Biden’s Incredible Transition

[gowlerk 1,936]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Note: the "we" is an 'editorial we'. The more severe effects of AGW aren't going to come until well after I'm dead and gone.

Meh.....someone else's problem. Why should I give up my ICE and skydiving? Realistically this is all just an argument over how much we should each be willing to sacrifice to solve a future problem. But some people don't even want to admit that there . They would rather pretend there is no problem. I'm not sure why. Maybe they are avoiding feelings of guilt.

[brenthutch 388]

24 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Nice loaded question.

You'll then choose your own definition of catastrophic, apply your arbitrary criteria to any answer, then declare yourself the winner of the argument, which you do every day in your mind.

You can't really debate honestly, can you?

 

(rhetorical question: you can't. Because without cheating you really have no chance)

I’ll let you choose your own definition of catastrophic. I will even help you out.

cat·a·stroph·ic

/ˌkadəˈsträfik/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

 

1. involving or causing sudden great damage 

[olofscience 423]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I’ll let you choose your own definition of catastrophic.

Nope. Numbers are unambiguous and much clearer, but everyone knows you can't do them.

[brenthutch 388]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Nope. Numbers are unambiguous and much clearer, but everyone knows you can't do them.

What is even less ambiguous and even more clear is greater than, less than and equal to. I’ll start.

Greater than: Food production, polar bear population 

Less than: Global deaths from climate related disasters, EF3 and greater tornadoes 

Equal to: Historical natural variability of floods, droughts, wildfires and hurricanes 

See! It’s easy. Now you try.

But if you can’t, show me your numbers.

Edited June 19, 2022 by brenthutch

[olofscience 423]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What is even less ambiguous and even more clear is greater than, less than and equal to.

Of those three, the only thing that has NO mathematical ambiguity is the definition of equal to. (and you even got your examples wrong)

 

Geez. I've got better things to do that to teach you the basics of how to read, and how to do numbers.

[brenthutch 388]

11 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Of those three, the only thing that has NO mathematical ambiguity is the definition of equal to. (and you even got your examples wrong)

 

Geez. I've got better things to do that to teach you the basics of how to read, and how to do numbers.

So you’ve got nothing. (Other that your prediction that EVs will overtake IC vehicles in four (now three years))

 

Edited June 19, 2022 by brenthutch

[olofscience 423]

Just now, brenthutch said:

So you’ve got nothing

You know when you ask CERN to solve your toddler puzzles, and they don't answer?

It's not because they're afraid 

You really need so much attention, don't you  could you at least try to learn to read your own links, and add two numbers together? I've got to go now, got some grown-up things to work on 

[olofscience 423]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

So you’ve got nothing.

And you've got nothing but dishonest attempts to debate. Drop the strawmen, learn how to read, learn how to add, and we'll talk. K-12 is a good start, maybe in 12 years you'll know something!

Edited June 19, 2022 by olofscience

[JerryBaumchen 1,068]

5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

There seems to be a willing audience here who must be enjoying the interactive performance. I don't get it, but there it is.

Hi Ken,

I don't get it either.

There is the Ignore option; IMO more people should use it.

Jerry Baumchen

 

[jakee 1,262]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’ll let you choose your own definition of catastrophic. I will even help you out.

cat·a·stroph·ic

/ˌkadəˈsträfik/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

 

1. involving or causing sudden great damage 

Is that particularly relevant?

[brenthutch 388]

30 minutes ago, olofscience said:

And you've got nothing but dishonest attempts to debate. Drop the strawmen, 

Facts are not straw men.

[brenthutch 388]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

And you've got nothing but dishonest attempts to debate. Drop the strawmen, learn how to read, learn how to add, and we'll talk. K-12 is a good start, maybe in 12 years you'll know something!

Let me break it down for you Sunshine 

1. There will be no great energy transition.  Fossil fuels provided around 85% of global energy needs, about the same as a decade ago and will continue to dominate for the next several decades. (Actually the amount of FF has increased in absolute terms as the deployment renewables have not kept pace with increased demand.)

2. The largest contribution of renewables is from hydro and the burning of bio-mass, wind and solar are far behind (I doubt most folks wouldn’t consider burning down forests to be ‘good for the planet’)

3.  Atmospheric levels of CO2 will continue to increase in spite of the trillions wasted to prevent it.

I’ll save the best for last

4.  It’s going to be all right.  No need for breathless clutching of pearls, bed wetting nor setting one’s hair alight. Relax, take a deep breath and have the courage to do nothing.

I will let you get back to your Juneteenth celebration.

 

 

[billvon 2,442]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

Is that particularly relevant?

Of course it is.  He got you to reply to him, and he will get attention for the next ten of your replies.

[wmw999 2,155]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

It’s going to be all right.  No need for breathless clutching of pearls, bed wetting nor setting one’s hair alight. Relax, take a deep breath and have the courage to do nothing.

Yes, you, and people like you, will be just fine. Because you have resources, and will probably be lucky. Most people will be, and most people won’t know too many people who aren’t lucky — just as most of us don’t know a significant number of the million+ Americans who have died of COVID.

Wendy P. 

[olofscience 423]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Of course it is.  He got you to reply to him, and he will get attention for the next ten of your replies.

Well...he's arguing with himself now 

[olofscience 423]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

bed wetting nor setting one’s hair alight

Is that what you do? I mean, I know you missed school but as I said before, there are institutions for that.

[Phil1111 918]

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

And you've got nothing but dishonest attempts to debate. Drop the strawmen, learn how to read, learn how to add, and we'll talk. K-12 is a good start, maybe in 12 years you'll know something!

 

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Let me break it down for you Sunshine ...

I will let you get back to your Juneteenth celebration...

 

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Of course it is.  He got you to reply to him, and he will get attention for the next ten of your replies.

Brent is a perfect example of the ugly republican. They have personal financial ideals. Beyond personal interests, guns, cheap living expenses, etc. They don't give a rats ass about anyone else. Their problems, the living conditions of others, the environment, etc. Those are liberal concepts. Stupid ideals.

Facts, compromise, accommodations are irrelevant. They have the senate, the courts, the US military to protect the borders.

Like it or not those like him are a powerful political force. Ignore won't change the upcoming rulings of the USSC. Its rulings on abortion and the environment.

[brenthutch 388]

It is noteworthy that no one addressed the substance of my post.  Nothing but personal attacks and insults.  I really don’t understand the deep psychological need for a climate crisis when there is little evidence of it.

[wmw999 2,155]

I addressed number four.

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 388]

19 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I addressed number four.

Wendy P. 

Everyone will be fine. Unlike now where EVERYONE is suffering from D’s money party and war on fossil fuels.  Unfortunately it is the lefties need to pull an imaginary crisis out of thin air,  without evidence, that is causing pain to the vast majority of ordinary folks.

Edited June 20, 2022 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,155]

Well then you’re not addressing my point, are you? That your definition of “everyone” isn’t very inclusive.

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 388]

Let’s compare those who are suffering from some UNPRECEDENTED global warming issue, with those who are suffering from record gas prices and inflation.  Let’s put them on a scale and decide just who is suffering more.

I’ll let you make the call.

[olofscience 423]

9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

the substance of my post.

It had none. It just had dishonest debating tactics - strawmen, which you can't let go of. The personal attacks and insults were all from you.

Edited June 20, 2022 by olofscience

[brenthutch 388]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

strawmen

 

[olofscience 423]

You should read more, starting with the articles you post. Hopefully you'll know the meaning of more words that way.

There are also some literacy programs for adults you can attend if you're having difficulty reading on your own.