I recall that some time ago…

I recall that some time ago, a group of us got in a debate on YT with some warmist imbecile, he literally wrote “I believe NASA, don’t you?”
The mush brain actually thought he had us cornered.
The sad thing is, he doesn’t believe a word of NASA’s claims; nobody does, it’s just that it suits their agenda,. Therefore: cancel all funding for NASA; they are the biggest waste of money in the history of money.
And waste of energy: when they know they’re wasting energy, because it’s only for show, how can they claim wasting energy is bad; look at our research, it shows it! No, it DOES it. This is additional evidence for the evil/hypocrisy/stupidity of the left.

Trage Brexit


Waarom moet de Brexit zo lang duren? Toch gewoon een kwestie van afscheidsborrel, handjes schudden en kus-kus, “tot ziens!”.

Als de EU zich zo in GB heeft geworteld, dan ook in NL. Dus tijdvoor een #Nexit.

Als er iets is aangetoond dmv de belachelijk trage Brexit-procedure, is het wel dat de EU haar klauwen in het hele Groot-Brittannië heeft geslagen, tot in de kleinste huidplooien van het volk aan toe. Op zich al reden voor een Nexit.
Tel daarbij op dat Madrid ondanks de Catalonië-schande (stuurt de ME erop af, wanneer het volk – toch de basis van een democratie? – zegt ongelukkig te zijn met de Madrileense junta) in de EU mag blijven. “Houdt van ons! Wj zijn lief!” erin beuken. En daar voelt Den Haag zich sterk mee verbonden.
En dat de flutsmoes dat “Nederland een transportland is, en dus afhankelijk van de EU” niet meer opgaat per 2030, (GB en Fra 2040) wanneer het reisverbod van kracht wordt en dus alle transport stil valt.
Een EUxodus wordt onvermijdelijk. Als de Haagse junta dat niet wil; prima, dan blijven zij toch in de EU, en dan voeren wij een Hexit uit. Want, een roverheid: liever om verlegen dan mee verlegen. Geef ons maar democratie.

Tax reduction instead of stimulus

Stimulus packages fail. It’s wealth that gets spent by the government, on projects that don’t yield result, meaning the money evaporates and is lost forever (so it’s not invested). The government spends money that’s not theirs to spend, on boondoggles like bridges from nowhere to nowhere, meaning that all the effort (& money, energy) put into extracting/creating the resources put into the bridge, like mining iron ore, growing food for the workers etc. is wasted. Surely, the responses to the crises of 1929 and 2008 have sufficiently demonstrated that. Not only is Keynesianism bad for the economy, but also for the environment.
Also, it’s spent on projects that do not serve the people, but only serve government, like when Obama subsidized a bunch of businesses that claimed to work on CO2-reduction, which yields exactly what this world doesn’t need: less food, more thirst (and now, thanks to Obama’s stmulus waste, also less wealth). Governments can only put money into exvestments (I just invented that word; I don’t intend to copyright it), which is the exact opposite of investing; investments yield return, by e.g. allowing people cross a river, on a bridge, and meet people on the other side, have a chat with them, have a drink, maybe they’ll even have sex with each other. Or they’ll exchange goods, services, and have trade with each other, meaning it’s economically beneficial.
It would be better to reduce taxes by the amount of the stimulus. No way can someone like #PaulKrugman, who said that “tax reduction has never, I mean NEVER worked” complain about that,. Since the money isn’t even reserved for government policy, instead of throwing it away on stuff the people don’t want money spent on. Instead of dumping all the bank notes into a volcano (which is what stimulus spending comes down to) don’t steal them in the first place, be a bit democratic and let the people spend their own money their way.
On top of which, people can’t complain that other taxes will go up to compensate for the loss of revenue, since that money is earmarked for destruction. Even politicians can’t think they’ll spend it that money when it’s gone.

Is Tesla a cult?

