Maybe but I don’t think fossil evidence has enough information to confirm something isn’t from the main branch of the tree of life.

That’s an ugly-ass human bard.

Because the fed chose to solve inflation by putting downward pressure on wages. This was the only way it could ever happen.

Unless we actually tried to fix the problem in other ways than rate hikes. But since the federal government is completely dysfunctional, the only thing they could agree on was doing nothing and leaving the job to the Fed’s hammer. And we were the nails.

No, since everything we know about the LUCA is from its descendants. Microorganisms without descendants wouldn’t leave behind any evidence of their existence.

Exactly, that’s the problem. Hence my criticism!

Interesting analysis but I don’t think biodiesel is very comparable for most people. Also, very hard to account for emissions with biofuels, so I’d be curious how accurate your numbers are.

Trump people were saying the exact same thing in 2020. They were ignorant and wrong and the idea is just as ignorant and wrong today. Ignore the polls and lose the election.

But is that normalized for cost of living? Highest in the nation might still be near subsistence level in one of the highest COL states.

I mean not saying he’s the worst, but wasn’t he famously corrupt? I have a hard time getting past that one.

Pretty sure Grant is widely considered to have been a lousy president.

My wife doesn’t usually get visual auras but she becomes extremely tired and disoriented shortly before the pain starts. Is this caused by the same mechanism?

-Trump supporter, late 2020

I may have stated it slightly too strongly but this is wild speculation on Hansen’s part. Show me a published prediction.

Even if what he said was accurate, burning that much fossil energy is almost certainly impossible.

But we do know because thousands of hardworking scientists have devoted their lives to answering this question.

If you want to have fun speculating wildly then be clear that this is what you’re doing and don’t frame it as things that “will” happen.

Sorry this is a pet peeve of mine because I think it feeds into a paralyzing pessimism. People need to understand that we aren’t doomed to feel like they can work for a better future.

There is absolutely, unequivocally, no evidence that this will happen and no serious scientific prediction that this will happen from climate change has ever been made.

The science illiteracy here is getting almost as bad as the right wingers.

Both true honestly.

While Reddit is definitely majority democrats I don’t buy 99%. There are plenty of conservatives on there. Must be something with how this program unfolded or who donates.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-023-30999-3

It does depend somewhat on the specifics but for the vast majority of cases EVs are just better.

They’re still bad mind you, it’s just that ICE vehicles are so much worse.

Edit: This one might be a bit more directly applicable: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-21-misleading-myths-about-electric-vehicles/

There around 1000 life cycle cost analyses that disprove this idea by now. It takes only a few years of driving electric to pay off the carbon debt from manufacturing, assuming average driving behavior.

Of course, this is complicated because we should be dramatically reducing driving. But for most people it does not make sense to keep a gas car as a daily driver.

Damn that seems like a core feature. Not sure I’ll use it without this.