This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1amysisson
Newsweek, March 28, 2019
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-military-wind-energy-fox-news-sean-hannity...
(Newsweek) During one speech last year at a fundraiser in Utica, New York, the president proclaimed “coal is indestructible” and criticized wind turbines, although he called them “windmills,” seeming to confuse the two.
He said: “You can blow up a pipeline, you can blow up the windmills. You know, the windmills {makes a shooting gun noise}. That's the end of that one. If the birds don't kill it first. The birds could kill it first. They kill so many birds. You look underneath some of those windmills, it's like a killing field, the birds. But uh, you know, that's what they were going to, they were going to windmills. And you know, don't worry about wind, when the wind doesn't blow, I said. ‘What happens when the wind doesn't blow?’ Well, then we have a problem." *
*********
(Me) So that speech was last year in Utica. One would have hoped Mr. T would have learned something by now. But just yesterday in a Fox News interview, he said:
(Newsweek) “You look at the fact that we would have been powered by wind, which wouldn’t have worked by the way because it only blows sometimes and lots of problems come about.”
*********
(Me) * Aside from the fact that he's wrong, look at the rambling! Are the birds killing the so-called windmills (they're turbines, not windmills), or are the windmills killing the birds? And since when is Donnie concerned about wildlife being harmed by our energy production? And "lots of problems come about"? Really, Donnie, tell us what they are!
I consider this additional evidence that the man is nonsensical. And I believe that it's also evidence of significant cognitive decline. I can't believe this man is running the country.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-military-wind-energy-fox-news-sean-hannity...
(Newsweek) During one speech last year at a fundraiser in Utica, New York, the president proclaimed “coal is indestructible” and criticized wind turbines, although he called them “windmills,” seeming to confuse the two.
He said: “You can blow up a pipeline, you can blow up the windmills. You know, the windmills {makes a shooting gun noise}. That's the end of that one. If the birds don't kill it first. The birds could kill it first. They kill so many birds. You look underneath some of those windmills, it's like a killing field, the birds. But uh, you know, that's what they were going to, they were going to windmills. And you know, don't worry about wind, when the wind doesn't blow, I said. ‘What happens when the wind doesn't blow?’ Well, then we have a problem." *
*********
(Me) So that speech was last year in Utica. One would have hoped Mr. T would have learned something by now. But just yesterday in a Fox News interview, he said:
(Newsweek) “You look at the fact that we would have been powered by wind, which wouldn’t have worked by the way because it only blows sometimes and lots of problems come about.”
*********
(Me) * Aside from the fact that he's wrong, look at the rambling! Are the birds killing the so-called windmills (they're turbines, not windmills), or are the windmills killing the birds? And since when is Donnie concerned about wildlife being harmed by our energy production? And "lots of problems come about"? Really, Donnie, tell us what they are!
I consider this additional evidence that the man is nonsensical. And I believe that it's also evidence of significant cognitive decline. I can't believe this man is running the country.
2amysisson
Actually, let's not leave it just at wind energy. Transcript excerpts from Mr. T's rally last night:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/politics/donald-trump-michigan-grand-rapids-campa...
These are actually good for a lot of laughs. But it's damn scary that this rambling idiot is in the White House.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/politics/donald-trump-michigan-grand-rapids-campa...
These are actually good for a lot of laughs. But it's damn scary that this rambling idiot is in the White House.
3lriley
I'm hardly an expert on wind energy but Trump certainly doesn't know a thing about the science of anything and really doesn't care. I think he looks at coal as good simply because it means winning West Virginia's electoral votes--otherwise he wouldn't care about that either. Not that West Virginia amounts to a whole lot of electoral votes but clean energy doesn't help his campaign in any way so he does his usual what's good for me transactional thing.
6theoria
The low IQ President should avoid opining about anything other than financial illegality, about which he is an undisputed expert.