I responded this in the comments section of this video https://youtu.be/k6GeHnMwl1c :

[Name removed] That means the hysteria used to force people into similarly harmful (but much more expensive) EVs is entirely misplaced; causes environmental & economic & psychological harm.
A much better idea to continue using cheap internal combustion engines, to produce more wealth, so that people will be able to afford to switch to EVs when the time comes. Renewability is no argument: there is so much oil in the ground: banning current geberations from using it, will keep it there, for even further future generations to not use it, because even further future generations will have to leave it there for ad infinitum.
Oil is probably not even a fossil fuel, but the product of bacterial processes.
[Name removed] will you please stop ridiculing yourself with the worn paranoid slander of “big oil is afraid people will stop using oil, is behind ads like this” because first of all, the electrical cables (insulation) and modern plastic car chassis, are MADE OF oil, so people will continue to buy oil.
And even then: big oil wil eventually reinvent itself as big hydro, big windpower, big solar, big whatever it is your conspiracist mind wishes to accuse of being big and mean.
I’ve written about this earlier:

About ships switching to nuclear power:

[Name removed] What a soothing solution: having potential 3mile island disasters floating all over the world’s oceans, and ships never sink, do they? #Greenpeace became famous for their protests against #nuclear #waste #dumping in the ocean, Medoubts they ought to support, the posible sinking of nuclear pre-waste fuels.

How to think about (non-)renewables and oil

Enviros want mankind to stop using #oil, because oil is a finite resource. Not #renewable. Which is bad, and apparently also a reason to stop using it right away, so that #future #generations also can leave it in the #ground, so that generations even further in the future have the chance leave it in the ground for generations ever farther in the future. I’m not in the mood to continue writing “even further in the future” until I run into a generation that gets to use the oil. That generation will apparently expect to be the last one, for some macabre reason.
Oil is a cheap source of abundant energy and can continue to help improve the lives of all people around the world.
Renewables are expensive now, so better to use oil to grow the wealth of humankind, so man can then afford to make the switch to renewables (and put money in developing them) Unless the state of mankind is of no concern to envirinmental activists.

Subsidizing obesity

You may have heard there is an #obesity epidemic going on in the USA (and to a lesser degree in Europe as well).
This is due to the government’s farm #subsidies, raising e.g. #sugar production. While at the same time the government has a ministry (department) of #health, spending lots of money on obesity related issues. That even goes so far as to claim that it’s #obesity which causes #diabetes, which of course is nonsense: they have a shared cause, namely excessive #carbohydrate consumption (in particular fast, or highly glycemic carbs like #sugar or even #grains), which are #subsidized by the ministry of #agriculture.
As is to be expected in a totalitarian regime, it likes to meddle with even the slightest details of all citizens’ lives. But there are so many aspects to all those lives, and only some citizens are #farmers, so the #subsidies benefit only one small segment of the population, while actively harming the rest (that has to pay the #subsidies through involuntary taxation). And justifying more taxation to fund higher health costs.
This is bull-excrement. And can only be happen with a #schizoid institution, like government, where information passes other information by, due to entrenched interests, and established practices (#policies)
Remember the #milkLakes and the #butterMountains? More reasons to ditch subsidies; they’re wasteful, and so harm the economy. As well as causing more farm animals to be kept, which according to the most political of politicians (the left), is a bad thing.

To close off, some writing about diet:
Excessive eating in general does not make one fat, because it’s not calories that deposit fat. If it were, fat would have to be able to make you fat (being the most highly caloric of the 3 macronutrients).
Since only carbs can do that, and #carbs are equally low in calories as protein (which ARE essential, unlike carbs), eating a diet of mostly carbs, may be low in calories, but that’s only the second part of fat loss; the first is to stop gaining #fat, ie cutting the carbs. At the very least the fast (subsidized) ones.
Otherwise, you’d starve yourself to death trying to lose some fat. Which is fought by the consumption of carbs, meaning you have to reduce food consumption to cripplingly small amounts.
Fat provides 9 #calories per gram, while carbohydrates and #protein each provide 4 calories per gram. (I guess those are #Kilocalories)
But finally, there is one small bit of the science of gaining fat that I am less certain about:
Sure, it takes carbs to trigger the release of #insulin, which shuttles nutrients into cells (protein into muscle or most commonly/frustratingly, fat cells) but what nutrients get shuttled into fat cells? Surely, they’re fat molecules that get deposited, fat molecules that first have to be ingested. (Similar for protein, obviously), which explains where Michel #Montignac’s diet came from (“Lose fat by not consuming fat and carbs at the same time!”)
Insulin can only be triggered by carbs, not by fat. Therefore, so long as you don’t consume (more than minor amounts of) (fast) carbs, you won’t get fat.
This suggests a fool-proof way to prevent the yoyo-effect following extreme caloric restriction: after having lost the desired amount of fat, undo the caloric deficit by eating more fat, after that, you’re quite safe to eat carbs again (but don’t overdo it or you’ll gradually regain fat again, though not in a short amount of time, like with the #yoyo-effect)