3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, olofscience said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
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 by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
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 by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3