olofscience

Members
  • Content

    1,726
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Feedback

    N/A

Everything posted by olofscience

  1. Well as I said, my knowledge of her is very limited. Liz Truss, however is introducing herself and her policies to the UK right now, and it's not going very well...
  2. My limited knowledge of this indicates the opposite - that she's actually quite supportive of Ukraine against Russia. One of Liz Truss' good qualities is her support for Ukraine, but right now her claim to fame is she's crashing the UK markets with some rather brain-dead policies even rich bankers in the City are betting against. (Who by the way, are the main beneficiaries in her round of tax cuts)
  3. Meanwhile in the Pacific, Typhoon Noru has reached winds equivalent of a Category 5 hurricane: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/24/asia/super-typhoon-noru-karding-heads-for-philippines/index.html Dude, where's brent?
  4. Driving. It's still in free fall, will probably reach 1:1 (or below) in the future.
  5. No, it's because of the regulations that have been implemented into law within the past 10 years. More on this on the article they've actually written: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/21/liz-truss-fracking-britain-economic-political-low-carbon-cuadrilla As a founder I'd expect him to retain quite a bit of equity in the company, and he's still very pro-fracking so he's still very much not in my camp when it comes to energy policy. I just quoted him to show how inconsistent and confused the pro-fracking side are, like how I proved with some simple maths how Europe can't even get near meeting their gas needs even if they fracked as much as they can. I want the energy issues solved too, but fracking isn't it. People are just going for it to 'own the libs'.
  6. When the founder of a fracking company, who's still a very vocal proponent of fracking, says it won't work in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/21/fracking-wont-work-uk-founder-chris-cornelius-cuadrilla ...it's goalpost moving time for the deniers.
  7. Their entire shtick is based on making up arguments of the "other side". They've been arguing with an Al Gore in their head for decades. When you try to debate them they'll say so much made up crap that's so nonsensical it's clear that they're not arguing with you at all - just the extremist liberal ghosts in their head. It's sad, really.
  8. It's okay to not be able to handle more than two variables in your brain. It's also okay to make stuff up about me so you can feel better about yourself, it's a free country But could you actually reply to our points so we can move the discussion along?
  9. And pretty basic stuff is what brent fails at. I live in the UK, and my in-laws' property has a gas boiler. They want to convert to a heat pump but the heat exchanger takes a lot of space and there's just no space, it's an old Georgian house. If it's a listed property, then it's even more difficult to make modifications. But brent thinks it's just about price and reliability. Only two items at a time.
  10. Again more simplistic assumptions when you hardly understand anything. A lot of building heating here is done with gas boilers which then circulates hot water through radiators. You can't easily convert that to not use gas.
  11. This is so brain-dead. Petrol and diesel also cost more in the UK than Texas.
  12. You implied it. Gowlerk: renewables are cheaper you: if it were true, then they would be chosen instead of X So, you were implying price was the only factor. Nice try trying to slither out of that one.
  13. You're making 'liberal' arguments that no one here is making. Look up the definition of strawman argument. You posted it here once...
  14. Well that's a pretty low bar, to be more realistic than arguments the liberal in your head made up.
  15. You assume price is the only issue because you can't fit more than one factor in your mind at a time. If price was the only issue, only one model of car would ever be sold. Edited to remove wording
  16. And once again, brent sets up another set of strawmen arguments that he then argues against... That climate alarmist living rent-free in his head must be really annoying.
  17. Contributing. I just answered your question on the other thread about natural variability. It was even a step-by-step guide. And you?
  18. This is the guy who says Ukraine is full of "Nazis"...
  19. Step 1: measure global temperatures in the pre-industrial period (say, 1700-1850ish) Step 2: average them per time point Step 3: for each data point, find the distance from the mean Step 4: get the variance of the data set. Step 5: get the square root of the variance - this is the standard deviation. I'd say the "range of natural variability" would be 2 standard deviations to cover 95% cumulative probability.
  20. Lol, you're the one repeating that graph, not me. The one you don't understand but keep posting again, and again.
  21. You posted the graph again. Do you know what the y-axis means?
  22. I thought you didn't like models, but preferred real data. Are you now a fan of climate models?
  23. He probably thinks that he knows what 'natural variability' is because he notices the daily temperature change at home. So he'd think a 1.0 degree C increase was small. But it just shows he doesn't know what "global mean surface temperature anomaly" means. None of the deniers have, actually...you'd think they'd know what it is by now, given they keep posting (distorted) graphs of it!
  24. To avoid moving goalposts (too frequently, he still does them lots), Brent's "range of natural variability" includes the biggest extremes in the past several million years. Slim King's "range of natural variability" includes numbers that he thinks are small.