Comments by "bruno bond" (@mrunning10) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1. 14
  2. 6
  3. 5
  4. 5
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. He is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!" e is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!"
    1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565.  @tony1919  "Hoodwinked?" Nada. The term is "Brainwashed" For over 20 years now. Cause and Effect via the Scientific Method. Ever HEAR of it perhaps? The CLUE is ALL of the conspiracy-denying is NEVER about the MEASUREMENTS and NEVER about the possible EFFECTS. 1. What is the “Keeling Curve?” What does it show?? 2. What is the periodicity of the carbon cycle over the last 1 million years? 3. Without a verflucht time machine how do we measure the amount of carbon in the atmosphere over the last 1 million years? 4. How long has HUMANITY pumped EXCESS carbon into the atmosphere? 5. How many MEGA-TONS of carbon has HUMANINTY brought up from UNDER the ground and released ABOVE the ground since HUMANITY has stared? 6. What is “EXCESS” carbon? 7. When was the carbon cycle first hypothesized? (CLUE  it wasn’t even during the last CENTURY so THAT flushes s the “elite” “control” conspiracy theory right down the Shitter.) 8. Why is this conversation about “climate change” going on and on and on? (I’ll help, answer  because it is a race between human moronic behavior and the technology that can kill him. Darwin or Stupidity who shall be the victor”) 9. Why does just a tiny bit of co2 added to the atmosphere have a huge out-of-proportional effect on HEAT absorbed by the atmosphere? 10. What motivates an Oil or Gas or Coal company? (In engineering it’s called “FOM” Figure of Merit) Profit, or not killing the planet?? Take a BIG FAT PAID LOBBIST GUESS. God Bless Greta for guts to speak to the coward "adults" and their conspiracy-do-nothing finger-pointing, cooking and killing this planet that we ALL live on.
    1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. ​ @windmill2517  If you don't believe that HUMANITY, in its industrial processes, is placing MORE carbon it the atmosphere that the planet's natural carbon cycle does, then there is nothing to argue over. You are done, fin, you don't believe, nothing to talk about. But if otherwise, then add up how much CARBON each of these processes you mention produces (most likely assuming none of them employ any carbon "recapture" i.e., placing the carbon back underground) then add up how much CARBON each process is produced from a conventional internal combustion (IC) engine car. THEN charge that battery (nuclear, solar, wind is ZERO carbon by the way) and then place an equivalent amount (miles of travel) of GAS into the IC car, and keep doing this, for example, 100,000 miles (5 years of driving?) 5-1/2 pounds of carbon for producing a gallon of gas. If you charge your battery with nuclear, or wind, or solar (a number of us do) that carbon is ZERO. Even if you charge the battery with coal or gas generated electricity distributed to you home the figure is low, about 0.2 pounds of carbon per electric equivalent of gallon of gas. The end result of all of this is the CARBON to produce that battery or make that car, either IC or battery, is MINISCULE compared to the total carbon into the atmosphere at the end of an internal combustion gas-powered car's life. IT MATTERS LITTLE how much carbon is produced in making these things. (not talking pollution here, just CARBON into the atmosphere resulting in the greenhouse effect) IT DOESN'T MATTER! (no one ever said production is zero carbon, except the FOX NEWS MORONS)
    1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725.  @trusound170  So, global warming due to man-made climate change NOT a "scam?" EVERYTHING is part of the problem. Narrow-minded focus is what does not make sense. HOW was the energy PRODUCED that MADE those "glass bottles?" The no-carbon-emitting-energy-fairies?? Give me some please, as my electrical bill this year has skyrocketed. Emissions YES are part of the issue. Glass helps, it is not made from petroleum, but the NET carbon release still occurs just not as much as plastic. (That's the thing the models are attempting to model, from emissions the carbon release is immediate, plastic, couple thousand of years. It affects the periodicity of the cycle but NOT the amplitudes. The AMOUNT of carbon release affects the carbon cyclic amplitudes.) No that is NOT what I am asking, WHAT do you think happens to those disposables (which not coincidentally more often than not are plastic = petroleum) Out of our sight in the landfill thus out of our mind right? NOT. We're talking about modeling and predicting a process (the carbon cycle affecting the planet) that occurs over GEOLOGICAL timescale. That bottle in the landfill is eventually de-materializing and ending up in the ATMOSPHERE. Simply because it does not happen during our short lifespans doesn't means it won't happen because it will. It is all part of the carbon exchange processes on this planet. God Bless Greta. Guts that most of don't have to speak out. Scared and MAD at the "adults" who are cooking and killing the planet we all live on.
