Joe Biden has taken us down a rabbit hole

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Na, haven't gone down that path yet but might in the future. I have just followed Tesla's progress for many years. The whole EV charging thing should have been regulated/standardized from the start. Tesla offered their charge port design to other manufacturers early on but they declined. Now we have a bastardized charging situation with I think 3 different plugs. I think there are adapters being made though. Still a pain in the ass.

Yeah,I've heard about the different plug designs that is something that is going to have to be standardized or an adapter of some sort. The EV is an interesting concept. Not sure if I would want one just yet.

[yeahsurewhatev]

tCon, you gotta stop, man. I can't breathe. Damn, that's some funny shit.

When it gets tough to sell tickets for the climate denialism train, how do you continue to prop up the fossil fuel industry (where all roads to convenient truths both start and end)? Well, if they're the only game in town . . .

The one sentence of mine you (conveniently) don't quote is where I question Menton's base assumptions and his motivations. The Global Warming Policy Foundation set itself up as a "charity." Why? you ask (oh, right, you don't). Charities don't have to reveal who funds them. Sure, no problem there. Circle jerk

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Here's a tip for you, yeahsurewhatev. We are going to be largely reliant on fossil fuels for at least another decade or two. Maybe three or four.

If you prefer to worship at the altar of green new deal idolatry, and prefer that your favorite progressive politicians impoverish working class and middle-class Americans in furtherance of the pursuit of this set of fantasies, fine. Go for it!

I doubt that it will work out well for your political heroes, though.

Excellent!

Originally Posted by royamcr

We will be reliant on fossils fuels far into the future. There are some uses that we haven't even started finding a replacement for, like jet fuel. As far as I know there are no plans for electric flight commercially if it is even possible. It might be, but that is decades away for sure.

You're a realist Royamcr.

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

tCon, you gotta stop, man. I can't breathe. Damn, that's some funny shit.

When it gets tough to sell tickets for the climate denialism train, how do you continue to prop up the fossil fuel industry (where all roads to convenient truths both start and end)? Well, if they're the only game in town . . .

Yes, in the minds of members of the Green Party, Francis Menton Jr. and Bjorn Lomborg are climate denialists. TC, Royamcr and I would be too if we mattered. But we're all far from that. We just accept economic and political reality, not only as applied to the USA, but also to Asian and African countries that will be the main drivers of carbon emissions in years to come. I don't believe any of us would question moving to nuclear to provide more baseload power. I personally believe we should treat geoengineering like we did the Manhattan Project. Placing sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere for example could be a solution. And it's something that's temporary, like volcanic eruptions that reduce global temperature. If the effects on climate patterns, rainfall or ocean acidity outweigh the benefits, we just stop. And in the meantime it buys us time.

You sound a bit like some board members you criticized in the abortion thread, who have very strong pro life beliefs, but have a hard time justifying them on a scientific basis. Their views are shaped by belief in a higher power. Similarly your views on climate change appear to be religious. Or at least you haven't explained the basis for your beliefs. If you want to be taken seriously, maybe read the whole thread and tell us where we're wrong.

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

The one sentence of mine you (conveniently) don't quote is where I question Menton's base assumptions and his motivations. The Global Warming Policy Foundation set itself up as a "charity." Why? you ask (oh, right, you don't). Charities don't have to reveal who funds them. Sure, no problem there. Circle jerk

Exactly where did you question specific base assumptions? As to funding and motivations, I can make the same claims about organizations and politicians who support going to net zero in a decade or two. Payments to charities are tax deductible btw, which is why many nonprofits set themselves up that way. And it makes a lot more sense to me to judge peoples' work based on the merits. I may view the Brookings Institute like you view the Mannhattan Institute, but Brookings is dead right most of the time on trade policy.

Btw, if Colorado or California wants to go to net zero by 2040, let them have at it. My problem is when federal politicians and bureaucrats want to impose the same mandate on Texas, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. It's blue state elites imposing their values on the rest of us. And taking away our livelihoods for little or no benefit, considering the pissant percentage reductions in global carbon emissions they're talking about. They'll just have us importing oil and LNG from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russia, Venezuela, etc. instead of producing it here, when they figure out their plans aren't viable.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

The one sentence of mine you (conveniently) don't quote is where I question Menton's base assumptions and his motivations. The Global Warming Policy Foundation set itself up as a "charity." Why? you ask (oh, right, you don't). Charities don't have to reveal who funds them.

So what? Many nonprofits and charities do very valuable work, as I'm sure you're well aware.

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

Circle jerk

Want to see a real circle jerk? Just take a look at that ship of fools riding in the vessel that answers to the name of the International Energy Agency! (Starting with the head fool himself, Fatih Birol.)

Menton has studied this issue deeply and has exposed this bunch of frauds in a fashion that surely must be embarrassing to many in the world of climate-zealotry. He doesn't mince words or suffer fools gladly. (My kind of guy!)

