The issue is not with the scientific accuracy of the position, but the fact that it is not a position that was taken by Judge Kavenaugh. He was quoting the position of the litigants (Priests for Life, IIRC) in the case. Attributing the position to him is what makes AOC's tweet stupid.
Nothing delivers the BTUs that coal, natural gas, and oil do. If there were, there would be big industries around their development.
Sugar Gliders were for sale in the back of comic books back in the 1950's and '60's. Those and Spider Monkeys. I'm not kidding. They were $10 or $20 dollars. That was a lot back then, at least to most of those buying the comics. How times change.
Yup. The idea that companies are suppressing budding industries is ridiculous. In the last couple decades, there are countless examples of new industries that have pulverized stale and r****ded business models. Energy is no different.
Has its own issues, as I would guess that you are aware. Also: people should realize that there is difference between transportation energy/fuel, and power/electric energy. Transportation relies heavily on fossil fuels, and will for the foreseeable future. Electric energy/power also relies on fossil fuels, but is not quite as dependent. Still, coal and nat gas account for a lot of electricity. Nuclear could and should play a large(r) role in that. But there's not too many forms of energy consumption that are not without environmental implications and externalities.
by "climate change is real" does she mean this in the trivially true but accurate "climate change is natural and has always changed" sense? or in the moronic stupid AOC anecdotal tweet sense "I see lots of storms" therefore "anthropogenic climate change is real, is our fault, and Trump is killing us with his hurricanes and his pulling-out-of-the-Paris-accord decision" sense? it makes a difference
Yes, we know climate change is real. Did she just discover this or is she just trolling? Or is she incapable of expanding on a basic knowledge? Shes going to make a terrible politician.
No one with a remote interest in the subject would group them all together, but the fact is big oil campaigned heavily against meltdown proof plants and nuclear safety technology in the 70s. Bill gates has led the investment in terra power and other options to make use of nuclear waste. I would take fossil fuels completely off the roads by 2030 and save it for aviation because the atmospheric effects, and ecosystems in return, are catastrophic. Who cares about baseline practicality if our kids arent here to enjoy it... and I dont say this as a tree hugging liberal, but a realist. More r&d into alternate sources will also find units you can use to power and repower cars ... it's not just electric.
Does "we" include the Republicans who continue to deny it and sabotage environmental laws and science? Hmm.
There have been one or two stupid/irresponsible tweets total in this thread........ there just really seems to be some stretching going on.
Since we are talking about climate change... let me remind people that there is still a large difference of opinion. SO to think that a politician saying "climate change is real" and getting stuck on exactly those words is a bit more reflective of your failure to understand the landscape of where people are at with climate change. I thought Trump people suppose to understand the meaning behind words? I kid. https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx
Let me remind you... people are stupid. People have agenda's. A huge number of people are employed by the fossil fuel industry. The Kardashians are America's favorite show and most well paid celebrity. Polls like this don't mean anything regarding the facts, shame on you.
