jeffmori7

About the post factual era: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-plan-to-defend-against-the-war-on-science/

Donald Trump and his completely irresponsible position on climate change: http://responsiblescientists.org/ http://sciencedebate.org/20answers

https://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd Thanks for the link, very interesting.

I will follow the candidates' position on science in this election: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/donald-trump-s-lack-of-respect-for-science-is-alarming/

Stop looking at anectodal events, the big picture is different: https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low Environment and education are the priorities, if you don't have them, you don't have anything. Well, there are many factors contributing to this result. Just because the homicide rate is lower does not mean Obama should release the drug dealers so they can kill more. The logic is like, well the overall homicide rate is much lower now, so it is ok to release a few drug dealers to kill people. That does not sound logical to me. On the other hand, tax payers spend money to help these guys find jobs. Then there is the not enough resource for education for normal people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate Maybe there will be errors, but incarceration is really high in the US vs the rest of the world. You should at least ask yourself sometimes why the US are so strange from many point point of view even being a rich and educated country. Trump will probably fix all of this, with his really great expertise in all field.

Stop looking at anectodal events, the big picture is different: https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low Environment and education are the priorities, if you don't have them, you don't have anything.

I can't think of any, but is that your justification for disliking fossil fuels in general? The guy sounds like a real jerk, but if someone kicks me with a shoe I don't generalize that shoes are bad. If someone dumps a can of Coke on my head I don't decry the evils of Coke. This isn't just a historical question, I'm saying that fossil fuels are a massive net benefit right now and for the foreseeable future. There's often this claim put forth that we have "the solution", which I take to mean that we have other sources of energy which provide the same benefits of fossil fuels without the negatives. If that's really true, and you know the solution, then you are going to be a very wealthy man because you have the better mouse trap. The reality is that such solutions are not practicable, hence the campaign for government involvement. Why does one need to force a supposedly superior product on people? The folks who say we have the solutions should stop flapping their gums and build it. Because the solutions are multiple, a cocktail of initiatives with their own pros and cons and a large part involve changing our habit derived from having too much fossil fuels. And because guys like you like energy sources that cause climate change, atmospheric pollution, that contribute to the Middle East eternal problems, that cost a lot in healthcare, that generate car dependency and all the problems that come with it, that destroy locally the environnement where they are extracted. Maybe we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time, but I don't get why we wouldn't want to at least try to replace most of it the faster we can. I don't think you get the overwhelming cost of the inaction associated with the non-linearity of climate change... Your framework for thinking about the issue is backwards, imo. Why is there a maniacal focus on just the negatives of fossil fuels? It's so odd. What does it mean to say that fossil fuels generate "car dependency"? Fossil fuels allow people an unparalleled freedom of movement that they can't get elsewhere and this is a bad thing? You can see that there is an irrational push towards misrepresenting the overall context (positives and negatives) of fossil fuels. This is not the same framework you'd apply (I assume) to the evaluation of vaccines. Vaccines might cause fever, shivering, headache, joint pain etc. Would you advocate for stopping the use of vaccines? Do vaccines generate "doctor dependency"? If someone was in favor of vaccines, would you call them a vaccine side effect denier? The benefits of energy are simply enormous. Energy is a fundamental value. It's the ability to do work, and the more work we can do with machines the more we can improve our life and environment. This is why industrialized countries with high amounts of fossil fuels use have the best human environments in the history of the world. Fossil fuels are a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get, it's really that simple. If someone invents a new energy source with less downside (nuclear in some contexts), the more power to them (hah)! If someone invents a new vaccine without the downsides, that's great! But does it really make sense to organize a movement around moving away from vaccines as if they are bad for us? About vaccines and Trump..it tells you about the guy: http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/heres-a-list-of-all-the-science-that-donald-trump-denies/

Oh, and did I mention acidification of the oceans and everything else it implies Don Fanucci? OK, I'l really leave there now.

