Alan Zweibel

So you agree with me. There's more demand for LNG outside the USA which is contributing to higher gas prices in the US

You should definitely tell that to all those fools in Texas who have built and are still building huge solar and wind projects. And this despite the fact that the Texas has enacted bills that actually favor gas over renewables. You've got nothing.

Apparently, what's not so easy for some to understand, is that supply is only 1/2 of the equation. The other part is demand. What happens when America plugs into a huge market abroad?

Actually, as the failure of the new grand jury to re-indict James shows, why run when the prosecution can do nothing but fall flat on its face.

From "I can see immediately from the photo that he/she/it is a howling leftie." to "Not sure about that." So disappointing. With the kind of eyesight you claimed you had, your alleged ability would have been of such great use in the war on terror.

Great for America. Maybe not so great for Americans facing higher utility bills. Just another reason to build more solar and wind. Last time I checked the price for sunshine and wind was 0.

Any evidence that this is happening or will happen? From AI Reasons for flaring Economic infeasibility: Capturing and processing the gas may cost more than the gas is worth, particularly if drilling is in a remote location or if the volumes are small. Infrastructure limitations: There may not be pipelines or other infrastructure to move the gas to a market, or existing pipelines may be at capacity or undergoing maintenance. Safety reasons: Flaring is a safe way to release built-up pressure in equipment to prevent explosions, such as during well start-ups or during a "kick" (an uncontrolled release of formation fluids). Operational necessity: Gas may be flared during the process of getting an oil field or refinery fully operational and stable, or when there is an emergency shutdown. Lack of regulations: In some areas, weak or unenforced regulations and a lack of priority by operators allow flaring to continue, even though it wastes a valuable resource.

Sure. He's a leftie? Because anarchists believe in big government?

"The Department of Justice failed to bring an indictment against Letitia James on Thursday after a federal judge tossed the initial indictment last week, according to a DOJ source. The DOJ attempted to persuade a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia to indict James a second time, the source said, after Judge Cameron Currie found that the prosecutor who brought the first indictment, Lindsey Halligan, was serving unlawfully as interim U.S. attorney. The revelation that a grand jury did not indict James, one of President Donald Trump's top political foes, is a blow to the DOJ as it is rare that grand juries do not find enough probable cause to bring charges." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/grand-jury-declines-re-indict-letitia-james-virginia "Shortly after 9 a.m., grand jurors convened on the fourth floor of the Walter E. Hoffman courthouse, a marble-halled building in downtown Norfolk. A court security officer guarded the room where they met. Their deliberations seemed to be brief and uncomplicated, and by lunchtime, the jurors appeared to have adjourned." https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/12/04/us/trump-news#letitia-james-indict-trump

Helping to make fuel more affordable? Really? Natural Gas Rises Further to 3-Year High 2025-12-03 18:57 US natural gas futures rose to a three-year high of $4.95/MMBtu in early December, soaring 65% since the lows from mid-October amid a backdrop of soaring export demand. European countries extended their shun of Russian natural gas and confirmed the complete phase out of Russian LNG by the end of 2027. This coincided with fresh evidence that US LNG exports rose 40% annually in November to 10.7 million tonnes, even though producers continued increasing output. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas/news/507055 Trump is pushing hard to build even more LNG exporting facilities. Which will tend to keep natural gas prices higher in the USA. And to keep those prices high, he's trying to shut down Russia's LNG exports. EU to ban Russian LNG imports under pressure from Trump EU sources confirmed on Friday that the European Union intends to ban Russian LNG imports a year sooner than originally planned as part of the 19th package against Moscow. This change was reportedly prompted by President Donald Trump's pressure. When it presents its package to EU envoys on Friday, the European Commission, which is the executive branch of the bloc's 27 members, will propose to bring the ban forward until Jan. 1, 2027. In general, sanctions must be approved by the majority of EU member states. https://www.worldenergynews.com/news/ban-russian-lng-imports-under-pressure-from-765684?utm_source=chatgpt.com

He left pipe bombs at both the Republican and Democratic party offices. Only someone afflicted with Pavlovian thinking would tie him to leftists.

It's been an article of faith among the many of the irrational folks who believe that the 2020 elections were stolen that the pipe bomb caper was an inside job or a false flag operation carried out by an agent working for the Deep State. So, when that turns out not to be the case, I'm sure these conspiracy theory addicts will come to their senses and not allege that the suspect is being set up to take a fall or is conspiring with Deep State in order to put an end to right wingers allegations. I guess this belief, in a way, puts me in company with them. Because if I believe that, I'll believe anything.

I'd like to see less hypocrisy on the part of the Trump administration.

