Mainecoons

Definitely. I would think the high rent in there will pose a bit of a challenge.

It basically reads they expect to be done on the Madero reconstruction by the end of February. It describes how the "mayor" and other officials walked the project from the waterfront to Soriana inspecting the work. We'll see. It certainly is a nice improvement for Chapala and looks to be done much better than the usual. It does appear the amount of on street parking has been reduced. That may cause even more double parking. If it wasn't for the double parkers this work would make for quick trips through the town. However... 🤣 Chapala, "Where residents of Ajijic and other towns of the Chapala Municipio go to see their tax dollars at work." 🤑 It is really a nice town these days. The waterfront is very attractive. It has excellent shopping and quite a number of nice restaurants. We take all our visitors there. If moving here now, I think we would look for a home there first, instead of Ajijic. Still relatively free of "gringo pricing." The Chapala graffiti warriors need to get restarted however. Too many tags for a nice town.

Depends on how old whether it might be worth fixing. If you do decide to replace it, just put the old one out on the curb. It will get recycled in some manner. One of the great things about living in Mexico! I wonder if that wizard in San Juan Cosala could fix it? He recently fixed what is now a $600 SVS subwoofer for me, able to completely rebuild the power supply, for $50.

I only have a few stocks. Smells like a bubble to me. At this age, I want to be more conservative. We've done very well here in Mexico. Now I'd like to hear from some current Multiva account holders, please.

I understand there was a pretty major staff change at Multiva. How has that worked out for those of you who have accounts there? Looking to get more money out of the U.S. because of the wild deficit spending there. Want to diversify from our current investment bank. Your comments appreciated.

Kiko, that is so factual I'm not sure it belongs here. LOLOLOLOL!

Yeah, publishing will do it. Those Chinese are going to drown those CO2 molecules in paper and save the planet. Rather like going on endlessly about it on this board and calling anyone who expresses skepticism about the simplistic explanations about causes and apocalyptic predictions "deniers" like some sort of religious fanatic. After all, what self respecting CO2 molecule wants to be labeled thus? Here's the reality. The developing world is driving this train now and their carbon emissions are increasing exponentially. And our small minority of the world's population can't do a damned thing about it. They want what we have and they are going to get it come Hell or high water. They are already well on their way. Add up the numbers in the chart. The U.S. and Europe, the only two declining lines, add up to about 600. All the rising lines add up to 3000. That's a five times spread and it is widening rapidly. We better hope all the doom and gloom is wrong, but if it is not, it won't be the first time there has been mass extinction on this planet and it won't be the last. Ask the first dinosaur you see if you don't believe me. Keep your eye on the bacteria in the test tube...

Great. Now tell us what you're going to do about this: I'll wait.

Yeah, me too.

OK let's get back on topic here, please.

Yes, I used them regularly when I had a Honda CRV. Excellent and very reasonable. Second this recommendation.

This is a good example of what happens when a bunch more people want, and get, what formerly was limited to a minority mainly in the developed nations. Chinese car ownership. This is not just happening there, it is happening all over the developing world. IMO this will swamp anything the relatively small percentage of the population living in the U.S., Canada, and Europe will do. And it is not just cars, it is larger living spaces, more appliances, AC and heat, coal fired power plants, etc. Another example: Coal consumption. Although China seems to be finally leveling out at a high level, notice the India and "others" categories versus the U.S. and Europe. It is human nature for people in emerging countries to want the better standard of living that formerly was mainly limited to the nations above. And just this one item, cars, shows they are very busy getting it. That was my point about the 20 percent (or a lot more) wanting what the developed 20 percent or so already have. This is the kind of inappropriate personal unpleasantness that shows up when people can't handle opinions other than theirs and are so insecure in their beliefs they are motivated to lash out at the "disbelievers". They get personally nasty. Knock it off or leave the thread.

Rick, that is what a reasoned argument looks like. Thank you. However, more than a few are calling for an abrupt end to fossil fuels. What the extremists are trying to do to the food supply is all over the news these days and there is a full scale farmer's rebellion going on in Europe right now. I do have a real problem with the people who want to target the cleanest economies while they pretend the dirtiest That's bad science and bad policy and sure won't help the climate or the environment. Kiko, that is just a big fat logical fallacy, trotting out an irrelevant red herring to suggest that anyone who questions the climate narrative is a conspiracy theorist. Trust me, the Taylor Swift conspiracy bunch is way out there on the fringe with the flat earth society. She probably loves all the free publicity though, LOL. Anyway, the time between a conspiracy theory and reality these days feels like less than 6 months. 🤣 I definitely fall in the skeptical and pessimistic category here. I firmly believe the core that drives this whole thing is too many people wanting the same things that in actuality only about 20 percent, if that, of us have now. I view that as an unstopable force like the bacteria in the test tube experiment I described earlier. If just 20 percent of the remainder get there, the resource depletion and collateral damage to the environment cannot be survived IMHO. This WHO bunch thinks they can create a giant anthill of 15 minute cities where no one owns anything (except the WHO billionaires who fly their polluting jets by the hundreds to Davos) and they think the masses are just going to roll over and take it. Aside from the reality the climate on this planet changes constantly, the other reality is there is always some member or group of the elite who thinks they know what is best for everyone and they have the right to force it on the world. Always with the same outcome.