I can't think of any, but is that your justification for disliking fossil fuels in general? The guy sounds like a real jerk, but if someone kicks me with a shoe I don't generalize that shoes are bad. If someone dumps a can of Coke on my head I don't decry the evils of Coke. This isn't just a historical question, I'm saying that fossil fuels are a massive net benefit right now and for the foreseeable future. There's often this claim put forth that we have "the solution", which I take to mean that we have other sources of energy which provide the same benefits of fossil fuels without the negatives. If that's really true, and you know the solution, then you are going to be a very wealthy man because you have the better mouse trap. The reality is that such solutions are not practicable, hence the campaign for government involvement. Why does one need to force a supposedly superior product on people? The folks who say we have the solutions should stop flapping their gums and build it. Because the solutions are multiple, a cocktail of initiatives with their own pros and cons and a large part involve changing our habit derived from having too much fossil fuels. And because guys like you like energy sources that cause climate change, atmospheric pollution, that contribute to the Middle East eternal problems, that cost a lot in healthcare, that generate car dependency and all the problems that come with it, that destroy locally the environnement where they are extracted. Maybe we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time, but I don't get why we wouldn't want to at least try to replace most of it the faster we can. I don't think you get the overwhelming cost of the inaction associated with the non-linearity of climate change... Your framework for thinking about the issue is backwards, imo. Why is there a maniacal focus on just the negatives of fossil fuels? It's so odd. What does it mean to say that fossil fuels generate "car dependency"? Fossil fuels allow people an unparalleled freedom of movement that they can't get elsewhere and this is a bad thing? You can see that there is an irrational push towards misrepresenting the overall context (positives and negatives) of fossil fuels. This is not the same framework you'd apply (I assume) to the evaluation of vaccines. Vaccines might cause fever, shivering, headache, joint pain etc. Would you advocate for stopping the use of vaccines? Do vaccines generate "doctor dependency"? If someone was in favor of vaccines, would you call them a vaccine side effect denier? The benefits of energy are simply enormous. Energy is a fundamental value. It's the ability to do work, and the more work we can do with machines the more we can improve our life and environment. This is why industrialized countries with high amounts of fossil fuels use have the best human environments in the history of the world. Fossil fuels are a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get, it's really that simple. If someone invents a new energy source with less downside (nuclear in some contexts), the more power to them (hah)! If someone invents a new vaccine without the downsides, that's great! But does it really make sense to organize a movement around moving away from vaccines as if they are bad for us? I'll leave it there, but the downsides of vaccines doesn't compare at all with the benefits, and the downside of oil and gas are largely increasing. I know you won't change your idea and I won't change mine, so this discussion will go nowhere from now on. Maybe you will deserve your Trump after all!

I can't think of any, but is that your justification for disliking fossil fuels in general? The guy sounds like a real jerk, but if someone kicks me with a shoe I don't generalize that shoes are bad. If someone dumps a can of Coke on my head I don't decry the evils of Coke. This isn't just a historical question, I'm saying that fossil fuels are a massive net benefit right now and for the foreseeable future. There's often this claim put forth that we have "the solution", which I take to mean that we have other sources of energy which provide the same benefits of fossil fuels without the negatives. If that's really true, and you know the solution, then you are going to be a very wealthy man because you have the better mouse trap. The reality is that such solutions are not practicable, hence the campaign for government involvement. Why does one need to force a supposedly superior product on people? The folks who say we have the solutions should stop flapping their gums and build it. Because the solutions are multiple, a cocktail of initiatives with their own pros and cons and a large part involve changing our habit derived from having too much fossil fuels. And because guys like you like energy sources that cause climate change, atmospheric pollution, that contribute to the Middle East eternal problems, that cost a lot in healthcare, that generate car dependency and all the problems that come with it, that destroy locally the environnement where they are extracted. Maybe we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time, but I don't get why we wouldn't want to at least try to replace most of it the faster we can. I don't think you get the overwhelming cost of the inaction associated with the non-linearity of climate change...

