Video Of The Week: Mike Bloomberg Talks Climate Crisis At MIT

Comments (Archived):

1. Would you vote for him?

   1. Go to open secrets a find out.

   2. i might vote for him but need to see his positions on national issues first. i doubt they will be comforting and they probably will go along with the endless war and endless debt agenda, which by extension means more of the status quo and only changes on minor issues that are mostly inconsequential. in my opinion when someone is out for big change, they focus on changing endless war and endless debt; and when they are serious about that, they put those issues front and center.

2. Has anyone read a peer reviewed publication on climate change – written in the past 5 years?

   1. dr willie soon’s peer reviewed paper suggesting the sun causes temperature variability was published in november of 2015. here is an easier to read, less technical summary of the paper (from dr ed berry, a climate hero for another day).

3. Interesting how almost every billionaire came out this week against a warren like tax in their assets , and did so with a victim mentality

4. You can pick up that Bloomberg doesn’t think like a scientist – no mentions about basic point estimates, standard errors – this are MIT grads!

5. Thanks for posting

6. I got very excited when I heard about his potential presidential candidacy yesterday

7. Bloomberg spoke at my Wharton graduation in 08, and I’ve been a fan ever since. Even on things I disagree with, it’s refreshing to find a politician who isn’t bound by idealogical party lines and isn’t afraid to think for himself.

8. Thanks Fred.

9. The writing is on the wall, a wealth tax is not a good campaign strategy, regardless of political affiliation. Deep respect for Michael Bloomberg, a great American! However, the process of running for president today indicates (data polls), those candidates that campaign closer to the extreme end of each parties political views are having better success. MB is viewed as a centrist candidate, let’s see how that plays out.

10. https://twitter.com/sotirov…

    1. .Total, make believe nonsense.Bloomberg is going to knock out both Biden and Warren.The word “gentle” will never appear in any sentence describing what Bloomberg will do to Biden — who deserves to be put out to pasture.Bloomberg is the Warren-Destructor on behalf of billionaires everywhere and on Wall Street in particular. Wall Street wants Warren scalped and burned at the stake.He is the other side of their shadow.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

       1. We’ll see… 🙂

          1. .I have always found that a small bet is useful in aligning one’s beliefs.Might there be one in our future?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

             1. I’ve never did any betting other than my startups. What do you propose? It should be binary – like who wins the nomination – Warren or Bloomberg? We may do a separate bet for… do we see a Warren-Bloomberg ticket or not?My thesis is – the whole point of Bloomberg’s late entry is to prevent a Warren-Sanders ticket… while making a second Trump presidency less probable. That would be an OK outcome for establishment Dems… and not a bad one for America.

             2. .For the fun of it –1. There will never be a Bloomberg – Warren ticket. Ever.2. There will never be a Warren-Sanders ticket.3. President Trump will be re-elected. 4. President Trump will be re-elected with more Electoral College votes than when he won in 2016.5. Bloomberg will eviscerate Quid Pro Joe like a wolverine dealing with a rabbit after the wolverine hasn’t eaten in a month. 6. Bloomberg will scalp Sen Warren and make her wish she was an Indian princess.The real bet is whether Bloomberg actually makes it into the race. I don’t think he will.Pick which ones you like. Let’s wager $50/each to the charity of the winner’s choice.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

