3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

(edited)
7 hours ago, Coreece said:

My beef isn't with history lessons or EVs,  it's about your stupid comparison to Norway and turning everything into a damn pissing contest.

So stop being so pissy.

I made a simple statement about electric sales in Norway.  The first comparison US to Norway was by Brenthutch. 

Edited by kallend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, kallend said:

So stop being so pissy.

I made a simple statement about electric sales in Norway.  The first comparison US to Norway was by Brenthutch. 

Now look at who is being weasely.

It is nice of you to finally admit that my failure to embrace the GND, is not due a misunderstanding of the physics, economics and political realities but rather my lack of imagination.    The challenges your side face are quite the opposite.

 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


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

 The challenges your side face are quite the opposite.

The challenges are the same for all sides. There actually is only one side on this planet. Most people are choosing to face the challenge (or at least acknowledge it), others choose to pretend it does not exist.

Share this post


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

Now look at who is being weasely.

It is nice of you to finally admit that my failure to embrace the GND, is not due a misunderstanding of the physics, economics and political realities but rather my lack of imagination.    The challenges your side face are quite the opposite.

 

So according to you and Coreece, a simple statement of  fact is being pissy or weaseling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kallend said:

So according to you and Coreece, a simple statement of  fact is being pissy or weaseling.

I will cop to introducing the term "weasel words" into the thread. I did not mean to call anyone a weasel. Weasel words is a marketing term that describes the careful use of words to give an impression that is basically false without technically lying.

 

https://www.amanet.org/training/articles/get-rid-of-those-pesky-weasel-words.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Weasel Words There are certain “weasel words” that modify the meaning of what you’re saying to the point that you appear to be saying one thing when you’re actually saying the exact opposite. Weasel words and phrases include “may,” “might,” “could,” “can,” “can be,” “virtually,” “up to,” “as much as,” “help,” “like,” “believe,” “possibly,” and similar qualifiers that create enough wiggle room for a rhino."

Sounds like every warmist paper ever published.

Share this post


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

It is nice of you to finally admit that my failure to embrace the GND, is not due a misunderstanding of the physics, economics and political realities but rather my lack of imagination.    

 

?? No.  Your initial misunderstanding of things like the  Shockley-Queisser limit, the Betz limit and the laws of thermodynamics just means that the article's claim - that the Green New Deal is physically impossible - is invalid.

No one claimed that you "failed to embrace" the GND because of political realities.  Indeed, political pushback is the primary reason it would be difficult to implement.

Quote

The challenges your side face are quite the opposite.

On the plus (and minus) side, the science of anthropogenic climate change is based in science rather than politics, and thus will not be influenced in the slightest by denial of said science.  In addition, the solutions we have come up with so far are not just scientifically possible - they actually work and are out there.  Denying that, or claiming they are physically impossible because Betz, will not help your cause.

Share this post


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

You misspelled practically 

You are the one who titled the thread "green New Deal = magical thinking". Magic is defined as physically impossible. Are you now walking that back to impractical?

Share this post


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

You misspelled practically 

Good!  You're backpedaling, which is an improvement.

It's not impoossible, or "magical thinking," which you now admit.  It would be incredibly difficult to implement.  A GOP senator has introduced his own "green new deal" which would also be incredibly difficult (and wouldn't result in what he claims it would) - but that's progress.  More work - and proposals from both sides - and we will get a GND that _does_ work and accomplishes its goals.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Progress indeed.  So now you concede that while the GND is not impossible, it is impractical.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impractical

im·prac·ti·cal
/imˈpraktək(ə)l/
adjective
  1. 1. 
    (of an object or course of action) not adapted for use or action; not sensible or realistic.
     
    As long as we are discussing courses of action that are not adaptable, sensible nor realistic we remain in the domain of magical thinking.
Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 6:56 PM, SkyDekker said:

20 years ago reality would have dictated we could not watch tv, wireless on handheld device.

20 years ago reality would have dictated the UK would be entirely off coal for 3 days in a row.

20 years ago reality would have dictated Germany would not be able to produce 100% of its energy from renewable sources for a day.

