Green new deal equals magical thinking

[kallend 1,620]

37 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Kallend didn’t like Prager, he said he trusts  the National Academy of Engineering, so I quoted a source on their website.  

 

That is about as lame as it's possible to get, given WHO the actual "source" is.  You attempt to attribute it to the NAE because their site  hosted it.

 

Not just lame but intellectually dishonest.

[brenthutch 383]

Just now, kallend said:

That is about as lame as it's possible to get, given WHO the actual "source" is.  You attempt to attribute it to the NAE because their site  hosted it.

 

Not just lame but intellectually dishonest.

Enough with the name calling.  I went to your preferred source, did a quick search and posted the first one.  Nothing nefarious.  I see that you continue to struggle with the actual content of the video I posted.  Try watching it again.

[kallend 1,620]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Enough with the name calling.  I went to your preferred source, did a quick search and posted the first one.  Nothing nefarious.  I see that you continue to struggle with the actual content of the video I posted.  Try watching it again.

You continue to attempt to attribute a statement from a discredited charlatan to the NAE because the NAE site  hosted it.

Intellectually dishonest.

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, kallend said:

You continue to attempt to attribute a statement from a discredited charlatan to the NAE because the NAE site  hosted it.

Intellectually dishonest.

If the NAE was so credible, why would they host a statement from a discredited charlatan?  Either you are wrong or the NAE is not as credible of a source as you claim.  In which case you would still be wrong.   Take your pick.

[kallend 1,620]

Just now, brenthutch said:

If the NAE was so credible, why would they host a statement from a discredited charlatan?  Either you are wrong or the NAE is not as credible of a source as you claim.  In which case you would still be wrong.   Take your pick.

Same reason the NYT  and WaPo feature articles by Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell.

Stop being intellectually dishonest.

[brenthutch 383]

18 minutes ago, kallend said:

Same reason the NYT  and WaPo feature articles by Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell.

Stop being intellectually dishonest.

The article is NOT by Dennis Prager it is by Mark Mills, (a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, where he co-directs an Institute on Manufacturing Science and Innovation.)  Don’t be so close minded that you don’t even consider other points of view.  
 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

Ok - so - 

Back to the video.

Which specific parts are untrue and/or incorrect?

[olofscience 420]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

did a quick search and posted the first one.

and that summarises your knowledge of this topic...shallow and riddled with errors.

[turtlespeed 212]

15 minutes ago, olofscience said:

and that summarises your knowledge of this topic...shallow and riddled with errors.

Maybe you can help with the inaccuracies in the video.

[brenthutch 383]

29 minutes ago, olofscience said:

and that summarises your knowledge of this topic...shallow and riddled with errors.

Nice.....another insult.  Why don’t  you or Kallend deal with the points made in the video?  Oh, that’s right....you can’t.  

[olofscience 420]

31 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Maybe you can help with the inaccuracies in the video.

Only if brenthutch spends a bit more time actually reading the articles that he posts, and actually puts effort into educating himself. I've got better things to do with my time.

If you want a history of his posts, it pretty much goes:

1. climate change isn't happening
2. once that becomes undeniable, he switches to "yes it's happening, but we can't stop it, it's actually good for us"
3. fossil fuels are the best and renewables will never work!
4. every now and then he'll find an article saying "climate change isn't happening", he forgets what he said in (2) and cheerfully repeats like a broken record
5. assorted other attacks against electric cars, renewables, etc. without any engineering knowledge whatsoever

So I won't waste my time on him. But Turtle, if you summarise the points in the video to me, I can answer your questions and engage in a hopefully more productive discussion.

[brenthutch 383]

54 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Only if brenthutch spends a bit more time actually reading the articles that he posts, and actually puts effort into educating himself. I've got better things to do with my time.

If you want a history of his posts, it pretty much goes:

1. climate change isn't happening
2. once that becomes undeniable, he switches to "yes it's happening, but we can't stop it, it's actually good for us"
3. fossil fuels are the best and renewables will never work!
4. every now and then he'll find an article saying "climate change isn't happening", he forgets what he said in (2) and cheerfully repeats like a broken record
5. assorted other attacks against electric cars, renewables, etc. without any engineering knowledge whatsoever

So I won't waste my time on him. But Turtle, if you summarise the points in the video to me, I can answer your questions and engage in a hopefully more productive discussion.

More like,

1.  Climate changes, it always has and always will, it has been warming in fits and starts since the end of the Little Ice Age.

2.  Climate related deaths have dropped dramatically during the last hundred years and the elevated CO2 levels have resulted in a literal greening of the planet and have contributed to record food production.

3.  Fossil fuels have an energy density unmatched by renewables and we have a centuries+ worth in recoverable reserves.

4.  If electric cars and renewable energy were economically viable they would not need government support.
 

5.  Wind and Solar are not ecologically benign and require heavy industrial and mining processes for their production and have to be replaced every twenty to thirty years.

6.  Wind and solar are unreliable and lead to skyrocketing energy prices where their adoption is widespread ($.30+kWh in Germany and Denmark)

Fixed it for you.

Edited September 17, 2020 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,120]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If electric cars and renewable energy were economically viable they would not need government support.

Under this logic oil and coal aren't viable either, yet you wholeheartedly support it.

[brenthutch 383]

33 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Under this logic oil and coal aren't viable either, yet you wholeheartedly support it.

Economics is pushing out coal in favor of natural gas as it should.  With regard to oil, I have no idea what you are talking about.  Is there some magical substance that can power the global economy that is plentiful, easy to use and transport AND costs less than oil?

Edited September 17, 2020 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,120]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Economics are pushing out coal in favor of natural gas as it should.  With regard to oil, I have no idea what you are talking about.  Is there some magical substance that can power the global economy that is plentiful, easy to use and transport AND costs less than oil?

And yet the American oil industry is heavily subsidized. You note that as an indicator of nonviability. 

[gowlerk 1,902]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

And yet the American oil industry is heavily subsidized. You note that as an indicator of nonviability. 

Apparently the healthcare system is also non-viable.

[brenthutch 383]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

And yet the American oil industry is heavily subsidized. You note that as an indicator of nonviability. 

The American oil industry pays more in taxes than it gets in subsidies making it viable.  Not only viable but critical to state and local governments who depend on the tax revenues the oil and gas industry provides.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

47 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The American oil industry pays more in taxes than it gets in subsidies making it viable.  Not only viable but critical to state and local governments who depend on the tax revenues the oil and gas industry provides.

So you are saying subsidies are not an indicator of viability? Then why did you start by saying it is? Do you give any thought to what you post?

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

So you are saying subsidies are not an indicator of viability? Then why did you start by saying it is? Do you give any thought to what you post?

Net net oil and gas are NOT subsidized 

[SkyDekker 1,120]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Net net oil and gas are NOT subsidized 

Unless you can prove that the subsidies lead to more tax revenue, they are subsidized.

[brenthutch 383]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Unless you can prove that the subsidies lead to more tax revenue, they are subsidized.

Give me an example of what you are referring to when you say “subsidies” and I will break it down for you.

[olofscience 420]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

2.  Climate related deaths have dropped dramatically during the last hundred years and the elevated CO2 levels have resulted in a literal greening of the planet and have contributed to record food production.

<facepalm>

The bottleneck for food production wasn't CO2. It's fixed nitrogen. The invention of the Haber-Bosch process in 1909 made the massive increase in food production in the 20th Century possible.

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

5.  Wind and Solar are not ecologically benign and require heavy industrial and mining processes for their production and have to be replaced every twenty to thirty years.

And oil and gas installations don't need any replacement or maintenance? You see, I used to work for an oil company. I'm not some hippy lefty. I know far more than you do on how the industry works.

Could you also please learn some engineering? I feel stupider already for even replying to you...

[SkyDekker 1,120]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Give me an example of what you are referring to when you say “subsidies” and I will break it down for you.

• 26 U.S. Code § 263.
• 26 U.S. Code § 613
• Internal Revenue Code § 48A and 48B
• Internal Revenue Code § 45.(though this ended in 2014, it subsidized the fossil fuel industry in the billions while active)
• 26 U.S. Code § 472
• 26 U.S. Code § 901
• Internal Revenue Code § 7704

 

[airdvr 197]

29 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I feel stupider already for even replying to you...

I think the correct grammar would be "more stupid".  I doubt you can be "stupider".

[SkyDekker 1,120]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

I think the correct grammar would be "more stupid".  I doubt you can be "stupider".

This statement is too ironic not too quote.

You may want to google it, you know not to be stupidest......