Alan Zweibel

All those climate scientists are also card carrying members of the Illuminati?

So, Trump is right. They are evil.

Even if Hulme's critique is correct, I followed the first link to this quote from him: "The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514002821?via%3Dihub To make it clear: Hulme has a problem with Cook's methodology. Not with the fact that a consensus exists. And later studies only confirm this: And of course as time goes on and the predictions of the doubters fail to materialize, the consensus has grown stronger: Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years late We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774 Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

I don't understand how utility companies and their profits could be decimated by nuclear power for 2 reason: who's going to run them and who is going to do the financial wizardy to make them competitive in pricing. Even that source I cited quoting the authority that is building a complex of SMRs says that renewables are competitive in pricing. As for battery production not being environmentally friendly, you think uranium mining is? Do you believe that fossil fuels are environmentally friendly?

The shooting death of Charlie Kirk was supposed to be a galvanizing moment for the MAGA movement... Now, a little more than two months later, the predicted wave of new recruits to the MAGA cause has not manifested. Trump’s approval ratings have declined a couple points, hitting a new low in his second term. https://www.salon.com/2025/11/24/charlie-kirks-death-is-tearing-maga-apart/ There certainly were a lot of triumphalist predictions in the wake of Jesus 2.0's death that the liberals/progressives/socialists/communists were finished. Maybe the retaliations that followed his death might actually have alienated more Americans than they recruited? And now the jackals (other jackals?) are fighting to be the new top dog?

And, as I recall, at least 3 of the other conservative justices sounded dubious.

Read what I wrote again. I never wrote you said that. I asked you to produce evidence from climatological research that predicts Armageddon. Maybe you don't understand what Armageddon signifies in this context?

Not really a toss-up on the merits. Under the Major Questions Doctrine, an innovation by the conservatives on the supreme court, the President can't take major, novel or extraordinary actions under a law unless Congress authorized it. Of course, given the political sympathies of the majority of the court, who knows what they will decide. Still, in the hearing, most of them seemed skeptical of it.

You wanna produce some climatological research that predicts Armageddon? Until then, it's safe to assume that you've got nothing.

More nothing.

What makes it worse is that most of Venezuela's transshipped cocaine goes to Europe whereas the cocaine transhipped via Honduras is mostly bound for the USA. It's kind of remarkable that Trump, despite what he professes to believe, is willing to put the interests of the Europeans above those of his own country.

It's rare to see so much ignorance and falsehoods compressed into such a small space.

To slightly modify a saying that Brazilians use about their country: Nuclear energy is the power of the future and always will be.

And as for competitiveness. This is from the Authority that is building a complex of 4 SMRs in Canada. These organizations have a history of painting rosy pictures of costs. Despite which: "OPG will be recouping the cost of the unit(s) from customers' bills over the 60-year generating life of the units and says the projected cost of about 14.9 cents per kWh would be comparable with alternative renewable energy sources. OPG points to Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator evaluating the new nuclear project against viable non-emitting alternatives which found that replacing the project with wind, solar, and battery storage would require 5,600 to 8,900 MW of capacity at a cost of 13.5–18.4 cents per kWh compared with the 14.9 cents." https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/what-is-the-budget-for-canadas-first-smr-project And they also have a history of overstating the costs of renewables

You know who isn[t betting on SMRs? Utility companies. The continuing plummet in renewable and battery costs means that SMRs are extremely unlikely ever to be competitive. In order to promote them, some states are passing laws that make the costs of construction to be paid for by increased rates, no matter how much they run over costs. And nuclear power has a history of cost overruns.

You're taking all the fun out of gotcha. I'm pretty sure that's against the rules.

Here's a little tidbit from that article: "Some crews run the entire route themselves—from Colombia to Honduras or even Mexico" Honduras whose corrupt ex-President bribed by El Chapo to work with the cartels to transport cocaine into America is about to be sprung from prison by Trump. Or so he says.

More like a consequence of Trump fanboyism.

No less? It's amazing when those right wing troglodytes say anything negative about Trump no matter how small. As was the case in this article.

At least he didn't call the election for the Conservatives like some did.

I see you've still got nothing.

With 585 GW of capacity additions, renewables accounted for over 90% of total power expansion globally in 2024. https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2025/Mar/Record-Breaking-Annual-Growth-in-Renewable-Power-Capacity Solar cost of electricity beats lowest-cost fossil fuel – even without tax credits https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/07/01/solar-cost-of-electricity-beats-lowest-cost-fossil-fuel-even-without-tax-credits/ With Cheap Chinese Solar, Developing Countries Leapfrog U.S. on Clean Energy https://e360.yale.edu/digest/china-clean-tech-developing-countries

Splat!

Boom!

‘We Intended the Strike to Be Lethal’ Is Not a Defense "An explosive Washington Post report, the subject of so much discussion the past two days, says that, in the first missile strike the Trump Defense Department carried out against operatives of a boat suspected of transporting narcotics on the high seas off Venezuela, two survivors were rendered shipwrecked. As they clung to the wreckage, the U.S. commander ordered a second strike, which killed them. If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law. I say “at best” because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators Nevertheless, even if we stipulate arguendo that the administration has a colorable claim that our forces are in an armed conflict with non-state actors (i.e., suspected members of drug cartels that the administration has dubiously designated as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs)), the laws of war do not permit the killing of combatants who have been rendered hors de combat (out of the fighting) — including by shipwreck." https://archive.ph/5rFxA