13 Replies to “In Conversation With Tom Friedman’s House, A Continuing Series”

  1. Man. What a colossal steaming pile of arrogant gibberish.
    Friedman isn’t the one that announce’s who is and isn’t “The best and the brightest” Nor or his pals at the NY Slimes. Tommy can pound sand.
    Trump can energize the US doing what they do best. All Power sources get moving. Hopefully, dragging the Drama Teacher Goof from Canada along with them,
    A Pox on all their houses.

  3. I look forward to meeting you at the barricades … and when I find you cowering like a frightened child … I will lead you by the hand, gently, to the woodshed where you will learn a lesson that you should have learned long ago … to stop screwing with people’s energy freedom. To stop fibbing about make-believe “carbon” causing a climate “catastrophe”.

  4. The Conversations with Friedman’s House are pretty much my favorite Kate posts. He also must be really steamed Trump’s not sucking up to the Chicoms.

  5. The Chicoms aren’t too happy Friedman’s not earning his pay (for getting people to suck up to them.)

  6. “DiCaprio met with Ivanka Trump a few days ago and presented her with a copy of the film.”
    Ivanka better check her IQ, she is allowing herself to be used by the enemies of America.

  7. “Millions of green jobs.” Sure. At places like Solyndra, no doubt. As I said yesterday, results from Spain indicate that for every green job gained, 2.2 other jobs were lost. Kinda reminds me of the saying “We lose money on every sale, but make it up on volume”. It’s a losing proposition unless you’re replacing reliable, affordable baseload power that’s near retirement with new reliable, affordable baseload power like natgas, nuclear, hydro, possibly biomass if you’re willing to cut down trees. If you’re moving to expensive, inferior, intermittent power like wind and solar then you’re probably more emotional and idealistic than rational and intelligent. In other words, you’ll hate this and ignore all other evidence of economic leakage, job losses, energy poverty and green energy failures :
    The study, which was directed by an economics professor at Juan Carlos University of Madrid, found that every green job created by the Spanish government destroyed an average of 2.2 other jobs, and that only 1 in 10 were permanent.” http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/04/07/do-green-jobs-cannibalize-other-jobs/
    If California and other states wish to pursue the green energy mirage then let them but the EPA should not force other states to be as radical or fund federal Green follies. Let 50 states be places of experimentation and see who succeeds and who fails. Remember that world wide temperature increases are running at about .12C *per decade* so any CO2 reduction will have a tiny fraction of temp benefit on that .12C per decade of projected warming. Imperceptible but at great personal and economic cost.

  8. The hypocrisy of these enviro-fanatics know no bounds, which brings to mind our own Dr Fruit Fly.
    Has anyone succeeded in finding a photo of one of FF’s humble abodes, the one overlooking the Pacific for example? With his number of home as with his number of children it is do as I say, not as I do.

  9. About that .12C per decade. For those of us living in the northern prairies whose friends and family are genuinely worried about catastrophic warming, tipping points and “temp rises are faster than at any time in a bazillion years of history and humans and nature can not adapt”, here’s a couple ways to put their mind at ease.
    1) where we live the difference between winter lows and summer highs is about 75 degrees Celsius (-35 to +35). Spring can start anywhere between mid March to mid May, fall can start at the beginning of October to late November. I seriously doubt flora, fauna and humans that cope with this are so fragile that .12 Celsius per decade will not be shrugged off, if it’s noticed at all.
    2) if they have math or science understanding then explain the difference between high resolution data and low resolution data. Today and for no more than a century we can accurately measure temperature to the hundredths of a degree. Since the satellite era (1979) we can measure temps all over the globe continuously. That’s high resolution data. In the past we rely on proxies and some written records from explorers – low resolution data. Because of this we can not say the current period of warming is unprecedented because low resolution data does not compare well with high resolution data. For example, we know that the 10yr period of maximum warming at the end the 20th century was X. We have no idea when the warmest 10yr span was in the Roman or Medeival warm periods or how much the temperature rose in any 10yr period. What was “X” temperature rate between 10-20 AD or 1000-1010 AD? It could have been more or less – there’s no accurate data. So “unprecedented” rate of warming. I have doubts.

  11. Tom’s place at Bradley Blv & Oak Forest Lane Bethesda on Google maps is much
    greener now compared to the old picture here.

  13. It could be fun talking to these twits. From the thread,
    “@tomfriedman its as if they didnt understand what i was saying..
    now they will.
    there will be a wailing and gnashing of green prty teeth”
    My immediate thought “Well it’s not like a greenie needs their canines.”

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation