olofscience

There's a lot of economically-useful gold just sitting in gold vaults underground in London. That gold could be used for various coatings, corrosion protection, etc. but they're just sitting there because some rich people think they should be used to "store" their money instead. We're animals, and we just like hoarding and accumulating stuff. This is why capitalism is flawed - money's net flow is upwards, where it will stop and accumulate. The upwards flow, and downwards flow (i.e. trickle down) are not equal. Since they're both just money you can add the numbers together and they cancel out, and what remains is the net flow.

This entire thread is pretty much just Brent jumping at any opportunity to flex. Yep, he's definitely not insecure... However there's a brutal truth - if society was more equal, with billions more people in the middle class, total global CO2 emissions would be VASTLY more than they are now. Those billions that billionaires are sitting on, doing nothing, are also billions not generating more CO2. (They *are* very very wasteful with CO2 per billionaire, but there's not that many of them) It really sucks, and we really should be able to alleviate human suffering without increasing CO2 emissions, but our technology is not quite there yet (though in less than 5 years, it will be). So in some weird sense I'm with Brent on this...sort of. How's that for a typical lefty? But I'm risking an actual discussion on this thread and interrupting Brent's ego trip

This is really funny since in another thread, Brent was trying to insinuate that I needed to use google to look up a common word for female sheep. He really needs to brush up his vocabulary. Yup, says an old white man these problems don't exist! I guess we can all go home now, nothing to see here

Piston engines are less efficient though. They'll have to throw away a lot of heat to avoid melting (note how much cooling water is mentioned in the link you provided) However they do have the advantage of quicker start-up time than turbines. Still, grid-scale batteries are better.

Agree with most of your post except this, turbines take time to start and spin up. And every turbine start affects their lifetime. For peaking, grid-scale batteries have much faster response times and probably much lower total cost.

Left-leaning like Slim King? You definitely hope so!

You're so desperate aren't you Your "burns" are just so contrived and made up...just like your normal posts actually.

You're trying so hard here! I live not too far away from Silverstone, and I've never heard of them

Both tyre wear particles and tailpipe emissions are bad, but if I had to choose between them, I'd choose tyre particles. Tailpipe emissions have more smaller particles - PM2.5 and below, while tyre wear causes larger particles. PM2.5 is linked more definitively to negative health impacts, and death. And you HAPPILY announce any increases in coal use - they're one of the biggest emitters of mercury in the air. It's also funny how you pretend you care about pollution when plastic bag waste increases, you're almost jumping for joy.

Bill was saying that to believe, and regurgitate it here, you'd have to be...never mind. And gas cars weigh nothing, eh?

That would require: (1) understanding of the concept of dividing a number with another, (2) to enable fairer comparisons 1) His ability (or lack of) in maths doesn't really need any further repetition here 2) He doesn't want fair comparisons, he wants unfair comparisons in his favour to make himself feel good

If there was only something we could do to account for that... Maybe we can use some math to find the overall trend! Call it..."averaging". Nah, who am I kidding.

You're quite misinformed about Brent's record of making honest arguments here. And it's not like this is the first time he's done it either. He DOES laugh at the damage, and he's just denying it, and you're also mistaken about how "everyone else knows he's not" exactly because of this. And yes, I do have proof. Go ahead, ask for it.

But you're laughing at the damage. I need to emphasise: you're laughing at the damage. You're not laughing at just the progressives any more. You delight in the damage. You've got serious problems, man. Nah, reality isn't that bad at maths.

No, your "laughing" emoji was literally laughing about plastic waste increasing. Something's gone very wrong in your life that you're acting like a cartoon villain. What next - rolling over laughing if a progressive train driver causes a toxic spill in your town resulting in an environmental disaster? You should try practising that laugh in the mirror. For villains, british accents are also popular, need any help with that?

I meant, using opinion pieces as sources. But yeah, fair point. Brent is the kind of person to even cherry-pick quotes to completely reverse their meaning so he could say he "quoted wikipedia".

So, when was your last visit?

Another opinion piece about a part of the world you barely know. Another thread started, because you got so completely owned on the last one. Mods, can we make it a rule that opinion pieces NEED to be marked clearly as such by the person posting them? Banning them as thread-starting sources would be even better, but I'd settle for just better labelling. This guy keeps misleadingly posting opinion pieces as fact.

Here's my quote from the thread "Missing January Update". Now we know why he has to start new threads instead of just continuing that one...

I already predicted that you'd use this argument. So I said, and you seem to have missed it - an El Niño typically ONLY INCREASES TEMPERATURES BY 0.2C. Last year, the temperature increase was MORE THAN 1.5 I may have to start correcting myself. Not only can you not handle things with two or more variables, you're even having trouble with just one.

Funny, you've spent SO much effort denying that, only to throw all that effort away. Nice, head in the sand time. Let me say this again - I wish you were right and warming isn't a thing (at least some of the time - since you keep changing your arguments). Not least because I love snowsports and it hardly snows in the UK any more. But I'm not the one needing a reality check.

Back to the topic though: Consider a function y = sin(x) + 0.1x Which term dominates at x = 100? Which term contributes to the greatest change between 0 < x < 2*pi? That's just a very simple example, and global temperature is magnitudes more complicated, but to answer your question, Yes, yes we can have it both ways. You just can't understand, or won't. It's really up to you.

A few times already...one was on November 16th, 2021.

This is funny. I keep saying, you can't handle a system with more than one variable, and you keep proving me right.

Must have hit a nerve. Ad hominem means attacking the person. I was merely describing what he did.