7barney67
>1 amysisson: There's no such thing as "running the country". That's your first mistake. You think one person can "run" a country. There are 350 million people in America. You think it's the president's job to run our lives for us like some big daddy? He's not the captain of a ship either. If you want to know the duties and responsibilities of the president, you have to look at the Constitution. It's clear and we were all supposed to have learned it in school. Were you sick that day?
Windmills are an extremely inefficient way of generating energy. That's why you see "windmill farms". A large number of turbines is needed to generate a tiny amount of electricity. The fact that they kill birds is enough reason for me never to use them. How much energy do you think is needed to charge the wealthiest, third largest country in the world? All of them with desktops, laptops, cell phones, portable chargers, heating, cooling, refrigerators, and perhaps eventually...electric cars? Additionally, if it spins, it wears. Turbines wear out and need to be replaced often.
Why are solar panels so big? Because they are inefficient. A large surface area is needed to compensate for the fact that only 20 percent (usually more like 15) of the light that hits the surface is converted into energy. If you want to produce more energy, you needed a bigger panel. I learned this when I was twelve years old on my blue-ribbon science fair project. Even a large panel's output drops to zero when a cloud goes by.
Windmills are an extremely inefficient way of generating energy. That's why you see "windmill farms". A large number of turbines is needed to generate a tiny amount of electricity. The fact that they kill birds is enough reason for me never to use them. How much energy do you think is needed to charge the wealthiest, third largest country in the world? All of them with desktops, laptops, cell phones, portable chargers, heating, cooling, refrigerators, and perhaps eventually...electric cars? Additionally, if it spins, it wears. Turbines wear out and need to be replaced often.
Why are solar panels so big? Because they are inefficient. A large surface area is needed to compensate for the fact that only 20 percent (usually more like 15) of the light that hits the surface is converted into energy. If you want to produce more energy, you needed a bigger panel. I learned this when I was twelve years old on my blue-ribbon science fair project. Even a large panel's output drops to zero when a cloud goes by.
8barney67
>6 theoria: You know the president's IQ? What is it?
9RickHarsch
>8 barney67: Like wind turbines and solar panels, IQ is often misunderstood, a phenomenon itself that is a function of the stochasticity of IQ, which is not, you see, a set figure. I learned a lot about it in a science fair project for the local farm kids I entered on a special dispensation when I was 37, which, by the way, is the answer to your question, though should be understood as a persistence rather than a static. See Dross and Spough, Scientific American, for a content analysis computation of Trump's IQ, where it is seen to dip below the functionally human and rise as high as 53 within a single speech given shortly prior to his election.
10theoria
>9 RickHarsch: Just above the old classification of "imbecility."
12John5918
>7 barney67: A large number of turbines is needed to generate a tiny amount of electricity
A large amount of coal is needed to generate a tiny amount of energy. When you consider the infrastructure and logistics needed to maintain the supply of coal to power stations, the investment in a wind farm, even one with a lot of turbines, doesn't look so big. And, much as I love steam engines, anything that uses steam is pretty thermally inefficient, including coal-fired steam-powered turbines.
A large amount of coal is needed to generate a tiny amount of energy. When you consider the infrastructure and logistics needed to maintain the supply of coal to power stations, the investment in a wind farm, even one with a lot of turbines, doesn't look so big. And, much as I love steam engines, anything that uses steam is pretty thermally inefficient, including coal-fired steam-powered turbines.
14RickHarsch
>10 theoria: hovering thereabouts
15amysisson
>7 barney67:
Correcting me on a common phrasing shows that you feel like arguing for the sake of arguing. Yes, I realize the president is not there to "run our lives like some big daddy." But regardless of my phrasing, it is scary that this mentally incompetent man is in a position of such power, including having the means to start a nuclear war.
If wind and solar are less "efficient" than coal, that is offset by the fact that they're renewable, and do not pollute the environment in the dirtiest way possible. I also don't think that the fact that there are wind farms with more than one turbine means they are not efficient enough to be a good choice. Same goes for the size of solar panels.
Also, I notice you didn't address the fact that Dumbo said wind power doesn't work because the wind doesn't blow all the time.
Correcting me on a common phrasing shows that you feel like arguing for the sake of arguing. Yes, I realize the president is not there to "run our lives like some big daddy." But regardless of my phrasing, it is scary that this mentally incompetent man is in a position of such power, including having the means to start a nuclear war.
If wind and solar are less "efficient" than coal, that is offset by the fact that they're renewable, and do not pollute the environment in the dirtiest way possible. I also don't think that the fact that there are wind farms with more than one turbine means they are not efficient enough to be a good choice. Same goes for the size of solar panels.
Also, I notice you didn't address the fact that Dumbo said wind power doesn't work because the wind doesn't blow all the time.
16barney67
You can use solar and wind for small projects. But they will never play a large part in a country as large as America which consumes a lot of electricity. They are a drop in the ocean. But they get a lot of press, which is why you are talking about it now and I figured it when I was 12 years old. I've been to a doctor who powers his office with solar panels. I admire that, but it's a tiny office.
Many people think the president "runs the country". I'm glad you don't believe it. Every election is like we're choosing a Savior. That's obvious. When the president turns out to be imperfect, there's a lot of complaining, which plays well on TV and raises ratings and ad dollars.
Obviously he is mentally competent. He became a successful businessman and president and you didn't, nor did the people you admire. That takes brains. It's worth coming to terms with that, but I'm not holding my breath.
People always call Republican names. Remember these: Goldwater was crazy because he was going to drop the atom bomb. Reagan was stupid because he was an actor, old, and whatever else you want to put here. George HW Bush was a wimp. George W. Bush was stupid. The press usually gets back to stupid or crazy or both. Recent decades have seen wild growth in the accusations of racist and sexist. So this is what passes for debate. This is how people think about their representatives. Lincoln was called a gorilla. He would never be elected today.
I did not for Trump. I've never called any president Dumbo. I find that offensive and moronic. One thing this book site cured me of was the false notion that people who read are smart.
Many people think the president "runs the country". I'm glad you don't believe it. Every election is like we're choosing a Savior. That's obvious. When the president turns out to be imperfect, there's a lot of complaining, which plays well on TV and raises ratings and ad dollars.
Obviously he is mentally competent. He became a successful businessman and president and you didn't, nor did the people you admire. That takes brains. It's worth coming to terms with that, but I'm not holding my breath.
People always call Republican names. Remember these: Goldwater was crazy because he was going to drop the atom bomb. Reagan was stupid because he was an actor, old, and whatever else you want to put here. George HW Bush was a wimp. George W. Bush was stupid. The press usually gets back to stupid or crazy or both. Recent decades have seen wild growth in the accusations of racist and sexist. So this is what passes for debate. This is how people think about their representatives. Lincoln was called a gorilla. He would never be elected today.
I did not for Trump. I've never called any president Dumbo. I find that offensive and moronic. One thing this book site cured me of was the false notion that people who read are smart.
17prosfilaes
>16 barney67: But they will never play a large part in a country as large as America which consumes a lot of electricity.
Larger (in area) nations get more sunshine and wind. The United States has one of the lowest population densities of any country in the world, and even piece by piece, New Jersey is the only state with a higher population density than India(!?!), and only nine states have a higher population density than China, with even Pennsylvania having fewer people per square mile.
He became a successful businessman and president and you didn't, nor did the people you admire. That takes brains.
Would you like to prove that? Becoming a successful businessman and president depends more on personality and connections than brains. Not only that, most people could become successful at business if they were given millions of dollars with repeated cash infusions and had no ethics about not screwing over their business partners.
People always call Republican names.
People always called politicians names. I seem to recall a certain businessman who accused Obama of not being American.
One thing this book site cured me of was the false notion that people who read are smart.
Some people, even ones who read, start to get senile in their old age.