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables. While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change. It has absolutely nothing to do with left or right! Just some reading Don Fanucci: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ What surprises me is the kind of opposition to clean energy from certain quarters. I can understand oil or coal companies cause it's their living. But what about the rest? Even leaving aside whether climate change is real or not. (I believe in science so I think it's real) Does anyone actually believe that the stuff that comes out from the coal plants' smoke stacks or the stuff that comes out of exhaust pipes is good for you? To me it seems that getting rid of pollution is reason enough to switch to clean energy. You would think any sane person would be supportive of clean energy. The only thing I can conclude is these people are insane, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal I was "attacked" once riding my bike back from work by one of these coal rollers. A blast of black soot in my face and I almost fell off my bike. Haha, just because someone disagrees with you and you don't understand why doesn't make them insane. If you look at fossil fuels in the big picture, both the positives and negatives, and evaluate them against a standard of human flourishing, they are overwhelmingly a good thing that everyone should be using more of. There's more to fossil fuels than pollution, and an honest evaluation of them requires carefully looking at the negatives AND positives. This is actually a point Munger made regarding Coke at the BRK annual meeting this year. "We ought to have a law ... where these people shouldn't be allowed to cite the defects without citing the advantage. It's immature and stupid." It is not because fossil fuels has been good overall that we need to pursue with it forever, now knowing of its pros and cons and now that we have alternative solution. A good read on petrol, from the historic benefits to the dead end, read from p.12: https://fr.scribd.com/document/247135040/GMO-QtlyLetter-3Q14-Full

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables. While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change. It has absolutely nothing to do with left or right! Just some reading Don Fanucci: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables. While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change. It has absolutely nothing to do with left or right!

As a Quebecois, I must admit I find unbelievable that trump even stand a chance of being elected president. And I find scary that as many as 40% could vote for him. It tells a lot about the level of education in the country...really, democracy is the lesser evil, but you have as good a democracy as the level of education in a country... And from a personal point of view, as a scientist, I can't even understand why the GOP is so entrenched on its stand about climate change and science in general, that's is really really sad.

Haha! Yep, just for the message about fear and division, Trump deserve to be rejected with force.

I understand what you say. The difficulty is that it is a non-linear phenomena and it is not easy to predict if the cost to solve this are going down faster than the increasing cost we will occur by delaying to solve the problems.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg Doing what you suggest has real costs. Huge costs. What if massive changes where made in 1970 to reduce world population and curb fossil fuel use. We wouldn't have saved ourselves from anything but imagined demons, but we would all be significantly poorer today. Would we? I honestly can't say!

As I have said before, why sould we take the risk to see what happens? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2085413-half-a-degree-extra-warming-would-lead-to-catastrophic-impacts/#.VxjmNL4GRBU.twitter What I am doing is trying to reduce my carbon footprint and showing the path to the people I know. And I am a big fan of science and technology, but let's not put our head under the sand by thinking that technology will solve everything miraculously. Carbon will continue to increase in the atmosphere for decade even if we reduce our emissions, and the time response of the whole system will lead to huge change even after we have stopped emitting so much carbon into the atmosphere and the ocean. We have to change our behavior, and the sooner the better, and if we act rapidly, technology will possibly help us.

Apparently, used Tesla Model S are becoming more expensive than their initial retail price!

Used Chevrolet Volt with lower fuel cost than a Elantra: https://www.carsforsale.com/chevrolet-volt-for-sale-C999103

I'm at 15.7% for the year, but this include a good tailwind from the canadian dollar drop. Considering I am at 80% invested in US dollar, I am about flat for the year in real performance from my stock. Winners for me were Markel, Google and Alimentation Couche-Tard. Losers were Berkshire, Sears-related and Home Capital Group. AIG, GM, BAC, Apple, etc. were mostly flat in final.

Maybe a little bit smaller than what you are looking for, but you should consider a used Chevrolet Volt. With the big depreciation compared with new ones and very low operating cost, it could be quite a good deal for you, particularly if electricity rates are cheap where you live and if you can plug at home and at your work place. I'm gonna probably buy one waiting for the Tesla Model III myself.

A post from Elon Musk from just before the launch: http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/12/21/background-tonights-launch

Yup, I watched it live, it was pretty intense to hear and see the staff at SpaceX going crazy at each step along the perfect mission. Wait but why has a nice little presentation on this, and you can watch the launch there: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/12/spacex-launch-live-webcast-and-explanation-1-21-15.html

haha, I read that one 2 years ago. One of the strangest novel I have read in recent years.