3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, olofscience said:

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...

Sounds like Biden blowing smoke up his own arse, lol:

“I think I have a much higher IQ than you, I suspect. I went to law school on a full academic scholarship — the only one in my class to have full academic scholarship. The first year in law school, I decided I didn’t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class. And then decided I wanted to stay and went back to law school and, in fact, ended up in the top half of my class. I won the international moot court competition. I was the outstanding student in the political science department at the end of my year. I graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and 165 credits; you only needed 123 credits. I would be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours, Frank.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i learn something new every day.  In this case I'm not wrong...just a little weak on being right.

Stupid is a two-syllable adjective, which means you can make its comparative and superlative forms in one of two ways: by adding the corresponding suffix or by adding more or most.
Stupider vs. More Stupid
The form of an adjective determines how you form the comparative. If an adjective contains one syllable, you usually add the suffix -er to make the comparative form. That’s how you get “bigger” from “big” and “taller” from “tall.”

For adjectives with more than two syllables, you usually use the word “more” to create the comparative. That’s why you can say that something is “more beautiful” but not “beautifuller.”

Two-syllable adjectives mix both rules; some of them always use the suffix for the comparative form (heavier, smellier), while others seem to use “more” (more tepid, more lurid). This is one of the reasons some people think that the comparative form of stupid should be more stupid and not stupider.

But the major dictionaries would disagree; stupider is commonly cited as the correct comparative form of the adjective stupid. Stupider is grammatically correct, it is a real word, and it’s been in use for at least the last two hundred years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:
  • 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

 

I’ll make it easy 

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/448794-debunking-democrats-claims-about-fossil-fuel-tax-breaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, olofscience said:

<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.

 

I said CONTRIBUTED to not 100% responsible for.  (Unlike the literal greening of the planet which NASA attributes to elevated CO2). 
 

I understand that infrastructure needs to be replaced however many on the Left think that wind and solar are environmentally benign, they are not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, airdvr said:

i learn something new every day.  In this case I'm not wrong...just a little weak on being right.

What you seem to have done wrong, or incorrectly, is to even bother commenting on someone's use of English grammar in an internet forum. I mean "who fucken cares, eh"? We don't need no steekin' speling lessons either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Uhm, that article confirms there are subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. It provides no evidence there is a net benefit, or that fossil fuel subsidies lead to increased tax revenue.

I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about beyond reading headlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Uhm, that article confirms there are subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. It provides no evidence there is a net benefit, or that fossil fuel subsidies lead to increased tax revenue.

I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about beyond reading headlines.

I never said that fossil fuel subsidies lead to an increase in tax revenue, I said the oil and gas industry pays more in tax revenue than it receives in subsidies.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, brenthutch said:

I never said that fossil fuel subsidies lead to an increase in tax revenue, I said the oil and gas industry pays more in tax revenue than it receives in subsidies.  

Well you said net net net the fossil fuel industry doesn't get subsidies. That can only be the case if the subsidies granted result in increased tax revenue at least equal to the amount of the subsidies. So yes, you kind of really did say that.

Then you said if I gave specific examples of subsidies, you would explain to me how they are creating that additional revenue.

Then I gave you very specific examples, at which point you clearly figured out you really had no clue what you were talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Well you said net net net the fossil fuel industry doesn't get subsidies. That can only be the case if the subsidies granted result in increased tax revenue at least equal to the amount of the subsidies. So yes, you kind of really did say that.

Then you said if I gave specific examples of subsidies, you would explain to me how they are creating that additional revenue.

Then I gave you very specific examples, at which point you clearly figured out you really had no clue what you were talking about.

You are ignoring the $6 in state, local, and income tax for every $1 of federal tax contributed.  So sorry, it’s not even close when compared to the subsidies vs tax revenue on renewables.  It’s not even close, thanks for playing, you loose, have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I said CONTRIBUTED to not 100% responsible for.  (Unlike the literal greening of the planet which NASA attributes to elevated CO2). 
 

I understand that infrastructure needs to be replaced however many on the Left think that wind and solar are environmentally benign, they are not.  

Excuses, excuses. You worded your statement as if CO2 was the major factor. It wasn't. If it had any effect at all it would be fractions of a percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 hours ago, Coreece said:

Sounds like Biden blowing smoke up his own arse, lol:

So...you got anything to contribute to the discussion?

I didn't say I was smarter, I said I knew more about how the oil industry worked, having worked there myself.

But if you think his quick googling and multiple mistakes are equally credible, then that just says more about you.

One more thing: I didn't just make that statement without evidence - my previous discussions with him, his long posting history already reveals the depth of his ignorance and inability to read and understand technical details. Or even read the most basic things about the stuff he posts (like the titles).