Larger (in area) nations get more sunshine and wind. The United States has one of the lowest population densities of any country in the world, and even piece by piece, New Jersey is the only state with a higher population density than India(!?!), and only nine states have a higher population density than China, with even Pennsylvania having fewer people per square mile.
He became a successful businessman and president and you didn't, nor did the people you admire. That takes brains.
Would you like to prove that? Becoming a successful businessman and president depends more on personality and connections than brains. Not only that, most people could become successful at business if they were given millions of dollars with repeated cash infusions and had no ethics about not screwing over their business partners.
People always call Republican names.
People always called politicians names. I seem to recall a certain businessman who accused Obama of not being American.
One thing this book site cured me of was the false notion that people who read are smart.
Some people, even ones who read, start to get senile in their old age.
18barney67
>17 prosfilaes: You don't know anything about business. Economics is mostly math. I know someone who worked in a stock exchange. He then became involved in deciding executive pay. He talked to me about sitting in a room surrounded by guys with genius IQs. Obviously not all businessmen are geniuses. But the successful ones are bright. That strikes me as so obvious as to be beyond debate. I wouldn't call any American president stupid.
People who are quick with name calling don't know how to think. Hence the name calling. It's fine to disagree with someone. But falling back on stupid is hardly an argument. Perhaps you think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. It's a common belief. The people who are really stupid are the ones who don't learn or change their minds. The ones who are not living with their five senses. They have become senseless and abstracted. They rely on others to do their thinking for them. They rely on TV or newspapers or web sites to tell them what to think, then they repeat the same old wrong arguments. These people think NPR, Stephen Colbert, and Noam Chomsky are profound.
Very few people in today's world know how to think, and they don't realize it because they don't know what thinking is. They have never experienced it. Communicating with them is impossible, often literally impossible. If there is a division in America today, it's not black or white, it's between thinkers and non-thinkers. The non-thinkers drift toward Democrats who try to make the government everyone's big daddy caretaker, everyone's nanny, reliving the populace of the burden of thinking. Democrats used to believe in self-reliance and independence. Not anymore.
People who are quick with name calling don't know how to think. Hence the name calling. It's fine to disagree with someone. But falling back on stupid is hardly an argument. Perhaps you think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. It's a common belief. The people who are really stupid are the ones who don't learn or change their minds. The ones who are not living with their five senses. They have become senseless and abstracted. They rely on others to do their thinking for them. They rely on TV or newspapers or web sites to tell them what to think, then they repeat the same old wrong arguments. These people think NPR, Stephen Colbert, and Noam Chomsky are profound.
Very few people in today's world know how to think, and they don't realize it because they don't know what thinking is. They have never experienced it. Communicating with them is impossible, often literally impossible. If there is a division in America today, it's not black or white, it's between thinkers and non-thinkers. The non-thinkers drift toward Democrats who try to make the government everyone's big daddy caretaker, everyone's nanny, reliving the populace of the burden of thinking. Democrats used to believe in self-reliance and independence. Not anymore.
19amysisson
>16 barney67:
We don't have to agree whether Trump's business success (minus a few bankruptcies, of course) proves that he was smart or mentally competent. I'm asserting that he's not mentally competent now. These things do change over time, especially in people over 70. This article discusses his linguistic decline over the years, which very well may demonstrate his mental decline:
https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/
Also, Mr. T is not claiming that the U.S. can't use wind or solar because the country's too big for it. He's saying that wind power doesn't work because the wind doesn't blow all the time. He is either ignorant or he's willfully misrepresenting the fact that all methods of electricity generation can store power for later use. Each time I switch on a light, it doesn't mean that someone fires up some more coal right at that second. It means my light is drawing electricity from a grid.
The non-thinkers drift toward Democrats who try to make the government everyone's big daddy caretaker, everyone's nanny, reliving the populace of the burden of thinking.
You have no evidence whatsoever to back up this assertion. I think the opposite is true, that non-thinkers drift towards Republicans. But I don't have proof of that either. However, I know that I am a thinker by any definition of the word, and yet I have concluded that Mr. T is currently mentally incompetent. I've based the conclusion on scads of video evidence showing that the man can barely keep a thought in his head for the length of a sentence.
We don't have to agree whether Trump's business success (minus a few bankruptcies, of course) proves that he was smart or mentally competent. I'm asserting that he's not mentally competent now. These things do change over time, especially in people over 70. This article discusses his linguistic decline over the years, which very well may demonstrate his mental decline:
https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/
Also, Mr. T is not claiming that the U.S. can't use wind or solar because the country's too big for it. He's saying that wind power doesn't work because the wind doesn't blow all the time. He is either ignorant or he's willfully misrepresenting the fact that all methods of electricity generation can store power for later use. Each time I switch on a light, it doesn't mean that someone fires up some more coal right at that second. It means my light is drawing electricity from a grid.
The non-thinkers drift toward Democrats who try to make the government everyone's big daddy caretaker, everyone's nanny, reliving the populace of the burden of thinking.
You have no evidence whatsoever to back up this assertion. I think the opposite is true, that non-thinkers drift towards Republicans. But I don't have proof of that either. However, I know that I am a thinker by any definition of the word, and yet I have concluded that Mr. T is currently mentally incompetent. I've based the conclusion on scads of video evidence showing that the man can barely keep a thought in his head for the length of a sentence.
21John5918
>13 barney67: Coal is more efficient than wind or solar
I didn't claim it isn't. But a bit of random googling suggests that the difference is not so great, with coal-fired power stations running at about 47% thermal efficiency and wind at 41%, if I recall correctly. Those figures, like most figures, also need interpreting. The narrow thermal efficiency figure for converting coal to electricity does not take account of the bigger picture of inefficiency caused by having to ship coal across the country, and at times internationally, nor of pollution.
You can use solar and wind for small projects. But they will never play a large part in a country as large as America which consumes a lot of electricity.
Barney, I wonder whether you are aware of the huge offshore wind farms which supply a significant percentage of the electric power used by a continent as large as Europe which consumes a lot of electricity? You may be aware that Britain, the country which invented steam power and had a huge coal industry until recent decades, has in the last couple of years gone for periods of several days at a time without using ANY electricity produced from coal, relying solely on other sources, some "green" (wind, solar, hydro, biomass) and others not so (natural gas, nuclear).
I didn't claim it isn't. But a bit of random googling suggests that the difference is not so great, with coal-fired power stations running at about 47% thermal efficiency and wind at 41%, if I recall correctly. Those figures, like most figures, also need interpreting. The narrow thermal efficiency figure for converting coal to electricity does not take account of the bigger picture of inefficiency caused by having to ship coal across the country, and at times internationally, nor of pollution.
You can use solar and wind for small projects. But they will never play a large part in a country as large as America which consumes a lot of electricity.
Barney, I wonder whether you are aware of the huge offshore wind farms which supply a significant percentage of the electric power used by a continent as large as Europe which consumes a lot of electricity? You may be aware that Britain, the country which invented steam power and had a huge coal industry until recent decades, has in the last couple of years gone for periods of several days at a time without using ANY electricity produced from coal, relying solely on other sources, some "green" (wind, solar, hydro, biomass) and others not so (natural gas, nuclear).
222wonderY
>21 John5918: You mention the costs of shipping and pollution concerning coal. The energy invested in mining it is significant too. And then there is the issue that it is a finite resource; possibly better used in more sophisticated ways than burning it to produce steam to turn turbines.
23bnielsen
>21 John5918: Actually if you burn coal you get about 40% efficiency and if you use wind you can use 59% of the kinetic energy in the wind but since the wind is free what matters is actually the cost pr produced energy unit. And wind energy is very cheap (but not free because building wind turbines is not free) and if you care about Co2 emissions you should try to avoid burning coal.
Here's a map of Denmark right now: https://energinet.dk/energisystem_fullscreen
It's a nice quiet evening here, so we import about 2.4 GW, produce 2.0 GW by burning stuff and 0.8 GW by wind and export 1.3 GW. This leaves us with 3.9 GW which is what Denmark use right now.
As the price of electricity varies quite a lot, sometimes it pays very well to burn coal and sometimes not. (Right now I'm watching the British Parliament discussing Brexit because that'll influence the price of electricity too)
Anyway, my point is that efficiency doesn't matter. Price does.
Here's a map of Denmark right now: https://energinet.dk/energisystem_fullscreen
It's a nice quiet evening here, so we import about 2.4 GW, produce 2.0 GW by burning stuff and 0.8 GW by wind and export 1.3 GW. This leaves us with 3.9 GW which is what Denmark use right now.
As the price of electricity varies quite a lot, sometimes it pays very well to burn coal and sometimes not. (Right now I'm watching the British Parliament discussing Brexit because that'll influence the price of electricity too)
Anyway, my point is that efficiency doesn't matter. Price does.
24barney67
Let's say Trump knows nothing about wind power. Does that make him stupid? Of course not. Everyone is ignorant about something—except for those who think they know everything. Unless you are an engineer, most people don't know more than the basics, and I'm sure he knows the basics. It's remarkable to me that suddenly everyone is an MD, judging the president's mental competence. We went through this with Reagan—but NOT John McCain. Oh, no, not that. Why not take the smarter road and say you disagree with him and why. That makes more sense than calling him names. Why do you have to make it so personal?
You might also remember that he has a sense of humor. He says things to stick it to people. It's a form of defense.
Everyone's an energy expert now. I wonder how many of you have science degrees. The problem with "general" degrees is they encourage one to have opinions about every subject, but none of those opinions are very specific or well-informed or tempered by experience.
If efficiency didn't matter, we would all use pedal power. Connect a stationary bike or treadmill to your TV. You can do it. But there are better ways.
You might also remember that he has a sense of humor. He says things to stick it to people. It's a form of defense.
Everyone's an energy expert now. I wonder how many of you have science degrees. The problem with "general" degrees is they encourage one to have opinions about every subject, but none of those opinions are very specific or well-informed or tempered by experience.
If efficiency didn't matter, we would all use pedal power. Connect a stationary bike or treadmill to your TV. You can do it. But there are better ways.
25amysisson
The President of the United States should know that wind power can be used even when the wind isn't blowing. Period. If he falls back on his "it was a joke" defense, well, the President of the United States should not be making jokes that people can't tell are jokes. We have the right to know his level of understanding of things he's spouting off about, and we have the right to know his intended meaning. Also, he said it on multiple occasions. Either he's trying to get his base to believe a lie, or he truly doesn't know.
There wasn't as much scrutiny on John McCain's mental capacity in part because things happened quickly once his diagnosis was known, and in part because he wasn't going to be our President for four years with access to nuclear weapons.
Unless you are an engineer, most people don't know more than the basics, and I'm sure he knows the basics.
He doesn't know the basics! That was my entire point! If he doesn't know that wind energy can be stored for later use, he clearly does not know the basics! (Or, again, he does know them and is lying.)
That makes more sense than calling him names. Why do you have to make it so personal?
Are you effing kidding me? You're criticizing me for calling this man names, when he liberally peppers his Tweets and his speeches with derogatory, made-up names for his perceived enemies. Wikipedia has an entire entry devoted to the names that Trump has called his opponents. He always makes it personal when he attacks people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump
There wasn't as much scrutiny on John McCain's mental capacity in part because things happened quickly once his diagnosis was known, and in part because he wasn't going to be our President for four years with access to nuclear weapons.
Unless you are an engineer, most people don't know more than the basics, and I'm sure he knows the basics.
He doesn't know the basics! That was my entire point! If he doesn't know that wind energy can be stored for later use, he clearly does not know the basics! (Or, again, he does know them and is lying.)
That makes more sense than calling him names. Why do you have to make it so personal?
Are you effing kidding me? You're criticizing me for calling this man names, when he liberally peppers his Tweets and his speeches with derogatory, made-up names for his perceived enemies. Wikipedia has an entire entry devoted to the names that Trump has called his opponents. He always makes it personal when he attacks people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump
26amysisson
>24 barney67:
I wonder how many of you have science degrees.
I have a Master of Science in Aerospace Studies.
I wonder how many of you have science degrees.
I have a Master of Science in Aerospace Studies.
27prosfilaes
>18 barney67: But the successful ones are bright.
Was Trump successful? The numbers are complex and Trump has tried to blur questions of his wealth, but it's been argued that if the family fortune had been dumped into mutual funds when Trump started out, instead into his business, he'd be richer than he is now.
But the successful ones are bright. That strikes me as so obvious as to be beyond debate.
If you start from that assumption, you'll end at that assumption. Personally, I've read that having more than an IQ 120 does nothing for business success. There's a lot of self-sanctimony; successful business men who came from big fortunes and got an alumni entrance into Yale assume their success is because they're smart, not because they had a million dollar seed fund and built-in connections. The kid who went to a school without AP classes, who nobody suggested they go to Yale, who had to work their way through college, well, they didn't become a successful business man because they weren't bright, right?
I wouldn't call any American president stupid.
I don't believe that. Moreover, in any group, there's the bright ones and the slow ones; at the Manhattan Project, there were a bunch of dummies with 140 IQs waiting around for the geniuses to show them what to do. It's not about whether the president is bright compared to the average human; it's about whether he's bright compared to the average president and to the demands of the job.
People who are quick with name calling don't know how to think.
Does anyone have a mirror? This is important; we need a mirror right now.
Very few people in today's world know how to think, and they don't realize it because they don't know what thinking is.
The standard "golden age" blah, blah, blah. Kids these days, with their computers and MP3 players...
Perhaps you think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. It's a common belief. ... The non-thinkers drift toward Democrats
Again, does anyone have a mirror? I doubt it will work, but it's worth a shot.
Was Trump successful? The numbers are complex and Trump has tried to blur questions of his wealth, but it's been argued that if the family fortune had been dumped into mutual funds when Trump started out, instead into his business, he'd be richer than he is now.
But the successful ones are bright. That strikes me as so obvious as to be beyond debate.
If you start from that assumption, you'll end at that assumption. Personally, I've read that having more than an IQ 120 does nothing for business success. There's a lot of self-sanctimony; successful business men who came from big fortunes and got an alumni entrance into Yale assume their success is because they're smart, not because they had a million dollar seed fund and built-in connections. The kid who went to a school without AP classes, who nobody suggested they go to Yale, who had to work their way through college, well, they didn't become a successful business man because they weren't bright, right?
I wouldn't call any American president stupid.
I don't believe that. Moreover, in any group, there's the bright ones and the slow ones; at the Manhattan Project, there were a bunch of dummies with 140 IQs waiting around for the geniuses to show them what to do. It's not about whether the president is bright compared to the average human; it's about whether he's bright compared to the average president and to the demands of the job.
People who are quick with name calling don't know how to think.
Does anyone have a mirror? This is important; we need a mirror right now.
Very few people in today's world know how to think, and they don't realize it because they don't know what thinking is.
The standard "golden age" blah, blah, blah. Kids these days, with their computers and MP3 players...
Perhaps you think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. It's a common belief. ... The non-thinkers drift toward Democrats
Again, does anyone have a mirror? I doubt it will work, but it's worth a shot.
28prosfilaes
>13 barney67: Coal is more efficient than wind or solar.
"Efficient" in what sense? We get much more energy per kilogram of hydrogen fused by directly converting the photons to electricity instead of growing plants and then letting the plants be converted to coal. That's irrelevant. So is the amount of energy retrieved from burning a kilogram of coal versus the energy released when burning a kilogram of coal.The relevant things are energy per land use or per life taken, long-term costs, long-term sustainability, etc.
"Efficient" in what sense? We get much more energy per kilogram of hydrogen fused by directly converting the photons to electricity instead of growing plants and then letting the plants be converted to coal. That's irrelevant. So is the amount of energy retrieved from burning a kilogram of coal versus the energy released when burning a kilogram of coal.The relevant things are energy per land use or per life taken, long-term costs, long-term sustainability, etc.
29John5918
>24 barney67: I wonder how many of you have science degrees
I have a B.Sc. in Physics.
Unless you are an engineer
No formal qualification, but I have spent many years studying, restoring, maintaining and operating steam locomotives, learning the trade from old drivers and fitters, so I have at least a passing acquaintance with the process of converting coal into kinetic energy.
>23 bnielsen:, >28 prosfilaes:
Thank you. Yes, the "efficiency" tangent is a red herring.
Edited to add: I can't resist mentioning here that steam railway locomotives struggled to get between 6 and 10% thermal efficiency, and the great modern steam engineer David Wardale calculated a theoretical maximum of only around 16% measured at the drawbar. Obviously steam turbines are more efficient than that - but it's still a red herring.
I have a B.Sc. in Physics.
Unless you are an engineer
No formal qualification, but I have spent many years studying, restoring, maintaining and operating steam locomotives, learning the trade from old drivers and fitters, so I have at least a passing acquaintance with the process of converting coal into kinetic energy.
>23 bnielsen:, >28 prosfilaes:
Thank you. Yes, the "efficiency" tangent is a red herring.
Edited to add: I can't resist mentioning here that steam railway locomotives struggled to get between 6 and 10% thermal efficiency, and the great modern steam engineer David Wardale calculated a theoretical maximum of only around 16% measured at the drawbar. Obviously steam turbines are more efficient than that - but it's still a red herring.
30amysisson
Trump's assertions on wind power are becoming even more ridiculous. Here are some things he claimed at a fundraiser yesterday (Tuesday, April 3, 2019):
Summarizing:
- Trump claimed last month that windmills drive down property values 65%. Yesterday he said that windmills drive down property values 75%.
But accuracy is for schmucks, I guess!
- Trump: "And they say the noise causes cancer. You told me that one, OK." (Then he made circles with his hands and a noise with his mouth.) "You know the thing makes so..."
It's unclear who either "they" are or who "you" is. Regardless, this is not known to be, and is extremely unlikely to be, true. But just say whatever you want, Donnie!
- Trump: "You know in California if you shoot a bald eagle they put you in jail for five years. And yet the windmills they wipe them all out. It's true. They wipe them out. It's terrible."
Oh no, the windmills are currently wiping out every last bald eagle! (By the way, power lines and jet planes kill birds too. Remember when Sully had to land on the Hudson?) There are plenty of articles out there about traditional utility companies inadvertently killing birds, and having to pay a lot in fines.
The full article on Trump's latest nonsense is here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03/politics/trumps-war-on-windmills-now-includes-wil...
Summarizing:
- Trump claimed last month that windmills drive down property values 65%. Yesterday he said that windmills drive down property values 75%.
But accuracy is for schmucks, I guess!
- Trump: "And they say the noise causes cancer. You told me that one, OK." (Then he made circles with his hands and a noise with his mouth.) "You know the thing makes so..."
It's unclear who either "they" are or who "you" is. Regardless, this is not known to be, and is extremely unlikely to be, true. But just say whatever you want, Donnie!
- Trump: "You know in California if you shoot a bald eagle they put you in jail for five years. And yet the windmills they wipe them all out. It's true. They wipe them out. It's terrible."
Oh no, the windmills are currently wiping out every last bald eagle! (By the way, power lines and jet planes kill birds too. Remember when Sully had to land on the Hudson?) There are plenty of articles out there about traditional utility companies inadvertently killing birds, and having to pay a lot in fines.
The full article on Trump's latest nonsense is here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03/politics/trumps-war-on-windmills-now-includes-wil...