    1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. That's right! KILL the Planet! WTF cares? He is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!" e is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!"
    1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757.  @robertsmith2956  NO she does not. WTF did you get that rumor conspiracy theory?? HORSESHIT. Reports like this one, saying Pelosi routinely flies about in her own 757-size jet, have been floating around for almost two years. The claims were revived when Democrats complained that CEOs of the Big Three U.S. automakers had used their corporate jets to come to Washington to seek billions in federal aid. But the rumors are incorrect. Spokespeople for Pelosi and Andrews Air Force Base say that the speaker has used the big Air Force jet once, but she normally uses a much smaller plane, the same one used by the previous speaker of the House, Republican Dennis Hastert. The spread of this rumor – and its first debunking – dates back to February 2007. At that time, the speaker of the House had had access to an Air Force craft for about five and a half years. Hastert had been issued a plane after Sept. 11, 2001, for security reasons (the speaker of the House is next in line after the vice president for presidential succession). Hastert used an Air Force C-20B, a small 12-seater based on the Gulfstream III, to travel to his home district in Illinois. (Ford and GM auto executives, incidentally, travel in the slightly larger Gulfstream IV.) When Pelosi became speaker, House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood, according to his own account, worried that the small craft would be unable to travel to her home district of San Francisco without stopping to refuel. Livingood, who was first elected by a Newt Gingrich-led House in 1995, asked the Air Force and the Department of Defense about getting a bigger plane. He also requested clarifications of other rules regarding the aircraft – for instance, whether family members would be allowed to accompany Pelosi on her flights. According to ABC News’ Jake Tapper, Capt. Herb McConnell of the Air Force said that the C-20B is sometimes able to make cross-country flights without refueling, but that it depends on headwinds. The much larger C-32, a military version of a Boeing 757 that’s usually used by the vice president and the first lady, is easily able to make a nonstop flight across the country. But it’s also on the lavish side. It’s not quite a 200-seater, but it does include 50 business-class seats and a full stateroom with a private lavatory and entertainment system. We’ve seen no evidence, however, that Livingood specifically requested for Pelosi to have access to the C-32, which is the largest plane available at the 89th Airlift wing at Andrews Air Force Base. According to his statement, he requested a plane that was able to fly cross-country. Pelosi spokespeople at the time said that the speaker would be happy to use a smaller plane that could make a nonstop cross-country flight. The Pentagon responded to this request by saying that it would make "every effort … to provide non-stop shuttle support," but that Pelosi’s aircraft access would depend on availability. Officials also clarified that Pelosi’s family members and other members of Congress could fly with her, but they would have to reimburse the government for their flights and food, paying the price of a coach ticket on a commercial airline. Pelosi would have to submit a written request for her family or other Congress members to accompany her on flights. The Pentagon response stoked rumors that Pelosi had requested access to a posh personal craft for herself and anyone she wanted to bring along. Tapper traces the rumor back to House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, who called the C-32 "a flying Lincoln bedroom." That’s not a wholly inaccurate assessment of the plane (there’s even a pull-out bed!), but Blunt implied that Pelosi had expressly requested such extravagance. White House spokesman Tony Snow called this a "silly story," breaking with congressional Republicans who objected to Pelosi’s supposedly over-the-top request. At a press briefing, Snow reiterated that the conversations about plane travel were perfectly routine: Snow, Feb. 7, 2007: After September 11th, the Department of Defense – with the consent of the White House – agreed that the Speaker of the House should have military transport. And so what is going on is that the Department of Defense is going through its rules and regulations and having conversations with the Speaker about it. So Speaker Hastert had access to military aircraft and Speaker Pelosi will, too. Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly told FactCheck.org that the speaker does have access to military air travel. When she flies to her home district, she uses whatever Air Force craft is available. Daly told us that "they try to do a nonstop flight." But the plane Pelosi uses most often is the C-20B, and she has occasionally used even smaller planes. According to Daly, Pelosi once used the C-32 when no other planes were available, but she also has had to stop for refueling on at least one trip on a smaller aircraft. Pelosi’s family has traveled with her a few times, but they had to reimburse the government for the cost of their tickets, as stipulated in the Pentagon’s letter. Congress members who are traveling to California sometimes do the same. Pelosi only uses the jet to travel between Washington, D.C., and San Francisco on official business. For any other trip, she and her family use commercial airlines. Update, December 22: After this story was posted, we received word from Eric Sharman, deputy chief of public affairs at Andrews Air Force Base, confirming what Pelosi’s spokesman told us about her aircraft use. Sharman said that Pelosi has in the past used the C-20B and the slightly larger C-37A, depending on availability, and that these may or may not be able to make a nonstop cross-country flight depending on conditions. He confirms that Pelosi has used the C-32 once and only once, when no other planes were available. Update, March 23: The Web site Judicial Watch has made public e-mails to and from the Department of Defense regarding Pelosi’s travel requests. The conservative organization claims the e-mails show that Pelosi has made “unreasonable requests for military travel.” These e-mails, however, back up what we were told by Pelosi’s staff and by the Air Force, i.e., that Pelosi did not usually travel on the C-32 and that any family members or other members of Congress she brought with her on flights to her home district were asked to reimburse the cost of a coach ticket. The messages are about smaller planes, not the 757-size jet. Also, most of the e-mails are not about shuttles to and from Pelosi’s home district at all, but are about congressional delegations to other states and countries. Pelosi’s office oversees transportation for these trips for all members of the House, not just the speaker. For a little more detail on the Judicial Watch-released e-mails, see our post on the FactCheck Wire, "Plane False."
    1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. He is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!" e is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!"
    1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018.  @zachhersh8791  climate "initiatives" DO NOT restrict ANYTHING. What coal company is selling LESS? What Oil company is selling LESS? What dirty polluting fracking Gas company is selling LESS? NONE. We are fighting like rats over a supply that is and will continue to diminish. Change, switch, geo-thermal alone will power the world. (Their various lobbyists are certainly influencing our elected politicians telling them something different, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM) For sure, long term, as, if, we switch to non-carbon releasing energy sources these former equivalent buggy-whip companies will sell LESS, those workers will switch (actually mostly retire, because this is a SLOW transition) to the new green companies. Intercourse the CEOs and their MEGA-TON historic profits. Yes, China, India, Russia for sure are nasty huge polluters and release disordinate amounts of carbon per their respective GDPs. It is our President's JOB to talk to these nations. Per our Constitution, the executive state branch, and then confirmed by the Senate, negotiates with foreign powers. I keep repeating it, but for some lobbyist induced or MAGA conspiracy thinking I suspect denying it, all it would take would be ONE conversation from our President to each of those respective leaders. The bet? "Total Embargo" unless they take measurable action and clean up. And then the conversation becomes "Are we bluffing?" Joeseph Biden does not bluff. But he is a realistic politician and knows he has no support with this path domestically.
    1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. He is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!" e is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!"
    1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. THE Planet will decide for us. One path we live, the other path we might DIE. Duh. He is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!" e is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!"
    1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. He is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!" e is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!"
