Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, May 11, 2019

Joe Biden is crafting a climate change policy he hopes will appeal to both environmentalists and the blue-collar voters who elected Donald Trump, according to two sources, carving out a middle ground approach that will likely face heavy resistance from green activists.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Not good enough. We only have 10 years left. Sounds like Biden wants to fiddle while the planet burns.

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-10 09:49 PM | Reply

If the far left is attacking him (like in another thread that just went up), he must be doing something right.

#2 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-05-11 01:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

--it could also be supportive of nuclear energy and fossil fuel options like natural gas and carbon capture technology,

Reasonable and necessary. Shouldn't be controversial, but is opposed by the Greenie Weenies. They would hate it if technological breakthroughs in carbon sequestration meant we didn't have to change our lifestyles and adopt green socialism.

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-11 08:48 AM | Reply

Maybe instead of assassinating all of the cows and pigs, we could just round them up China-style into re-education/concentration camps, and teach them how not to fart.

#4 | Posted by Spork at 2019-05-11 09:35 AM | Reply

Religion began when a man stood up in front of his people and promised them that if they lives their lives according to his rules, he would control the weather.

...that was the first green new deal.

#5 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-11 09:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Horse manure. Just listen to the weather reports nightly. More tornadoes than any time in history. Joe Biden go sit in a rocking chair and let younger, smarter folks deal with the problem head on. I don't hate Joe but I love my grandchildren and his "compromises" won't assure their future on this planet. We are in the biggest emergency humanity has ever faced and he wants to look for "middle ground." Ridiculous. And y'all climate change deniers, you are just sad Sacks, your point of view is disproven every single day that I watch the weather report.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-11 10:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They would hate it if technological breakthroughs in carbon sequestration meant we didn't have to change our lifestyles and adopt green socialism.

Nulli and his green goblins. If he didn't have convenient straw men to "win" against, he wouldn't have anything at all.

#7 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-05-11 10:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I hear that if you send a check to the right people they will agree to not burn down the rain forest and you can keep your 5000 square foot houses, SUVs and private planes. Of course those of us in lower tax brackets won't be able to afford electricity or heat our homes. So it's all good.

#8 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-05-11 10:16 AM | Reply

"I hear that if you send a check to the right people they will agree to not burn down the rain forest and you can keep your 5000 square foot houses, SUVs and private planes. Of course those of us in lower tax brackets won't be able to afford electricity or heat our homes. So it's all good."

And I hear that if we actually created an energy system that wasn't dependent on nuclear, fossilf fuels, etc. but was actually based on solar and wind, which is absolutely possible and necessary you could keep your huge house and your environment too. Those who couldn't predict aviation or even automobiles were much like Nulli today. He can't understand it so he pretends that makes it impossible because he can't understand that there are people much smarter than him who tell us we can do it. History has a long list of such naysayers, always proven wrong.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-11 10:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Should have said Visitor instead of Nulli but both are pretty much interchangeable. Luddites.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-11 10:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

-- More tornadoes than any time in history.

Haha. Last year was a record low for tornadoes and deaths caused by tornadoes.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-11 11:09 AM | Reply

He had better hurry as we only have about 11 1/2 years!

#12 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-05-11 11:13 AM | Reply

#12 | Posted by MSgt

I hope you're old.

#13 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-05-11 11:18 AM | Reply

"Haha. Last year was a record low for tornadoes and deaths caused by tornadoes."

Hasn't watched the new in the last 2 weeks.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-11 11:26 AM | Reply

--Hasn't watched the new in the last 2 weeks.

Weather isn't climate. How many times do you people need to hear this?

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-11 11:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--but both are pretty much interchangeable. Luddites.

The real luddites are people who are opposed to carbon sequestration, nuclear power, and every other technological solution that doesn't require people to give up their cars, appliances and cheap energy that improves their lives. The Green Luddites would prefer people live at 18th century standards of living.

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-11 11:35 AM | Reply

I hear that if you send a check to the right people they will agree to not burn down the rain forest and you can keep your 5000 square foot houses, SUVs and private planes.

I hear RepubliDunces pull stories directly from their rectum to "prove" a self-serving point because they have zero knowledge of what they're talking about.

#17 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-05-11 12:58 PM | Reply

"Haha. Last year was a record low for tornadoes and deaths caused by tornadoes.
#11 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-05-11 11:09 AM"

The joke is on you.
Record low was in 2014.
Incidentally, a record high was in 2011.

#18 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-05-11 01:00 PM | Reply

I know this is going to sound like crazy talk, but what if we invested in preventative measures like wind and solar AND invested in treatment style technologies like carbon sequestration?

#19 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-05-11 02:00 PM | Reply

--The joke is on you.