Or you could stop operating on automatic pilot and do a simple investigation: Clean Water Act dramatically cut pollution in US waterways The Clean Water Act: Protects Water Quality: Despite dramatic population growth, the number of waters meeting water quality standards has doubled since the law’s passage in 1972. Improves Sewage Treatment: The Clean Water Act has funded 35,000 wastewater projects totaling $650 billion. These grants have benefitted water quality across the country. Prevents Industrial Pollution: The law prevents 700 billion pounds of pollutants from places like refineries, sewage treatment plants and factory farms from entering our waters each year. https://www.nwf.org/Our-Work/Waters/Clean-Water-Act Major Achievements & Air Quality Improvements Dramatic drop in overall emissions. Since 1970, emissions of the six most common “criteria” pollutants (particles, ozone precursors, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide) have fallen by about 78% — even as the U.S. economy, population, energy use, and vehicle miles traveled increased. gispub.epa.gov+2Environmental Protection Agency+2 Cleaner air across multiple pollutants. From around 1990 to 2020, national concentrations dropped significantly: ~ 73% for carbon monoxide, ~ 86% for lead (vs. 2010), ~ 61% for nitrogen dioxide (annual), ~ 25% for ozone, ~ 41% for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), ~ 26% for 24-hour coarse particulate matter (PM10), and ~ 91% for sulfur dioxide. Environmental Protection Agency+2gispub.epa.gov+2 Much cleaner vehicles, engines, and fuels. Thanks to EPA emissions and fuel-quality standards, modern passenger cars, light trucks, and heavy-duty diesel engines are now up to 98–99% cleaner (tailpipe pollutants) than comparable 1960s–70s vehicles. Environmental Protection Agency+1

The Trump administration will increase vetting of applicants for H-1B visas, with a specific instruction to reject anyone who was involved in “censorship” of free speech. The instructions were outlined in a State Department cable sent to US missions abroad on Dec. 2. “BE ON THE LOOKOUT: APPLICANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR OR COMPLICIT IN CENSORSHIP OF AMERICANS,” the cable seen by Bloomberg said. https://archive.ph/yZQK1#selection-1479.0-1487.164 I guess the Trump administration wants to to keep those jobs reserved for its own members. Trump’s assault on the First Amendment In the short time that US president Donald Trump has held power, his administration has weaponised the federal government to suppress speech and punish his adversaries. In what many experts have challenged as a violation of First Amendment rights, a cornerstone of US democracy, President Trump has threatened protestors, banned news outlets from covering White House events and used executive orders to sanction law firms who he believes attacked him unfairly in the past. Subsequent court cases will test America’s most fundamental checks and balances on executive power. ‘We are seeing the gravest assault on freedom of speech at least since the McCarthy era, and I think in many respects the nation’s history,’ says Jonathan Hafetz, a professor of law at Seton Hall Law School and Membership Officer of the IBA Human Rights Law Committee. https://www.ibanet.org/Trumps-assault-on-the-First-Amendment

Texas led the way in electricity produced from wind, generating 28% of all U.S. wind power in 2024. Texas generated almost three times more wind power than the next biggest wind energy-producing state (Iowa). Wind accounted for 63% of all electricity generated in Iowa — a larger share of total in-state electricity generation than any other state. https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/solar-and-wind-2025 Not surprising, really. Everybody knows that Texas is run by woke lefties/socialists/marxists.

The thing that's keeping America safe is that they keep on fumbling.

Right. Jack Smith is so scared that he already had volunteered to testify publicly.

Given that the world is moving towards electric vehicles, I don't think that exports of US autos are going to be much of an issue.

Which is why Trump raised the price of imported steel and aluminum and greatly increased tariffs on imported automobiles. A great plan conceived in Oppositeworld.

Well, for most of its history, Christians blamed living Jews for the death of Jesus by citing this passage from the New Testatment: "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." So, there's biblical precedent for blaming people who had yet to be born.

A quarter-century after its publication, one of the most influential research articles on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate has been retracted for "several critical issues that are considered to undermine the academic integrity of this article and its conclusions." In a retraction notice dated Friday, November 28, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology announced that the study, published in April 2000 and concluding the herbicide was safe, has been removed from its archives. The disavowal comes 25 years after publication and eight years after thousands of internal Monsanto documents were made public during US court proceedings (the "Monsanto Papers"), revealing that the actual authors of the article were not the listed scientists – Gary M. Williams (New York Medical College), Robert Kroes (Ritox, Utrecht University, Netherlands), and Ian C. Munro (Intertek Cantox, Canada) – but rather Monsanto employees. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2025/12/03/influential-study-on-glyphosate-safety-retracted-25-years-after-publication_6748114_114.html The Trump administration has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Bayer's case aimed at stopping thousands of cancer lawsuits over its Roundup weedkiller. Bayer CEO Bill Anderson joined "The Claman Countdown" and said the government’s support could make the difference in the case. "This is a really important topic for farmers, for American consumers and, frankly, for food security in America," Anderson said Wednesday during an exclusive interview with Liz Claman. Trump administration backs Bayer as Roundup fight moves toward Supreme Court https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/trump-admin-backs-bayer-roundup-fight-moves-toward-supreme-court RFK, Jr. must be turning over in his grave. At least, he seems to have gone dead on food safety issues.

In other words, when it comes to actual evidence, you've got nothing,

Especially for health professionals. So much more income!

I stand corrected on the fact that CO2 PPM has never fallen below 180. Actually 172-180 So where does this daft prediction of 150 ppm come from? What scientific research is there to justify extrapolation is the case? If that's really what Moore claimed, that's just more evidence of his unreliability. I did a search on coral hobbyists and I never saw anything like that. In fact, they recommended ignoring CO2 and just concentrating on PH levels which according to them are ideal between 8.1-8.4. Ocean average PH is now 8.1 And I see you have produced no actual scientific research to support your claim. So, basically, your assertion about CO2 dropping to 150 ppm is based on a claim, not peer-reviewed research, by Patrick Moore. Here's what I got from AI about that: 1. The Source of the "2 Million Years" Claim The specific claim that life would perish from CO₂ starvation within roughly 2 million years is primarily associated with Patrick Moore (a former Greenpeace member turned industry consultant and CO₂ advocate). The Argument: Moore argues that over the last 150 million years, CO₂ has steadily declined from >2000 ppm to the recent pre-industrial low of 280 ppm (and ~180 ppm during glacial maximums). He linearly extrapolates this trend to argue that without human emissions, we would have hit the 150 ppm "line of death" for plants within roughly 1.8 to 2 million years. Scientific Standing: This specific extrapolation is not supported by standard climate models. Geological processes are rarely linear. At low CO₂ levels, natural feedback loops (like reduced weathering rates) tend to stabilize the atmosphere, preventing it from hitting zero or critically low levels as quickly as a simple straight line would predict. The short answer is no. There is no widely accepted peer-reviewed scientific consensus that atmospheric CO₂ was on a trajectory to fall below 150 ppm (the "starvation" level for C3 plants) within the next 2 million years. While it is true that atmospheric CO₂ levels have generally declined over the last 50 million years and reached historic lows during recent ice ages, the "2 million years" figure appears to come from linear extrapolations by non-consensus figures (most notably Dr. Patrick Moore) rather than rigorous climate modeling. Mainstream science places the timeline for "CO₂ starvation" much further out—typically 100 to 900 million years into the future. Here is a detailed breakdown of the science vs. the claim. 1. The Source of the "2 Million Years" Claim The specific claim that life would perish from CO₂ starvation within roughly 2 million years is primarily associated with Patrick Moore (a former Greenpeace member turned industry consultant and CO₂ advocate). The Argument: Moore argues that over the last 150 million years, CO₂ has steadily declined from >2000 ppm to the recent pre-industrial low of 280 ppm (and ~180 ppm during glacial maximums). He linearly extrapolates this trend to argue that without human emissions, we would have hit the 150 ppm "line of death" for plants within roughly 1.8 to 2 million years. Scientific Standing: This specific extrapolation is not supported by standard climate models. Geological processes are rarely linear. At low CO₂ levels, natural feedback loops (like reduced weathering rates) tend to stabilize the atmosphere, preventing it from hitting zero or critically low levels as quickly as a simple straight line would predict. 2. What Peer-Reviewed Science Actually Says There is a genuine scientific field that studies the "lifespan of the biosphere," but the timelines are vastly different. A. The "Biosphere Lifespan" Timeline (100–900 Million Years) The seminal peer-reviewed papers on this topic project that CO₂ will eventually fall to 150 ppm, but it will take hundreds of millions of years. Mechanism: As the Sun slowly gets brighter (increasing solar luminosity), Earth warms up. This speeds up silicate weathering (chemical erosion of rocks), a process that scrubs CO₂ out of the atmosphere. The Consensus: Eventually, weathering will pull CO₂ down faster than volcanoes can replace it, causing levels to drop below the threshold for photosynthesis. Lovelock & Whitfield (1982): Originally estimated ~100 million years. Caldeira & Kasting (1992): Refined the model to roughly 500–900 million years, noting that C4 plants (like corn and grasses) can survive much lower CO₂ levels (down to ~10 ppm) than C3 plants (trees, wheat). Franck et al. (2000): Confirmed similar timelines, often citing 1+ billion years for total biosphere extinction. Why it didn't go lower: There appear to be strong natural feedbacks that prevent CO₂ from dropping much below 180 ppm. When CO₂ gets that low, plants struggle, and the planet gets very cold, which naturally slows down the chemical weathering that removes CO₂. This creates a "floor" that the Earth bounces off of. The "Near Miss": While 180 ppm is uncomfortably close to the 150 ppm limit for C3 plants, there is no evidence in the paleoclimate record that the trend was breaking through this floor to hit 150 ppm in the immediate geological future. B. The "Glacial Floor" (180 ppm) We do have hard data from ice cores (like Vostok and EPICA) showing that during the depths of the last Ice Age (approx. 20,000 years ago), CO₂ fell to 180 ppm. And your claim about CO2 levels of 1000 ppm being ideal, comes from alleged parties who grow coral but not from scientific research. Here is what real research shows: Coral reef experiment shows: Acidification from carbon dioxide slows growth https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180314145016.htm In situ experiment on Great Barrier Reef tests future ocean acidification scenario https://stri.si.edu/story/cover-up And, surprise, surprise, they contradict your claim.