Status: Greenish 🟢. Russia revealed to cover 3-5% of North Korea's yearly calorie consumption in exchange for soldiers. The Russia-Ukraine war might see a ceasefire with the Trump administration.
Thanks for a great newsletter, I appreciate your weekly writings.
Two minor points of feedback:
"Following up on previous reports, the WSJ reports that Western officials speculate that two incidents earlier this year attempting to ship incendiary devices into planes in Leipzig and Birmingham might have been intended as test runs for a US attack. "
As someone who has not followed this incident closely, it took me a bit of time to realize that this is *Russia* doing a test run in preparation for a US attack.
"He was also once involved in a heated argument with Matt Gaetz on the House floor."
I was here left confused about the significance of this event ("why are you telling me this?"). But I lack a lot of context (being a non-US citizen and everything), so maybe other readers benefit from this.
That last link is exactly why I still sometimes doubt AGW, because some of its high priests are so utterly lacking in credibility and are plainly bad faith actors.
The most likely path is plainly that Trump II is like Trump I: overall reducing greenhouses gases through deregulation, except the effect with Trump II will be mediated through nuclear whilst Trump I was through (fracked) gas.
One of the forecasters is more worried about climate risks than I am, and I value that. Could be that I'm wrong. Not many thoughts on the specific link
To clarify, I am open to climate risks being high, although at the moment I think that the risks from combatting climate change are also very high.
But I can see no rational basis for expecting _actual_ climate outcomes under Trump to be materially worse than they might have been under Harris, and indeed the linked article does not provide any.
In fact that article tells one about who won the election and what the cited "scientists" think of the candidates but it contained no information at all about climate change.
Thanks for a great newsletter, I appreciate your weekly writings.
Two minor points of feedback:
"Following up on previous reports, the WSJ reports that Western officials speculate that two incidents earlier this year attempting to ship incendiary devices into planes in Leipzig and Birmingham might have been intended as test runs for a US attack. "
As someone who has not followed this incident closely, it took me a bit of time to realize that this is *Russia* doing a test run in preparation for a US attack.
"He was also once involved in a heated argument with Matt Gaetz on the House floor."
I was here left confused about the significance of this event ("why are you telling me this?"). But I lack a lot of context (being a non-US citizen and everything), so maybe other readers benefit from this.
That last link is exactly why I still sometimes doubt AGW, because some of its high priests are so utterly lacking in credibility and are plainly bad faith actors.
The most likely path is plainly that Trump II is like Trump I: overall reducing greenhouses gases through deregulation, except the effect with Trump II will be mediated through nuclear whilst Trump I was through (fracked) gas.
One of the forecasters is more worried about climate risks than I am, and I value that. Could be that I'm wrong. Not many thoughts on the specific link
To clarify, I am open to climate risks being high, although at the moment I think that the risks from combatting climate change are also very high.
But I can see no rational basis for expecting _actual_ climate outcomes under Trump to be materially worse than they might have been under Harris, and indeed the linked article does not provide any.
In fact that article tells one about who won the election and what the cited "scientists" think of the candidates but it contained no information at all about climate change.