Nope. The joke is on you.

Tornadoes set record lows in 2018 with only 10 deaths in US
www.usatoday.com
Dec 28, 2018 - Tornadoes only killed 10 Americans in 2018, the fewest since unofficial records began in 1875 during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant.

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-11 02:03 PM | Reply

--but what if we invested in preventative measures like wind and solar AND invested in treatment style technologies like carbon sequestration?

Sounds fine if it doesn't mean mandating use of "green" technologies. Research and development is a good use of taxpayer money. Subsidies for electric cars is not.

#21 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-11 02:08 PM | Reply

So tornadoes that don't kill anyone are not tornadoes?

#22 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-05-11 02:21 PM | Reply

Re:#20

Nope. The joke is still on you.
Let me step aside to make it easier for you to move those goalposts.

While the number of tornado deaths might be a record low (NOTE: that number is strongly affected by the quality of forecast, availability of emergency services, proximity of tornadoes to people, etc.), the number of tornadoes (which is what you claimed!) is not.

#23 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-05-11 02:22 PM | Reply

Both the number of Americans killed by tornadoes and the number of violent tornadoes in the U.S. set record lows that have stood for decades.

Tornadoes only killed 10 Americans in 2018, the fewest since unofficial records began in 1875 during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant. The previous record low year for tornado deaths was 1910, when 12 people died, according to data from NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory.

www.usatoday.com

2018 was one of the least active years on record for US tornadoes; No twister rated EF4 or higher
www.accuweather.com

No point in arguing this further. The real issue is Biden's plan vs. the New Green Dream.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-11 02:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#21-

Respectfully disagree, and I think you're conflating two different things. You start by saying "Green technologies should not be mandated" and finish by saying "electric cars should not be subsidized."

I know you hate pretty much everything, or so it seems, but bear with me a second here. The challenges we're facing in regards to climate are massive enough that large scale solutions are necessary. I know you're critical of the reports that make it seem like the sky is falling, but even if the sky isn't falling, the world economy cannot both allow energy consumption to continue in its current form AND accommodate the billions of people who are moving into higher socioeconomic statuses and the increased consumption that comes along with it. Clearly mandating any sort of behavior is fraught with difficulties, even when that behavior has large-scale positive outcomes. If we can't force people to buy electric cars (as an example), then the next best thing is for the government to help assist in R&D, market and consumer incentives, etc.

#25 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-05-11 02:33 PM | Reply

Follow up - I misread your post and I see now that you acknowledged government's role in R&D. I personally think it needs to go further to find ways to encourage use of these technologies. The "free market" will continue to use destructive fossil fuels for as long as it can because 1-they're cheaper (arguably propped up by the MIC, but that's another issue) and because the technology and infrastructure is already in place. Society as a whole needs a boost to get to our next level of technological advancement if we're going to survive, and the free market alone is not going to provide it.

#26 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-05-11 02:36 PM | Reply

"AND accommodate the billions of people who are moving into higher socioeconomic statuses and the increased consumption that comes along with it"

Population growth in the 3rd world will obliterate any gains from electric cars, solar panels, wind, etc., in the industrialized West. The people of the 3rd world will not be content until they are consuming resources at Western levels, and who can blame them? They are going to use the cheapest, highest btu-content resources available to them: coal, oil and wood.

So unless one advocates some draconian program of imposing zero economic and population growth on the entire planet, one should pray that the apocalyptic global warming forecasts are greatly exaggerated.

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-11 03:03 PM | Reply

They are going to use the cheapest, highest btu-content resources available to them: coal, oil and wood.

Which is why the climate efforts should be primarily focused not on the developed countries (which are moving towards clean and sustainable energy sources on their own) but on helping the emerging countries build renewables and cleaner energy alternatives and on the large Asian economies that are pumping billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, rivers and oceans.

#28 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-11 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"More tornadoes than any time in history.

Ha.

#29 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-05-11 04:18 PM | Reply

Do as I say, not as I do, chapter 767

Superstar rapper Drake unveils a massive $185M private aircraft he converted from a 767 cargo plane. The plane has many features but may go against his warnings about climate change.

"The private jet ownership is despite his efforts to campaign against climate change in his songs. With song lyrics that include: ‘[They're] talkin' bout how the weather's changing / the ice is melting / like the world is ending,' ...

www.dailymail.co.uk

#30 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-11 05:06 PM | Reply

Re#24

No argument here.
AGAIN, you're moving the goalposts!

If you had intended to only mean tornado DEATHS and VIOLENT (EF4+) tornadoes, then you should have said that instead of what you did say. Barring that, you could acknowledge your error and then state what you had intended.