11. .If you are going to speculate about Bloomberg, it would be useful to inject just a little bit of reality.First, on Friday, Bloomberg did, in fact, register for the Alabama primary. Alabama Dem party is reviewing his registration application. It is not unusual for it to be kicked back. If it is, he has missed the deadline.Tuesday is the Arkansas deadline. Getting on these ballots is more important than anything else right now. He may not be able to pull this off with as little time as he has left.Bloomberg has announced he is going to forego the Iowa (2-3-2020, 41 delegates, weird caucuses), New Hampshire (2-11-2020, 24 delegates), Nevada (2-22-2020, 36 delegates), and S Carolina (2-29-2020, 54 delegates) primaries — the traditional early blood bath that anoints one candidate while knocking out two.Iowa with its weird caucuses is the test of organization and evangelism. Advantage Mayor Pete and Sen Warren.New Hampshire is snowy, white persons and is a test of cold weather campaigning and stamina. Advantage Bernie and VP Biden.Nevada is a test of union organization. The SEIU controls Nevada Dem politics. Advantage Bernie.South Carolina is the traditional test of African American support. This is where Bloomberg is going to fail and fail big time — African American support. Advantage — the freakin’ firewall — Biden. Mayor Pete gets skunked so bad, it may knock him out.Bloomberg cannot give these tests up plus their 155 delegates. Of course, he can also not enter these primaries at this late date and get squashed like a bug. It is his perceived invincibility that must be retained at all costs. If he gets beaten by Mayor Pete in Iowa, then Bloomberg is just a mortal.Then, you have the problem that Candidate Bloomberg does not qualify to be in any of the remaining debates. If he garners enough support, he will get the DNC to re-write the rules. Even the DNC may not be this crooked, but one underestimates them at your own peril.But, this may turn out to be an Achilles Heel for Bloomberg. Schultz dropped out because he couldn’t get along with the DNC and then couldn’t figure out an independent run, and then got ill.Just because you are a billionaire, and a former NYC Mayor does not mean a Dem county chair in Colorado is going to jump on your team.Bloomberg has no national organization, is late to the dance and will get last/last/last pick of any talent, if there is any available at this late date. His only chance is to pick up the campaign organizations of candidates who fail — Beto — but what does that get him? Losers.Bloomberg is a terrible campaigner. Hell on wheels at a cocktail party in Manhattan. Dry as dirt on the stump at a campaign rally. Imagine him at a Trump rally and blink your eyes. Do you see urbane Mike carrying the enthusiasm of that crowd?Joe Biden can. Bernie can. Warren can. Bloomberg? Not really.Right now the Dems have an old white guy (who appears to be a crooked old fashioned machine pol whose son is also cut from the same cheesecloth) with an entire career in DC who wants to return to DC to “change” all the shit he did in DC for 46 years.His alternative is an older white guy with a bad heart who has somehow beguiled the AOC wing of the party. That is going to be uber amusing to watch wind down when Bernie stubs his toe.The other player is a white woman lawyer on the warpath who will increase every tax imaginable while pissing off all of Wall Street. How does a Dem manage to piss off Wall Street?This is why Bloomberg is attractive. He is not Biden, Bernie, or Lizzie. He does not piss off Wall Street.That is not enough.Bloomberg has one last problem — he started life as a Dem, became a Rep, ran for office as a Rep, won office as a Rep, became an Independent, and now wants the Dem nomination. Huh?We will also find out that the US is virulently anti-Semitic. I get it that Bloomberg is a faux Church of England/Jewish gentleman with a very light hand on the orthodoxy, but the real anti-Semites in the US will not be very appreciative of that.There are some states where this will be a huge problem. It should not be. We are a better people than that. But it will happen.That’s all. I have to go refresh myself with a Big Gulp. Oh, wait.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    1. WOW! At’s uh lotsa detail!! Good grief!I can’t take literally and significant anything I see about Bloomberg. As far as I can tell, everything significant about him is in his hidden agenda.Best I can guess is that he wants a game to play and wants to use his checkbook to do that.Or, maybe lots of people have secret wack-o enthusiasims that they suppress in order to make a basic living. So, to find out what those secrets are, make them worth $1+B and see what nonsense they pursue.IIRC at one time Bloomberg explainedI’m a single, straight billionaire in New York City. It’s a wet dream. Maybe the reason he is looking for a new game now is that the Viagra is no longer working for him?A huge fraction of the voters, especially who shop at Walmart, will quickly conclude that Bloomberg is just not living in their real world and, liberated by his checkbook, has gone off wack-o, and any Walmart customer too slow on the uptake will get an easy to understand tutorial at any Trump rally.I’m a little surprised about Bloomberg at MIT: Long ago Bloomberg gave $100 M to Johns Hopkins and since then may have done that several times. If he wants to stand up and talk with a university backdrop, sure, I have to believe that Hopkins would oblige.There is some irony about Bloomberg alarmed about the effects of carbon, CO2, on the climate since MIT prof R. Lindzen has the most credible argument that any current global warming cannot be CO2 warming.

    2. I’ve read that Bloomberg was a big narcissist, but he seems pretty thoughtful here…

       1. .Narcissism gets a bum wrap. First, it is something that comes along a bit later in life. Second, it is often the first page in a book of true accomplishment. Reading the book from the other end makes it a different thing.Bloomberg is the real deal when it comes to business shrewdness, planning, plotting, and accomplishment. He built a data driven business, owned the desktop delivery space, and weathered the storm when the Internet democraticized this. Guy is a power player who made a few trips to the pay window.If you promise not to tell anybody, I will let you in on a couple of secrets. Promise, right?Men are enormously shallow. Give us a pat on the head, play the princessa to our earldom, and we will do whatever a smart woman wants us to do.Narcissism is both a failing and an opportunity. When you meet a narcissist, he is telling you that the way to control him is to stroke his ego, take his id out for a drive, whisper in his ear what a big deal he truly is. Price tag thus far? Nothing.Successful men sit naked in saunas, steam rooms — without their Rolexes, their fancy cars, no business titles, no financial statements — and are just little boys. Using profanity, telling stories, talking sports, farting. We are a very elemental species when stripped clean of our accouterments.A person I know very, very, very, very well has a blemish on his body that attracts attention when sitting around naked. Other men ask him, “What is that?” to which he replies that is what happens when hot, sharp shrapnel makes contact with a fragile body. Other men who have never experienced such a thing say, “Oh.” It is the only thing that differentiates us and it is not much.Stripped to our essence, we have very little to amuse ourselves. Build a business, marry a beautiful woman, spawn some cubs, live in a nice house, drive a nice car, plant a few trees, shoot par golf, learn to fly an airplane — after that what do we have?Our egos, our narcissism, and the admiration and respect of our peers.At some instant, we remember what our mothers told us and we get about doing something that may be redeeming in some fashion. Most good works get done by guys with a fatter wallet. So, the fattening of the wallet is not a bad thing.After money, one has only ego enrichment, self-esteem nourishment — which is the peat moss of narcissism in which such things are rooted and grounded.So, go easy on Brother Bloomberg.Remember, this is our secret.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. Well, ok, I mean the price tag for narcissism is that people leave you, and that should throw up some red flags.There are virtues and vices for every personality type.Hey, do you fly planes? I signed up for ground school in 2020. Not sure if I made the right decision. It’ll be hella expensive, but I am so impatient….I like getting places fast.

             1. .I have slightly more than 3K hours in Bonanzas. I learned to fly when I was 50 as a mid-life sort of thing.You will love flying. The thing is you should start ground school and shortly thereafter get some hours of instruction in the basics. You need to feel the plane to understand a lot of ground school.Start in a high wing Cessna 172. It is the easiest plane to learn in. I learned in a low wing Piper and then bought the Bonanza. The Bonanza was a great plane to take my instrument instruction in as it was the plane I was going to fly.I am a single engine land, multi-engine, instrument, commercial pilot though I do not carry my comm’l license for insurance purposes. The comm’l instruction makes you a much better pilot. I never got any of the instructor ratings because I was only going to fly for business. It really worked out well for me.I have tip tanks on my Bo and can make the east coast from Georgetown TX (35 miles north of ATX) in a single lift with a tail wind. I usually stop half way for pure rest.You have to take your time and study hard. Find an older more experienced pilot who can watch over your shoulder.It is very relaxing for your mind and, of course, you get to see a lot of pretty country and can get anywhere.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

             2. What do you know, the local flying club here has quite a few Cessna 172’s.When you say you flew for business, you mean you transported yourself to meetings and such?I don’t think you can legally charge a fee to your passengers unless you have your commercial up here. The way I look at it, is why pay 10k for flight school and not be able to recover your costs by charging for your services?My end goal is just to fly a gyrocopter. I think they’re the easiest things to fly and they have the fewest amount of accidents. Planes need a big runway and helicopters are dangerous. I think gyrocopters are a bit more nimble and light than either of them.

             3. .Purely transporting myself as the CEO of a public company.I am reluctant to give you much advice in a public forum other than to say to get the absolute best training you can get.Learn from older instructors who have thousands of hours, not kids building their logbook to get a job with the airlines.Don’t be afraid to change instructors until you have the perfect fit. I fired an instructor mid-lesson.I ended up with a former Navy pilot who had 20K + hours and the instruction methodology was a perfect fit. He was totally business and that fit my learning style.Good luck and don’t get near a rotary wing until you master fixed wing.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

             4. Interesting- fixed wing before rotary wing, ok.Yeah agreed re: all the super young instructors out there.Thanks for this!

             5. PS! If you can’t find a use for Bloomberg down there, send him up to Canada please. We need his smarts/ experience / ability to see both sides to deal with our pipeline debacle.

