Green new deal equals magical thinking

[Stumpy 256]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Ask anyone in the Chicago area how their global warming is coming along. 

ROTFLMAO!

I'm genuinely interested in whether you think that comment 

a) Makes a point?

b) Makes a joke?

or

c) makes you look really dumb?

 

[billvon 2,384]

On 4/12/2019 at 6:36 PM, brenthutch said:

My 2013 Accord is worth around $10K (it cost me <35K new), a 2014 Tesla model S is worth around $40K. (>$129K new) I can sustain a governed speed of 135 indefinitely.  After the Tesla is forced into low power mode, I have better acceleration, better handling, better breaks and a higher top speed, I have duel climate control, heated power leather seat, backup camera, lane departure warning, blind spot camera, proximity warning, premium stereo, Bluetooth, GPS multi-screen infotainment center, yada yada yada...Who got the better deal?

The guy who got the used 2002 Civic, obviously!  Dollar for dollar that car blows yours out of the water.

[billvon 2,384]

12 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

I'm genuinely interested in whether you think that comment  . . . 

Pretty sure he just copy and pasted, no thinking involved.  "There's no climate change - it's cold today!" is a meme that pops up with great regularity on Facebook and the like.

[brenthutch 383]

Ok guys, when a leading climate scientist says that "snow will be a rare and exciting event", and then we have colder than average temperatures and blizzards in mid April, it's ok for a little bit of fun poking.  

 

Oh Bill, BTW, my companion was not exclusively based on value, it was based on performance on a road course.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Ok guys, when a leading climate scientist says that "snow will be a rare and exciting event", and then we have colder than average temperatures and blizzards in mid April, it's ok for a little bit of fun poking.  

It would be a lot easier to take the fun poking if you could at least acknowledge basic facts as truth and stop with the fanciful denier rationalizations.

[billvon 2,384]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Ok guys, when a leading climate scientist says that "snow will be a rare and exciting event", and then we have colder than average temperatures and blizzards in mid April, it's ok for a little bit of fun poking.  

Hmm.  I grew up near New York City. When I was a kid it was pretty common to see the bays frozen; most years we'd walk out on the ice, then later endure the parental lecture about how little Joey Bagodonuts drowned after he fell through the ice.

Now such freezes are a pretty rare (and newsworthy) event.  Even if it's cold in Chicago.

Quote

Oh Bill, BTW, my companion was not exclusively based on value, it was based on performance on a road course.

OK. Then it would be interesting to see your Accord against a P100D with the track update.

[millertime24 8]

Quote/ OK. Then it would be interesting to see your Accord against a P100D with the track update. Quote.

 

I agree in a miles driven over the course of 24 hours test. Refueling each vehicle as needed.

[brenthutch 383]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Hmm.  I grew up near New York City. When I was a kid it was pretty common to see the bays frozen; most years we'd walk out on the ice, then later endure the parental lecture about how little Joey Bagodonuts drowned after he fell through the ice.

Now such freezes are a pretty rare (and newsworthy) event.  Even if it's cold in Chicago.

OK. Then it would be interesting to see your Accord against a P100D with the track update.

I love to watch you backpedal.

[DJL 232]

On 4/12/2019 at 9:15 PM, billvon said:

If someone could conclusively prove that the Earth is not warming due to anthropogenic effects, they would certainly win a Nobel and have as much funding as they wanted for the rest of their lives, courtesy of oil and coal companies everywhere.  That's a very powerful incentive for a good scientist to disprove AGW.  

No one has even come close.

This the "elephant in the room" issue with deniers, there should at least be an equal if not greater number of studies showing that CO2/Global Warming is not on a trajectory that requires mankind to change.  The data is available to everyone yet the only thing that detractor have said is "no it's not" or "your data is incorrect in this aspect or that aspect" without any studies supporting a different outcome.  As BVon describes, there are many scientist who are paid to deny and only deny they are literally paid to say those things yet they have not provided any scientific validity to their words.  On the other side is an entire planet of scientists who are only paid for open ended research yet again and again they reach the same conclusions.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 4/12/2019 at 7:10 PM, turtlespeed said:

Not exactly.  But mine is based in reality just as much as the hypothesis that we would have weather like the 1850's.

That wasn't the hypothesis. The change in wording also shows you have a severe lack of understanding of even the simple terms and concepts used. Makes it highly unlikely you have any understanding of the more difficult concepts.

[billvon 2,384]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I love to watch you backpedal.

Yep.  When you do it it's a fact, or a joke.  When I do it it's a backpedal.

Gotcha.

[turtlespeed 212]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

That wasn't the hypothesis. The change in wording also shows you have a severe lack of understanding of even the simple terms and concepts used. Makes it highly unlikely you have any understanding of the more difficult concepts.

Ahhhhh - so what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Lets examine the post and see what was about the topic and what was about the poster . . .. 

Hmmmmm.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Ahhhhh - so what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Lets examine the post and see what was about the topic and what was about the poster . . .. 

Hmmmmm.

Bill's comment was about "temperature". You changed that to "weather".

 

Not a failure to communicate at all. More either a failure to understand the difference, or another attempt at trolling.

[turtlespeed 212]

20 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Bill's comment was about "temperature". You changed that to "weather".

 

Not a failure to communicate at all. More either a failure to understand the difference, or another attempt at trolling.

Holy crap - You don't have an argument to put forth. . . . so you just pick nits.

Temperature is part of the weather.

They are one in the same in a lot of cases.

Jesus Justin, is that really the best argument you can put out there?  Really?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Holy crap - You don't have an argument to put forth. . . . so you just pick nits.

Temperature is part of the weather.

They are one in the same in a lot of cases.

Jesus Justin, is that really the best argument you can put out there?  Really?

Ah, so you don't understand the difference and you think that the difference between temperature and weather is just semantics.

Sounds like you are making my argument for me.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Ah, so you don't understand the difference and you think that the difference between temperature and weather is just semantics.

Sounds like you are making my argument for me.

No. He's just trolling.

Read the rest of the one-liners he's posted in the last day or so.

[brenthutch 383]

There IS a point to be made here.  The whole idea of catastrophic-man-made- global warming, is predicated on the notion that higher temperatures will result in cataclysmic weather.  The failure of reality to comport with the breathless predictions is at the crux of the matter.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Can you point to any reputable scientist (not a grandstanding politician) making that sort of prediction?

All the ones I'm aware of don't make those sorts of 'breathless predictions'. They say the serious, catastrophic consequences will occur in the future (100-300 years).

 

Of course, since people living today won't be around to see it, they don't think it's a problem. Fiddle dee dee.

[billvon 2,384]

On 4/15/2019 at 7:07 PM, brenthutch said:

There IS a point to be made here.  The whole idea of catastrophic-man-made- global warming, is predicated on the notion that higher temperatures will result in cataclysmic weather. 

Why are you assuming that?  "Catastrophic" and "cataclysmic" are emotional, not scientific, terms.  To someone in Bangladesh, a foot rise in sea level could be cataclysmic if he lives there, or a miracle if he's a real estate developer with some inland real estate to unload.  To someone in Denver - he could care less.

[brenthutch 383]

On 4/16/2019 at 8:58 AM, wolfriverjoe said:

All the ones I'm aware of don't make those sorts of 'breathless predictions'. They say the serious, catastrophic consequences will occur in the future (100-300 years).

Since the subject of this thread is the GND, and it’s main sponsor claimed “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”. I think breathless and catastrophic are appropriate adjectives.

Oh and BTW Bill, the warmists are now using terms such as “weather weirding” and “loading the dice” since there is no detectable Anthropogenic component to AGW.

Edited April 17, 2019 by brenthutch

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Got a quote? Or a link?

Or are you taking statements out of context and/or misinterpreting or misunderstanding what was said...

Again.

[billvon 2,384]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Since the subject of this thread is the GND, and it’s main sponsor claimed “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”

No, she didn't.  She said millenials and Gen-Z people were asking Congress that.  The entire quote is "Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' "

Looks a little different when it's in context, eh?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

No, she didn't.  She said millenials and Gen-Z people were asking Congress that.  The entire quote is "Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' "

Looks a little different when it's in context, eh?

And Brent also left out the beginning of the statement he was responding to, since it was regarding reputable scientists making this prediction. I doubt he thinks AOC is a reputable scientist, but he had to eliminate wording to fit his narrative. Pretty much standard fare for any climate change denier.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

No, she didn't.  She said millenials and Gen-Z people were asking Congress that.  The entire quote is "Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' "

Looks a little different when it's in context, eh?

Hmmmm.....hyperbole. This leaves one with a good opportunity to argue that the world will not end in12 years. It does nothing to change the fact that the oceans are warming, sea level is rising, and the glaciers are melting while CO2 levels are increasing.

The fact is that US energy companies spent millions in the past buying politicians and paying for the lies that influenced the American right. They have stopped doing that and now acknowledge climate warming. But the work their money did is still being seen in conservative circles where people like brenthutch and rushmc feel the need to keep the fight going for their side. The rest of the world mostly laughs at them for their foolishness.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

No, she didn't.  She said millenials and Gen-Z people were asking Congress that.  The entire quote is "Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change..."

She said "we're," which is a conjunction of we and are.  So she is part of the group doing the asking.  My point stands, in context and without back pedaling.  I say again, breathless and catastrophic. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by brenthutch