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, olofscience said:

Excuses, excuses. You worded your statement as if CO2 was the major factor. It wasn't. If it had any effect at all it would be fractions of a percent.

“Probable effects of increasing global atmospheric CO2concentration on crop yield, crop water use, and world climate are discussed. About 430 observations of the yields of 37 plant species grown with CO2 enrichment were extracted from the literature and analyzed. CO2enrichment increased agricultural weight yields by an 36%. Additional analysis of 81 experiments which had controlled CO2 concentrations showed that yields will probably increase by 33% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Another 46 observations of the effects of CO2 enrichment on transpiration were extracted and averaged. These data showed that a doubling of CO2concentration could reduce transpiration by 34%, which combined with the yield increase, indicates that water use efficiency may double.“

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0378377483900756

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

“Probable effects of increasing global atmospheric CO2concentration on crop yield, crop water use, and world climate are discussed. About 430 observations of the yields of 37 plant species grown with CO2 enrichment were extracted from the literature and analyzed. CO2enrichment increased agricultural weight yields by an 36%. Additional analysis of 81 experiments which had controlled CO2 concentrations showed that yields will probably increase by 33% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Another 46 observations of the effects of CO2 enrichment on transpiration were extracted and averaged. These data showed that a doubling of CO2concentration could reduce transpiration by 34%, which combined with the yield increase, indicates that water use efficiency may double.“

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0378377483900756

 

What, you trust models now? You were pretty against them before.

This paper is from 1983!

It also has quite a big flaw that it assumed a massive increase in CO2 concentration (doubling) while only assuming a 0.25 C increase in global temperature. As of 2020 we're already at around 1.1C so they're already very wrong.

Keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 minutes ago, olofscience said:

What, you trust models now? You were pretty against them before.

This paper is from 1983!

It also has quite a big flaw that it assumed a massive increase in CO2 concentration (doubling) while only assuming a 0.25 C increase in global temperature. As of 2020 we're already at around 1.1C so they're already very wrong.

Keep up.

Yes it probably underestimated because it did not take into account the longer growing season 

here is something more recent from NASA

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


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

:rofl:

Go and publish a paper on it then, I'm sure the academic world will be thrilled to know everything's fine.

Deere combines harvesting corn in Iceland and Alaska. Its the dream of every climate science denier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Phil1111 said:

Deere combines harvesting corn in Iceland and Alaska. Its the dream of every climate science denier.

Well several glaciers and some tundra has definitely become greener due to the increasing temperature. The NASA link said nothing about food production though.

Also, the co-author of the paper said:

Quote

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

The temperate countries might have a small benefit with crops due to warming, but this is offset by crops being at their temperature limit in the tropics.

But climate deniers lapping up the benefits of warming in temperate countries, while dehumanising immigrants from the tropics and trying to keep them out, that's just another level of being an arsehole. Nothing new to them though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Deere combines harvesting corn in Iceland and Alaska. Its the dream of every climate science denier.

If you believe the planet will get so hot that we will be growing corn in Iceland, you would be a climate alarmist not a CAWG skeptic.

Share this post


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

...

But climate deniers lapping up the benefits of warming in temperate countries, while dehumanising immigrants from the tropics and trying to keep them out, that's just another level of being an arsehole. Nothing new to them though.

Yes.

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If you believe the planet will get so hot that we will be growing corn in Iceland, you would be a climate alarmist not a CAWG skeptic.

I love it when chumming brings the fish to the hook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You are ignoring the $6 in state, local, and income tax for every $1 of federal tax contributed.  So sorry, it’s not even close when compared to the subsidies vs tax revenue on renewables.  It’s not even close, thanks for playing, you loose, have a nice day.

You would still have to show those $6 in state, local, and income taxes would be $5 or less without the $1 of federal tax contributed.

Second, that still would make the subsidy a wealth transfer.

Now, you asked for specific examples of subsidies to explain how they lead to increased tax revenues equal to or greater than the subsidy. Are you going to be a man of your word and deliver what you said you would?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You are ignoring the $6 in state, local, and income tax for every $1 of federal tax contributed.  So sorry, it’s not even close when compared to the subsidies vs tax revenue on renewables.  It’s not even close, thanks for playing, you loose, have a nice day.

US spends $81 billion a year to protect global oil supplies, report estimates

The wars that really are about the oil

America’s ‘hidden subsidies’ for fossil fuels are worth $170 billion a year

You're right likely 1000 American dead every year to pay for the wars. A quarter trillion dollars per year in protection and subsidies costs. Not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

If you believe the planet will get so hot that we will be growing corn in Iceland, you would be a climate alarmist not a CAWG skeptic.

Looks like you are a climate alarmist, then!  Welcome to reality.

https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/nature_and_travel/2015/10/20/relentless_swan_attacks_on_corn_fields/

  • 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