          2. Yes, maybe it’s all about his ego.> Stripped to our essence, we have very little to amuse ourselves.I’m awash in things to “amuse” myself. I have my startup, and if I get past that I will pursue mathematical physics, clean up the really sloppy math the physics profs gave me and the texts have.At this point, I have enough math to clean up a lot of that stuff.I have a friend, really good mathematician, student of Choquet, a member of Bourbaki, who is well into cleaning up some of the math for physics. I have some PDFs from him of his first drafts of a start, about 500 pages. So, could spend a lot of time cleaning up that math!”The unreasonable effectiveness” of math for physics is astounding and has my curiosity eager to charge in.Here’s a really simple one: The physicists claim to like Hilbert space, claim that the wave functions of quantum mechanics form a Hilbert space. Well, mathematicians invented Hilbert space and have a very clean definition of it — a complete inner product space. But the wave functions of quantum mechanics can be in a Hilbert space but cannot form a Hilbert space because they are not complete. For a simple view, completness is what the real numbers have that the rational numbers do not.To me, cleaning up the math of physics is not an ego thing; instead, I just want to know. It’s a curiosity thing.

    3. So in other words Bloomberg is trying the Rudy Giuliani primary strategy? Skip the first few primaries and carefully pick a few states to build a firewall. That did not work very well for Rudy. Same New York advisers presumably.

    4. So based on what you are saying, winning has nothing to do with competency, intelligence, substance or track record.It’s just about politicking, finessing the electoral vote system, and rallying the masses with rah rah talk. Too bad it’s come down to that.

       1. .This happened in 1960 in the Nixon v Kennedy election in which a young, Catholic, good looking generational change candidate beat a two time incumbent Vice President — why?The injection of media into the electoral process and the ability of the candidate to ride that wave with a multi-media message rather than a track record.The Nixon v Kennedy debates — both the first ever Presidential debates and the first debates ever televised — changed things from being reading and listening to a third dimension — video, eyeballs, watching.In the first debate, those who saw the debate thought Kennedy had crushed Nixon. Kennedy was young, vibrant, handsome, articulate, and energetic. Nixon was not. A little known fact was that Nixon had just gotten out of Walter Reed Hospital after being admitted for two weeks for a knee infection. He was wan, drawn, and sick when he stood in front of the cameras and looked over at a tan, handsome, smiling John Kennedy.Those who “saw” the debates gave the W to Kennedy. Those who “heard” the debates gave the win to Nixon.Another little known fact was that the media, the tech, was used very well. The third televised debate looked like Nixon and Kennedy were on the same stage when, in fact, one was on the west coast and one was on the east coast with the moderator in a third location.Nixon had famously said he was going to visit all 50 states, while Kennedy brilliantly targeted what his campaign considered the “swing states.” This strategy of going where the Electoral College tells you to go is not really “finessing” the EC; it is just the way our elections are run on purpose. Not because of the EC, but because of the nature of competitive swing states.BTW, the 1960 election was the last time the losing candidate took Ohio which is a swing state of the first order.The election doesn’t look all that close when you look at the Electoral College, but Kennedy beat Nixon by only 117,000 votes. [This is a matter of some controversy because of how Alabama and Georgia handled their Electoral College representatives, but that is a very deep in the weeds discussion.Kennedy had a very subtle message — the handoff of leadership of the country from the World War II leadership generation to the next generation — guys who had been lieutenants and captains. Eisenhower, the current President, was a 5-star general while John Kennedy was a Navy Lt (JG), the equivalent of an Army 1st Lt.There is a hilarious anecdote of Eisenhower and Kennedy meeting to hand over the reins of government — from a 5-star to a lieutenant. Kennedy was supposed to have brought a notebook and 5 pencils, didn’t ask a question as Ike told him what he was working on. Eisenhower said he was a pretty good clerk.The other thing about the 1960 election was the power of money — we still have no appreciation for how incredibly rich Joe Kennedy was.The parallels with today are strong. Take Bloomberg’s money — he bought his first mayoral election win in NYC, rented his second, and bought his third (he had to change the rules to be allowed to succeed himself for a second time, expensive).Trump harnessed the power, new found, newly discovered power of digital messaging with Twitter, thereby creating a channel to speak directly to the American people without the power of the media filter.So, yes, elections in the US today are about money, messaging, media, knowing how the EC works, targeting the swing states, and rallying those who the political process has left behind.BTW, everybody is trying to handicap these candidates. Look at their fundraising. Beto didn’t get out because he was wildly unpopular and a bit quirky; he got out because the money dried up. When he ran for the US Senate against Cruz, he had gobs of money.Joe Biden is having a hard time raising money right now. That is way more important than anything in his campaign. He’s almost broke. The media is burying this story.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. yup. & thanks for the historical parallel.