Actually - your first assumption is incorrect - cellular and wireless has been around a LOT longer than 20 years.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nine-predictions-about-the-internet-steve-jobs-nailed-20-years-ago-2016-3

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Kind of like long high walls?

Exactly like long high walls!  Yes we currently have the technology to create a 50 foot high wall and an alligator filled moat from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico.  Would it help prevent illegal crossing?  Most certainly.  Would it be supported by a zealous slice of the population?  Yes.  Would it solve our immigration problems?  No.  Would it be a massive waste of money?  Yes.  So yes, exactly like long high walls.

Share this post


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

Progress indeed.  So now you concede that while the GND is not impossible, it is impractical.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impractical

im·prac·ti·cal
/imˈpraktək(ə)l/
adjective
  1. 1. 
    (of an object or course of action) not adapted for use or action; not sensible or realistic.
     
    As long as we are discussing courses of action that are not adaptable, sensible nor realistic we remain in the domain of magical thinking.

Jet engines were impractical in 1937.  Decoding Enigma was impractical in 1939.  Transistors were impractical in 1946.  Artificial satellites were impractical in 1956.  Lasers and Moon missions were impractical in 1960.  

You continue to argue against history.

 

Share this post


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

I love how some here use broad brushstrokes to try and make a point. When in reality they make themselves look silly. That said, please, none of you stop! I am so looking forward to 2020

It could only get better. We are all looking forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kallend said:

Jet engines were impractical in 1937.  Decoding Enigma was impractical in 1939.  Transistors were impractical in 1946.  Artificial satellites were impractical in 1956.  Lasers and Moon missions were impractical in 1960.  

You continue to argue against history.

 

Electric cars have been in development for nearly two centuries, their time has come and gone.  They may remain in limited use for short range urban commutes and of course virtue signaling, but that's about it.

Share this post


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

Electric cars have been in development for nearly two centuries, their time has come and gone.  They may remain in limited use for short range urban commutes and of course virtue signaling, but that's about it.

Apparently virtue is making a comeback and you completely missed it. How do you explain the billions of real corporate capitalist dollars being spent on developing electric cars if their time has passed? Are you smarter than the people running the car companies? I'm pretty sure you aren't richer and never will be.

Share this post


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

If you think wealth = intelligence, you haven't been paying attention.

If you think EVs are a thing who's time has passed you haven't been paying attention. Nice try at putting words into my mouth, but how about addressing the subject of the effective deployment of capitol? You seem to be saying there are a lot of people leading a lot of major companies who just aren't as good at predicting the direction of the future as you. Have you even considered entertaining the thought that you may be wrong?

About this:

"Electric cars have been in development for nearly two centuries, their time has come and gone.  They may remain in limited use for short range urban commutes and of course virtue signaling, but that's about it. "

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 EV’s will have their niche. But they’ll never be more than what, I don’t know, you pick a percentage of the market. But it won’t be anywhere near 50% I do not believe.

 

 And then many of you do not even know or understand what the demand costs of electricity for the faster charging stations are going to mean to the cost of electricity for those who choose to get EVs. That’s coming. Three tier billing system which includes demand. Oh that’s going to hurt .

 

 Unless you can be open to charging them off peak which means that night. 

 

 They have their place but they’re not going to be the panacea that many of the uninformed here think they’re going to be .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, rushmc said:

 EV’s will have their niche. But they’ll never be more than what, I don’t know, you pick a percentage of the market. But it won’t be anywhere near 50% I do not believe.

 

 And then many of you do not even know or understand what the demand costs of electricity for the faster charging stations are going to mean to the cost of electricity for those who choose to get EVs. That’s coming. Three tier billing system which includes demand. Oh that’s going to hurt .

 

 Unless you can be open to charging them off peak which means that night. 

 

 They have their place but they’re not going to be the panacea that many of the uninformed here think they’re going to be .

Ummm - No.

EVs will be the replacement of the internal combustion engine - or at least in all ways that it matters.

Technology is improving on them every day - 

Progress in battery capacity, storage, and safety is made every day.  The road to the future is going to be EVs.

I don't think there is a competitive vehicle manufacturer that isn't introducing an EV as part of its product line.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
3 3