Bahahaha. Why don’t you ask Iran? You really are clueless aren’t you?

Instead of a bunch of SUITS. Design some CARS that don't fall apart if you brush up against one. Design some cars for people that don't want or need an oversized SUV or pickup truck that is the size of a flipping tank!

You wrote; "Show evidence." And I gave that to you. Now you are complaining I didn't give you all the evidence that you never asked for.

I wrote " It seems pretty clear they did not BUILD their own power plant." No one is complaining that these data centers did not plan to USE electricity. That is either dishonest or idiotic.

The Iran situation has nothing to do with MAD. A key component of MAD is "mutually assured" part. When MAD was the strategy between the USSR and the US, both sides collectively had tens of thousands of warheads. At best, Iran might have the ability to produce a few nukes if they had the uranium.

The part you missed or trying to deflect is the part where Iran DOES NOT have nukes at the moment as it is not clear if they have the required enriched uranium and capability.

"Here's a thought experiment: Will you go to any lengths to excuse Trump of things we know he did?" Still going to any lengths to defend Trump.

Bahahahahah. I wrote about no bid contracts. You tried to pivot to how every past President was also bad. Then you tried to speak abou WMDs. Still nothing about no bid contracts.

You: I DEMAND answers to everything while I am not going to address any of your points by trying to change the subject. Buddy, no one owes you anything..

You know we can scroll up, right? You wrote: "I find it absolutely hilarious when so many piss-poor plebeians like you say that others are morons." Leaving out that part where you took offense is dishonest nd you know it. Now, you are trying to lie about wrote you wrote.

How would you know? You don't do you? That is just your attempt to insult me for calling you out by insinuating English is not my native language. But to my point you have yet to actually address a single point of his.

And no one talked about WMDs either. How about you trying to continuously change the subject?

Not sure what you are talking about I would guess it has nothing do with the topic on hand. Every post of yours is just another example of you trying excuse everything Trump does that was predicted.

It doesn't take a genius to realize if Micron makes lots of HBM instead of DDR5 in the next year and the HBM demand suddenly disappears, Micron is stuck with lots of product that will not sell at the same time not having product like DDR5 that would have sold.

His insults were towards Micron, not you. But you took offense at that and instead of addressing any of his points, you started insulting him.

They sued both over the same issue.

Apple won, Google lost, in spite of the fact that Google had the more open ecosystem and the better case.

Indeed. We should also, however, recognize that emissions reductions can never get us to net-negative CO2 and that is where we need to get. We should be investing heavily in research into carbon capture and sequestration, because it is the ultimate long-term solution to greenhouse gas emissions, the thing that will allow us to actually reverse global warming.

In the meantime, as you say, we should start by looking at the CO2 emissions sources that allow us to most quickly and cheaply reduce our emissions. The easiest area is electricity production... made even easier by the fact that wind and solar are the cheapest technologies we have for producing electricity, in many cases even when the cost of battery storage is included. And of course as we convert electricity production to non-emitting sources, we should electrify as much as we can the other areas where we burn fossil fuels.

But we also need to be investing in carbon recapture, because some things are going to be hard to convert and, as I pointed out, only recapture can get us to net-negative. We should also be researching geoengineering techniques, such as methods of reducing insolation. Geoengineering isn't a solution (e.g. reducing insolation does nothing to fix ocean acidification), but it may be a necessary short-term measure, and we should be prepared, having already done what we can to understand it in case we need it, and before we need it.

Carbon reduction is good, but it's insufficient and I worry that we're not putting enough into other approaches. A large part of the reason is that people are afraid that attention on anything other than carbon reduction will harm the emissions reduction efforts. That's not a ridiculous concern, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scale and scope of the problem.

[sarcasm]Yes because these days we have tubes to take people everywhere where cars are not.[/sarcasm]

And no one said every past president was an angel. No one. It is just more denialism to excuse everything he’s done.

Classic whataboutism. When I mention no bid contracts you start talking about past loans. Those are not the same. It is simple deflection.

Yeah, and the Sahara desert use to have lakes and streams. Climate changes! Blaming it on man is just another way to control people by government. 25-50-100 years of data is NOTHING compared to the age of the planet. If "climate change" was such a big deal, then why haven't the "millionaires & billionaires" moved AWAY from the coasts and continue to move there and build huge homes? I thought they were suppose to be the smartest ones on the planet?

Unlike the people that don't want their farmland gobbled up by solar panels or having wind farms that make a lot of noise?