Exactly. When it is real science, skepticism and questioning and reasoned debate is the order of the day. Real science is not built by starting out with a conclusion and then spending billions proving it and very little disproving it. 'When it is a religion, terms like "denier" and "heretic" come to the fore and the true believers seek to suppress dissent. That the climate is changing is not in dispute here. Climate has always changed and there is every expectation it will continue to do so. What is in dispute are what all the causes are, how each impacts the situation, what the real impacts will be some 50 years hence, and what can really be done about it without creating mass misery, starvation and death as a result of dismantling the last 100 years of human progress. Because, like it or not, suddenly ending the use of fossil fuels for energy, for food production, for keeping billions of people from freezing would have that result. There's no question the data show things appear to be warming up. How much is that impacted by the reported over 90 percent of NASA temperature monitors being located below standards when it comes to proximity to heat sources? What is the impact of an apparent change in the earth's tilt that may have resulted in a record setting cold winter in the Antarctic? Increased CO2, the food that all plant life and the oxygen producing algae in the ocean, appears to be causing a greening of the earth. When the earth was hotter, it was wetter and greener. If that effect grows, how will that affect the situation going forward? These are the kinds of questions that need to be raised and examined. With science, not with religion.

I sent you a graphic example of what constitutes real politics versus a difference of opinion over how real science is generated. To help you with your confusion without engaging in politics on the open board. OK I knew full well you wouldn't like it much but it does serve to illustrate rather vividly the difference between what you label as politics in an attempt to stifle opinions you don't like, versus the real thing. Knowing your political inclinations, I indulged in a little fun there, sorry. Anyone else would like to see the "nasty" picture, let me know and I'll PM it to you. It's pretty clear some of us have different ideas as to what constitutes "nasty" as well. BTW, this sure feels like a personal attack. LOL

Good luck with that. 🤣

Please find the sentence in the post you quoted where the word "fact' is used. There are credible references for most of what I posted, like this: https://phys.org/news/2021-04-china-environmental-world-biggest-polluter.html If you want more, please PM me. Thanks.

Exchange rate January 30, 2021: 20.5922 😗

https://www.informador.mx/jalisco/-Guadalajara-Complican-obras-llegada-y-salida-de-pasajeros-del-aeropuerto-tapatio-20240130-0171.html

Last post here before mine was Sunday. Three days ago. Help with the calendar and math anyone? 😄

Seems to me you don't understand the difference between politics and a simple statement of fact backed up by a citation that governments are spending a ton of money in support of the global climate change narrative. Nor is it politics to point out that maybe this kind of lopsided science spending doesn't make for good science. And the fact oil companies make money is irrelevant to what the governments are spending money on, including the money they raise from said oil companies in the form of taxation. Nice logical fallacy there Mountain Momma. This "politics" accusation is basically nothing more than "I don't like your opinion" so I'm going to make false accusations. It shouldn't be long before "racist" is trotted out either.

Nice rant, totally irrelevant to the point I was making, namely that governments with an agenda are pushing billions into mostly one side of the climate debate and the guys doing the "research" know full well where their bread is buttered and what the desired output is. This skewing of scientific research does not make for good science, regardless of the topic. One of the realities you are conveniently forgetful of is those "socialist" and communist countries have seriously dirty economies, China being Exhibit 1. As those folks are busy throwing up coal fired power plants in far greater numbers than exist on this side of the pond I am disappointed in your lack of response to my question as to when you and the other true believers will carry the crusade to the doors of the embassies of communist China and socialist India. Unfortunately for all of us, China isn't really all that socialist now so they have a lot more money to practice mischief around the world. In truth, China is now more of a fascist state where one is allowed to make obscene amounts of money in "private" enterprises loaded with starving workers so long as one does what the state tells he/she to do geopolitically. Hence they now have some serious billionaire types running around to go with their still grinding poverty of the working class. So don't forget to give them Hell about their capitalism along with their carbon when you go. 😄

,,, “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.” Lots of money out there to support the narrative. Not so much for the skeptics. BTW have you organized your demonstrations in Cd. Mx at the Chinese and Indian embassies yet? Inquiring minds want to know. 😀