             1. .I’m going to NYC to see the Veterans Day Parade tom’w. You in NYC by any chance?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

             2. nope. but was there 10 days ago 🙂

    5. My shallow take is that Bloomberg will knock out points for Biden, Sanders, Warren – and then it’ll mark an intelligent competitive between Yang and Bloomberg, assuming he actually moves forward as he plans.He obviously has the $ to self-fund and is also the precipice highlighting the issue with money in politics, Yang being the counterpoint to that with his, in part, Democracy Dollars policy that will wash out lobbyist (and billionaire) money influence in politics a factor of at least 6:1 via $100 / year contributions from every eligible voter.

12. So, from this video clip of Bloomberg at MIT, he believes that CO2 in the atmosphere and from human activities will change the climate in devastating ways.I’m reluctant to take Bloomberg’s claim at all literally or seriously; I doubt that he believes his claim and suspect that he has a hidden agenda.Of course he doesn’t believe his claim — he is not THAT dumb! It’s just that he thinks he can use his claim to get lots of us up on our hind legs and let him lead us in a big effort — he IS that dumb!Bloomberg, you are a bit low on blood pressure — add some salt. Also you are a bit low on blood sugar — have a Big Gulp; no get three, you can afford it, drink two now and the third a little later.Bloomberg, this is not the first time for you: How did those wind turbines on top of the tall NYC buildings work out for you?But Bloomberg made his claim plenty clearly enough. So, I will respond to what he claimed.Okay, we can put the claim to rest easily enough, drive a stake through the heart of this monster:(1) Long ago that claim resulted in a lot of computer-based models of the atmosphere and temperature. The models made predictions of temperature. Athttp://www.energyadvocate.c…is a summary of those predictions. Nearly all the predictions were for much higher temperatures. The time for those predicted higher temperatures has now come and gone without the higher temperatures. So, nearly all the models were wildly wrong. The relatively accurate models were the easiest to do — predict no changes at all.So, since the predictions were so inaccurate, we junk the models and the prediction methodology. Net, we are left with no significant evidence that CO2 from human activities will have any significant effect on temperature.(2) In the video documentaryThe Great Global Warming Swindleathttps://www.youtube.com/wat…MIT prof R. Lindzen outlines why any of the current warming, if it even exists, can’t be caused by CO2, IIRC, “is not CO2 warming”, from human sources or anything else.(3) From the ice core data in Al Gore’s movie, both temperature and CO2 levels went up and down. But when the temperature started to go up, the CO2 levels were low, not high. And when the temperatures started to go down, the CO2 levels were high, not low.So, in the ice core record, the CO2 level changes were not causing the temperature changes. Instead, temperature changes had some other cause, and the temperature changes caused the CO2 changes: The higher temperatures caused more biological activity and higher CO2 levels. But when the cause of higher temperatures quit, temperatures fell and the biological activity and higher CO2 levels did not keep the temperatures up.Net, from the ice core record, CO2 levels had no significant effect on temperature.(4) Even in just the last 1000 years, the temperature was significantly higher in the Medieval Warm Period and significantly cooler in the Little Ice Age, and human sources of CO2 had nothing to do with either temperatures. So, again, there really are causes of temperature changes other than CO2.(5) From the 1940s to the 1970s, we actually had some significant cooling. But CO2 levels from human activities were increasing due to more industrial activity due to WWII and the economic recovery after the Great Depression. But that higher CO2 did not stop the cooling or warm the planet.(6) The Medieval Warm Period shows that even if we do have somewhat higher temperatures, there will be no serious problems. We will be able to grow grapes in England again, and the polar bears and penguins will survive again. The permafrost won’t all melt, release methane, and cause run-away warming. The ice in Greenland and Antarctica won’t all melt or flood London. The Gulf Stream won’t quit due to the melting ice from the Arctic or Greenland.In summary from (1) to (5), CO2 from human sources has no significant effect on temperature. Humans are not guilty. And from (6), somewhat higher temperatures will be no “crisis”.As in the video documentary, apparently the best explanation for temperature changes is sun spots: More sun spots yield higher temperatures.Poor Bloomberg, even with his checkbook, will not be able to affect sun spots.It’s a free country with freedom of speech. Bloomberg does not have to be convinced or even