BTW, a salient point has been completely ignored: a historical record low number of tornadoes and a historical record high number of tornadoes happened only three years apart over almost 150 years of observations. That presents an interesting challenge for anyone wanting to determine what (if any) trend exists.

#31 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-05-11 05:19 PM | Reply

a historical record low number of tornadoes and a historical record high number of tornadoes happened only three years apart over almost 150 years of observations.

You can't go on 150 yrs, you can't be sure of the count pre-1954, observation, unlike rain or precipitation, is needed.

But even so you are still incorrect.
(E)F1+
www1.ncdc.noaa.gov

(E)F3+
www1.ncdc.noaa.gov

If you wanna claim more (E)F0's, the observation ratio has gone up which distorts the count.
www1.ncdc.noaa.gov

So the goal posts haven't moved, you just don't know the data, which is surprising to me because you act like you do.

#32 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-11 05:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

How does one stake a "middle ground" when we have fewer than 12 years left to exist? If we don't act now, we'll be living in a scorched wasteland within 8 years. Nobody is listening to esteemed climatologists like AOC, and we have only 5 years left. If we don't pass these favored pieces of legislation, we'll all be dead in 3 years.

#33 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-05-12 01:05 AM | Reply

"You can't go on 150 yrs, you can't be sure of the count pre-1954, observation, unlike rain or precipitation, is needed.
#32 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-05-11 05:35 PM"

Is your point is that the 150 years of observations isn't "perfect"? If so, that is hardly a revelation. There are limitations in every set of data and especially for one relying simply on human observations. The limitations of that 150 years of record was not part of the original claim nor of the subsequent discussion. Comments on the quality of the data in this discussion, even if true, would be irrelevant.

#34 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-05-12 03:09 AM | Reply

"So the goal posts haven't moved, you just don't know the data, which is surprising to me because you act like you do.
#32 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-05-11 05:35 PM"

I said the record high number of US tornadoes was three years from the record low number of US tornadoes.

Your own link links show the peak in 2011; the following link states the record low is in 2014:

"As of Dec. 29, there have been 991 tornadoes across the United States in 2018.
This is noticeably lower than the average of 1,287 and only slightly higher than the record low of 897 tornadoes, set in 2014."
www.accuweather.com

What did I say was incorrect?

As for goalpost moving:

"Haha. Last year was a record low for tornadoes and deaths caused by tornadoes.
#11 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-05-11 11:09 AM"

Any comments about how many VIOLENT tornadoes is irrelevant.
Clear now?

#35 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-05-12 04:44 AM | Reply

One important path is never mentioned in the USA, although China and England are moving forward with it. Thorium power plants produce compounds with a half life of about 30 years, an easily managed waste product, unlike uranium based power cycles. There is enough thorium being stored in Nevada to supply ALL US energy requirements for the next 200 years. The US has those stockpiles because it is a byproduct of uranium mining. But from the Pentagon's perspective Thorium in unacceptable because uranium power plants are vital to maintaining our weapons grade bombs. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 created the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) which morphed into the Department of Energy (DOE). President Truman appointed David Lilienthal as the first Chairman of the AEC. Congress gave the new civilian AEC extraordinary power and considerable independence to carry out its mission. But because Lilienthal advocated development of Thorium Power, the Pentagon soon got rid of him.

Thorium is three to four times as abundant as uranium and potentially less expensive to process. A few grams of thorium could also produce enough energy to power an average American's life for a decade. The element could do this without generating material useful for making weapons, which sidesteps concerns about nuclear proliferation.

www.thoriumenergyworld.com

#36 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-05-12 03:31 PM | Reply

global warming is real. who keeps changing it to climate change ?

when will we force the indians and chinese solve their self created global problems?

#37 | Posted by mutant at 2019-05-12 10:24 PM | Reply

feeling guilty you american emotional weaklings? good , now pay your debts to jewpiter...you owe 190 trizillion dollars and its climbing by the microsecond.

#38 | Posted by mutant at 2019-05-12 10:27 PM | Reply

either climate change is real or not, if it is real like about 90 some percent of the scientists who investigated say it is then we must take real and meaning steps to stop it, and not play like we are doing something about climate change such as Biden proposed to offer

#39 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2019-05-12 11:57 PM | Reply

global warming is real. who keeps changing it to climate change ?

This is one of the clever idiot's "gotcha" moments.

They don't realize these terms have specific technical meanings and both have been around four decades.

They evidently don't even know what the last two letters in IPCC stands for.

Now it's time for Nullidiot to invalidate decades of climate research because someone rode a plane instead of traveling by camel.

#40 | Posted by zarnon at 2019-05-13 09:05 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort