That one word I bolded says it all. You make it out as if everyone in Antifa is a violent jerk. That's their black sheep, which you find in any organisation of sufficient size.

I do agree however that their cause, which was pretty laudable, degenerated a lot since they became more "mainstream". However, they are not nearly as stupid violent against everything as right-wing media would lead you believe.

Again, none of these wars have been started by Obama, he just intervened in these conflicts. Otherwise going by your standard, you could just as well say that FDR started WW2.

1. Any type of Power generation needs some amount and some way of power retention, be it batteries, pumped-storage Hydroelectricity, Flywheels, compressed air or any other way to retain energy in a different form than electricity for times of need. As such, claiming that only renewable energy would need energy storage is flat-out wrong. This is especially true with nuclear energy, as that one needs a long time to raise or lower it's power production and on it's own would certainly need more energy storage than renewables do.

2. This could be true if industrial batteries would also be using Lithium batteries like consumer devices do. But Lithium batteries are not very economic in that scenario despite their low price. Most new big grid batteries use batteries made out of sodium-sulphur or vanadium to store the energy. Home energy storage used to use lead acid, then Lithium-ion, but are also increasingly made of used electric car batteries, as they are not viable to use in cars anymore but still good for home battery systems. Besides, recycling of Lithium, while difficult, is very much possible. Also, a new Lithium power pack at home should last at least 12-15 years before it needs replacement. Finally, while the dangers of Lithium have been played up, the actual environmental danger for recycling came from Cobalt - which is not present in new Lithium-Iron batteries.

3. Why would you need to cut trees? You can put them in the midst of fields, into the ocean or even in a free spot in a forest without having to cut a single tree. Modern windmills are so tall that they completely dwarf most trees anyway, so even if there were a couple in the way, they would only cut efficiency by single digits.

4. Need to find the source again, but according to statistics, 240k birds died in a year from windmills in the US. But compared to 1.9 million in Toronto alone or 370-980 millions in the US who crashed against office towers, that's a real low number. So yeah, there are birds that die from windmills - but a single office tower is a bigger bird killer than an entire windmill farm. The study also found that just looking at the amount of birds dying from crashing against any structure is also misleading, as it doesn't show what effect they have on bird births. Power plants take up lots of space which birds can't use for nesting anymore, for instance, can have worse long-term effects on the bird population that windmills.

So, the US had a bad economy from the mid 50's to mid 90's? Because the House was ruled by the democrats during that period for 40 years straight. Yeah, right...

I find it utterly astounding how blinded both sides are by the concept that...there are more factors at play in the complicated US (or any) economy than who was president at the time. I hate Trump, but he's not the sole reason things are as they are. I loved Obama, but he was not the sole one responsible for the ebb and flow of the US Economy between 2008 and 2016. Anyone actually arguing that they - and even the parties that they are a part of - are solely responsible for the economy during their tenure is exactly the kind of person who's opinions can be immediately dismissed for bias or ignorance. 

So, SO many factors are involved in an economy that even if I spent the next ten years of my life trying to explain it, someone could easily mention how rice production in Taiwan was missed out. Every little thing factors into the economy. World interactions are important, global events, the climate, general public perception, technological advancements, the ebb and flow of various companies and their impact, international trade factors, availability, pandemics, relations, corporate shenanigans, and so, so many other factors need to be considered. Yeah, politics are a slice of that - as different political parties push for different policies and changes in laws - but it's only a small fraction of the vast pie that is global economics. And, even if political parties do have some influence, the time and effort needed to put new laws into place ensures that it could be years or even as much as a decade before a proposed bill really has far-reaching effects. 

Politics are important, they do have impact, but to assume that a politician or party is solely responsible for the economy during their tenure is so palpably stupid that anyone arguing using that as their primary point can be and should be immediately dismissed. If anyone does that they are clearly showing they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about no sense of perception, and no grasp of the vastly complicated workings of international economics. 

It's almost like EVERYTHING is more complicated and nuanced than headlines and sensationalist garbage could ever possibly hope to convey. 

No you just said your wrong and ended the post.  As if that somehow refuted me on every topic....  You wanna debate other people, then don't quote my post.  If you wanna debate me, give me an actual post.  If you just say "YOU'RE WRONG" and run off...  Just like your statement that the "free speech bit is incredibly dishonest"  <- WTF am I supposed to do with that....  Your face is incredibly dishonest....

The fact is that Antifa has a horrible problem with using violence they find acceptable.  This is escalating constantly.  And the left in general is becoming desensitized to using violence.  And they refuse to call out and distance themselves from violence in their groups.  Instead we have people bending over backwards to excuse Antifa giving a gay asian conservative reporter Andy Ngo brain injury.  

Bush started Iraq and Afghanistan.  While Obama didn't start these wars, he sure as hell got involved in them.  

https://fee.org/articles/solar-panels-produce-tons-of-toxic-waste-literally/

^ Theres your toxic waste from solar panels.  And carbon dioxide arguably isn't even dangerous.  

https://co2coalition.org/

about 20-30 PhDs in relevant fields make that statement, including former president of Green Peace Patrick Moore.  

And expense is the problem with cutting trees.  Is it cheaper to make them massive or to clear cut  a forest and make them short.  They're a fake solution anyways.  All these countries making windmills just do it because they start buying the missing energy from France's nuclear program.  

The CO2 coalition is funded by the Koch Brothers and the Mercer Family Foundation, two groups which are heavily denying climate change because they profit from dirty energy. The Koch brothers have extensive polluting industries, so of course they wan to discredit the climate change as it damages their profits. Mercer is a long time supporter of fringe biology ideas. I'd say that already says it all about how serious you should take their "research".

@italic: Just breathe a higher than 2% amount of CO2 in the atmosphere an you will slowly die due to CO2 splitting up to Carbon Monoxide, which stays in your lungs and stops them from being usable. Result: A slow asphyxiation death. Which would go for everyone on this planet, Human and animal alike. 

@bolded: What do you try to say here? They are producing wind energy because they start buying nuclear energy??? That sentence makes no sense at all.

Besides, if you take a good look to Europe, you'll see something that will blow your mind: They are building windmills everywhere... and yet the forests are growing! No tree-cutting for windmills necessary, like I said before. Having to cut trees for windmills is a myth.

You messed up badly, but I forgive you. Let's take a look at these pictures, because a picture is worth a thousand words. As you can see, when Obama and the Democrats took over everything the economy gotten a lot worse. When Republicans took the house and senate back, the economy started to do much better. When Trump and Republicans took over everything, the economy had a record unemployment rate.

Also, we can look at the tale of two States, Texas and California. California, control by Democrats have record number of homeless people, higher unemployment rate and so expensive that everyone is leaving. While the opposite is happening for Texas.

This on top of all the interest rate cuts last year, a move generally reserved to dig out of recessions. What are we gonna do once we're actually in one?

If they were anticipating the unforeseen disaster at Chernobyl, don't you think they wouldn't have built it in the first place? If there ever becomes a problem of some sort with solar, while the sites are usually smaller in general, there are a ton of them all over the place, and a significant portion are fairly close to densely populated area's in comparison.

You can't just slap solar panels or wind turbines just anywhere. Well you can, but if the power output is lousy because it's a typically cloudy or calm area, you've done a poor job of investing and will pay dearly for it. If the hills without trees are in a typically calm area, then nobody is going to bother erecting wind turbines there. They will put them two hours north, in the densely forested hills, which will be cleared, where the wind is typically potent.

I've been on many wind and solar sites, where they cut down hundreds of acres of trees or more. This is because you aren't aloud to mount panels on useful open farmland, and nobody places them where they won't see much sun or get much wind. If that means clearing forest, that's what they do.

I wonder how many 100 acre solar sites need to be cleared to equal the same amount of power output as those coal mines and plants? How many roads and lifting area's need to be cleared for those wind turbines?

I wonder how often those turbines or panels don't produce full power, or produce at all, so how many more panels and turbines need to be built elsewhere to make up the difference in power loss vs demand? How many more tree's need to be cleared for those sites?

This doesn't include storage. Just wait until a serious amount of batteries are set up to hold a worthy amount of power for night/calm use. The amounts of battery storage that are installed now are a joke, and look how much space they already take up. Many of these have an hour of storage max, for like 5,000 to 10,000 people, which is only there to keep the power on in hopes that the problem can be solved in time before the battery banks run out of power. Just imagine how much space would be needed for 12 hours or more of battery power for night/calm, for just 5 million people.

Who's to say your pics aren't repurposed either? Just because there are some tree's around doesn't mean it certainly was forest. All farms near my parents farm are heavily surround by trees.

Better yet, let's save the tree's and only use farmland, because who needs affordable food when you can trade it for slightly cleaner air? Worst case scenario, another country will just cut down their Rainforest to make farmland for crops. No big deal...