influenced by (1) — (6). But to me he can’t look rational, honest, and responsible if he is not convinced by (1) — (6).Bloomberg is free to have his own motivations, and I’m sure he does.To me Bloomberg is selling fear based on wack-o nonsense. The Mayan charlatans did something similar, killed people to pour their blood on a rock to “keep the sun moving across the sky.” And, indeed, the sun did keep moving across the sky. So the blood worked?And I’m quite sure that if Bloomberg, Fauxcahontas, AOC, etc. spend $90+ T to fight climate change, then the climate will change no faster than it does now. Then they will claim that their program of $90+ trillion worked?Apparently as soon as the economy is healthy again and the Walmart shoppers are able to buy birthday presents again, some politicians are eager to pick $trillions out of the pockets of those shoppers and throw it away on total nonsense. It becomes a national case of “A fool and his money are soon parted.”. E.g.:(A) We had a few suicidal Arab wack-os eager for their magic carpet ride to Allah use some box cutters to take over some commercial airplanes and destroy the two towers of the World Trade Center, destroy part of the Pentagon, and try to destroy the White House.In response W and Obama spent $8 T in the Mideast.(B) A Paris dishwasher went to Hanoi, claimed he was a Communist, and the US went wack-o over the threat of global Communism and falling dominoes and responded by having 58,220 US soldiers die and spent enough US money to inflate the US economy, cause the S&L crisis, give us devastating 22% interest rates, etc. The oil we burned may have been enough to be what enabled OPEC.(C) The Russians put up a tiny satellite, and in response JFK mounted the massive Apollo project that also contributed to inflating the US economy.(D) Now that unemployment is down, Fauxcahontas, AOC, and Bloomberg want to use some hurricanes to justify spending $90+ T to change the weather.So, with (A) — (D), we have politicians overreacting and wasting precious US blood and treasure. We should STOP that nonsense.To Bloomberg, IIRCI’m a single, straight billionaire living in New York City. It’s a wet dream. the Walmart shoppers should say, find something to do other than causing us to waste $90+ T, e.g., just “Take two Viagra and see if you feel better tomorrow.”.Sure, some people want to go into politics and get praise, acceptance, approval, respect, and fame from identifying a big problem and leading a great effort to solve it. And if there is no great problem, then stir-up, cook-up, fake-up such a problem, e.g., keep the sun moving across the sky.So, Bloomberg says “climate crisis”, just says it, over and over. From (1) — (6) above, there is no climate crisis or even climate problem, but Bloomberg and others with no good evidence and just ignoring (1) — (6) just keep repeating that there is. This is propaganda, and the technique is not new. Instead there was Nazi Dr. J. Goebbels who explained, IIRC,If you repeat a lie often enough, then people will believe it. Eventually even you will come to believe it. With irony, Bloomberg is borrowing from Goebbels.It’s easy not to believe the lie: Just look at (1) — (6). DONE.Finally, Bloomberg wants to return to the moon. No human has set foot on the moon since Apollo, and the reason is clear: Putting a human on the moon safely is EXPENSIVE, and there is no good reason for them to be there. Far and away, the best way to explore space and the solar system is with robots. E.g., some of the AI people believe they can have self-driving cars on current roads and traffic — they can’t. But they can have self-driving devices in space, e.g., as we have now on Mars.If these AI robots are so smart, then send some to the moon to set up a base to send some to Mars to set up a base and do whatever we want there.But we basically understand Mars: It’s a planet. The universe is awash in stars with planets. Mars is a lot like the earth; Mars is just too cold and its atmosphere and surface water were blown away due to solar wind. Done.

13. Thank you for sharing. Agree with the premise that political will is the key to meaningful action. I might want to dig a little deeper into the idea that a transition to 100% clean energy production and transportation can be done today, or within the next 10 years or so, with little or no financial or economic sacrifice. “Hard” things are generally hard because they do require sacrifices. Is Wind and Solar technology really ready to take the full load of the US power grid and provide affordable, reliable electricity? Should modern Nuclear be in the discussion? Cheaper, Cleaner, more Affordable. If true, I don’t see how such a solution would not get 100% political (and consumer) support. Really liked the premise of the Andrew McAfee video a couple weeks back of using the free markets, buttressed by smart public policy, to help address these issues.

14. Well this is a political discussion waiting to happen. Coincidental timing?

15. Climate change?! Get serious.