    1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339.  @mvs9122  You believe but don't do anything to help? OK, got it wrong, you believe in clean water and air but not that we can change the outcome of a planet? Yes that does seem to be too much. "inadequate scientific support?" WRONG. There is plenty, you just aren't going to find it on Fox "News" or by dissing a little girl either. "made many dire prediction that haven't happened." WRONG, haven't happened yet, and many have. The message you hear "the sky is falling" comes almost universally from the "News" forums of the DENIERS. "They said Manhattan would be under water by next year!" NO THEY DID NOT. Climate Science says it is possible around a bell curve of probability, something IMPOSSIBLE to explain to the sound bites of the deniers. "Their solutions are over the top and very expensive" YES, YES they are, but we need to grow up on this point. It took 400 years of pumping carbon from under the ground and releasing it above the ground to get to this point, and it will take just as long and cost just as much to reverse it. It is childish and it is to bury your head in the sand of ignorance to think otherwise. It is also short-sighted to think that we can't make MONEY doing this. Supplying ENERGY to the world is very profitable, just go ask the Oil & Gas Lobby. "frankly impossible to implement" WRONG. You, obviously from your comment, are not an engineer. The PHYSICS and the ENGINEERING are known and are done. We just have to build it. 200 helium bed atomic reactors on our coastlines cracking seawater into hydrogen and fully feeding the grid will do nicely. JUST BUILD IT. "without adequate evidence that it would actually work" To repeat, he PHYSICS and the ENGINEERING are known and are done. "asking humanity to serverly disrupt their lives" No no we are NOT. It is a TRANSITION to alternate means of energy production NOT a STOP on everything civilization has to offer and go live in caves. A TRANSITION. (the ones who will be "disrupted" are the Oil & Gas & Coal companies, those makers of turn-of-the-century equivalent to the Buggy-Whip) You criticize because you don't like her and haven't the depth of maturity to recognize her guts and sincerity in what she is telling the adults, the adults who have messed up this planet (or, you really think it is NOT one big polluted hairball perhaps??) God Bless Greta for her guts to speak to the coward "adults" and their conspiracy do-nothing finger-pointing, cooking and killing this planet that we ALL live on.
    1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. He is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!" e is using "his constituents" as political cannon fodder, and they're loving it. Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to "save coal?" YOU ever work in a coal mine? "hello Mr. coal miner, I heard you lost your job due to the US switch to green energy" "yes, that's right!" "how much you make a year?" "eighty-thousand" "how much longer you expect to work?" "oh, until I'm broken down another 20 years 'till I'm 60" "do you know what two times eight is?" "uhhh..yes, it's 16" "here's a check from the US green energy program, in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, you OK now?" "isn't that a lot?" "to you for you yes it is a lot, you OK now?" "but I guess for the green energy program it's called a 'minor line item'" "you OK now?" "yes, thank you!"
    1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488.  @jackpeters9048  It's so easy for the thought process to point to something that ain't there. Removes all doubt, "elites" "agenda" I am ALL done with any thinking, the "elites" control and nothing can be done. Climate change? Nope, "it's just the 'elites' controlling our lives" HORSESHIT. People are just not that smart. And you are very obviously mistaking climate with the change of your weather outside your door. ONE DEGREE is a BIG DEAL, it ain't the difference between 79 and 80° when you walk out onto your patio with a frosty beer (oooooh that's cold!) and burn your feet because the deck is too hot ("ooocchhh! shit!!!). that is NOT what average global temperature rise refers to, human perception of "hot" and "cold" is WRONG and does NOT enter into it. ANY short term projections or averages are almost statistically meaningless and you did NOT get them from ANY "respected scientists" without the caveat of "we need much more time in order for this to be seen if true" Thus the models based upon DATA. The co2 cycle periodicity is 100,000 years, MUCH longer than our short live-in-the-now-all-we-pay-attention-to-is-our-collective-dicks thought processes. (and if you believe the population bomb is over then I got a bridge to sell you across the east river) NO ONE is saying to immediately STOP petroleum, it is a TRANSITION that must START now if we have any hope and wish to slow this titanic heading towards the co2 iceberg. So you don't believe any of it? You're done, back to your beer. The effects are about a 1,000 years away, so who cares? Party On Dude! God Bless Greta for her GUTS to speak out to the insanity of the ADULT world that got us into this mess.
    1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1