by newer better ones from car's to energy plants, etc.

IF there is a magic wand out there, nobody is talking about it. The projections of the Paris agreement basically boil down to the fact that somewhere between 2100 and 2200 we're pretty much fubar, they just want to postpone it by a few years, which IMO is a waste of time and effort, gotta find that magic wand where we can actually have efficient and economical solutions, not overpriced/under-efficient ones like we have today. The time is coming, just not sure when.

Summary: I really really don't think we should be cutting back on research, if anything I think we should be doubling down on it.

 

Was darpa one of the men I listed? No? Keep digging

lol you accuse me of exactly what you are doing. Amusing.

 

Maybe they produce their own penicillin at home with leftover bread.

Don't you recall the "You did not build that" hype that caused them to erupt into massive conniptions and foaming at the mouth seizures?

 

whatever you say, mr con ed

 

Yes, I really do.

 

Exactly. Through the private sector not with our money.

Great theory with no way to prove throwing more money will solve it.

Yet that's exactly what you just advocated.

And they have already proven they can't do that at a government level.

Exactly so why artificially raise it with government money when that's already been tried and been a complete waste?

The same people who predicted an ice age in the 70s, New York and Flordia would be underwater by now and the Polar bears would be gone. Why would we embrace a group that has been so consistently wrong?

Then let the private sector where invention actually takes place do it. Don't waste any more governemnt money on a theory that has already failed once.[/quote]

 

Still running from just a few names.

 

Why?

That exactly what I support. Trump seems to, but politicians often disappoint.

 

many of them are just hard wired for canned responses, as seen on this site, and as i said, they can no longer differentiate bewteen reality and fiction

 

only thomas edison or con ed, pick your choice.

 

All sorts of changes throughout the history of the record.

 

Trump is pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord. The merits far outweigh all other options.

 

And that worked out just fine.

But at least it won't be infested with Muslims raping our girls with impunity, a la Rotherham.

 

It's official?

 

So you are quite content for the USA to become a leper country against the rest of the world. I suppose a idiot has to appear on the world stage once in a while but they don't usually last long and at least Governor Jerry Brown has said that California will abide by the Paris Agreement, so if they can others will no doubt also.

 

the response was garbled but I was able to make sense out of it.

IF its an intelligent practical investment in technology i'm behind it 100% it makes sense even if the alarmists are wrong for the benefit of all of us with cleaner burning fuels, reduction in pollution, improved efficiency etc...

I would expect, and can accept some hit and misses with attempts at change in technology.

Personally I think the biggest issue is global population and that is pretty much being ignored by the people pushing all of this forward, we really need global population control.

 

good for California, they certainly need some more regulations ! lol

 

Con ed isn't one of the men. Keep digging.