You can argue with the most elemental and immutable laws of mathematics and physics if you wish.

(But it won't go well for you!)

[yeahsurewhatev]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

So what? Many nonprofits and charities do very valuable work, as I'm sure you're well aware.



Want to see a real circle jerk? Just take a look at that ship of fools riding in the vessel that answers to the name of the International Energy Agency! (Starting with the head fool himself, Fatih Birol.)

Menton has studied this issue deeply and has exposed this bunch of frauds in a fashion that surely must be embarrassing to many in the world of climate-zealotry. He doesn't mince words or suffer fools gladly. (My kind of guy!)

You can argue with the most elemental and immutable laws of mathematics and physics if you wish.

(But it won't go well for you!)

Why doesn't this foundation doing such good work reveal its donors? You'd think they would be proud to be associated with such a noble cause.

Climate change deniers claiming the high ground on adhering to science. Too, too rich. Sounds like Donald Trump - No, you're a threat to democracy. You're losing your comedic edge.

[Daneskold1]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

This is common thinking for the " Progressive " which is basically Marxist/Communism thinking. The USSR used to export grain, but because of Central Planning they destroyed their Agriculture base, had empty shelves and had to import grain to keep their people from starving. This is just one example from history, but the " Progressives " don't read economic history and understand how Biden's policies are doing long term economic harm and reduction of the fundamental economic blocks.


This is what many have been saying on here, but the arrogant people that say we are stupid are really the ones that are clueless.


Biden's policies are really reducing a persons choices, and at the same time increasing inflation. The fed increasing Interest rates has been the only thing that has slowed inflation.

So much to unwrap here.

Biden is a Center right. Corporate oligarchy enable to fascism. He has nothing to do with Progressivism. NOTHING

The highest quality of life And have social democracies which is quite progressive actually the definition of.
Every claim you made and that is either nebulous gibberish or 180° opposed from the truth.


For example INFLATION?

There was no inflation. Not a single economist in the world will agree that record corporate profits and inflation can exist at the same time. What happened was nothing more than a myriad of antitrust violations. Please. Macroeconomics is not your wheelhouse.

[Daneskold1]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

I agree with the above posts.

But it gets wierder.. The term "Rabbit Hole" refers to the complete weirdness Alice experienced when she followed the White Rabbit down into Wonderland. In our case here in the USA in the mid 2020s, that rabbit hole goes deep indeed and branches.

The pseudo economics of the all-electric, "zero emission" society envisioned by the progressive left is eclipsed in shear weirdness by the social engineers pushing the LGBTQ+ agenda on everyone. Biden and whoever actually manages the levers of government for him, have just rewritten the real protections for women OUT of Title IX by insisting that biological men who think they are women can interact as though they actually ARE women. This eviscerates any and all benefits to women that the Title IX laws were intended to bring to our society.

This and the above posted remarks about the EPA and missions versus mining etc are as weird as anything Alice saw.

Biden and whoever is doling out his Prevergin pills are turning this Nation and the American character upside down and inside out.

Both major parties answer to the donor class. That’s it. The people are simply plug-in. We must switch to renewals but you are correct in terms of wasted resources. The answer is micro grids or self powered. Removing the need for these gigantic insecure industrial complexes.
We must achieve zero emissions ASAP we should’ve done it already. If implemented in 1980 under Reagan 1.5% of our budget would’ve already had it done. The best way to do that is ban the extraction of all fossil fuel. The other prerequisite absolute for having any hope of complex lifeforms surviving on this rock is to sequester at least 2.5 trillion years trillion with a T, tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere forming into a valuable solid switch is carbon fiber allowing building in incenvisitation. The largest mass extinction in history added somewhere between the 3,5 trillion tons that we have already and 6,000,000,000,000 tons of CO2 over 40,000 years. We’ve done it in less than two centuries. To put our flora and fauna survival rate at the 75% extension the biosphere received then, it would be incredibly generous.

In terms of environmental health and ease of travel, what the nation needs is a highly professionally designed high speed renewable powered rail and integrated into renewable powered light rail in Americas metropolises.

Over 750 million of the nations 900 million domestic flights would’ve been far more comfortable, easier and less demanding on the traveler. Most of them in equal or less time if both things were installed.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

So what? Many nonprofits and charities do very valuable work....

He's not going to engage Texas Contrarian. He's just going to repeat Green homilies. We're wasting our time. Yeahsurewhatev is a lost soul.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

No, you're a threat to democracy.

ROTFLMAO

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

Climate change deniers claiming the high ground on adhering to science. Too, too rich. Sounds like Donald Trump - No, you're a threat to democracy. You're losing your comedic edge.

Originally Posted by Tiny

ROTFLMAO

By way of explanation, this is ironic. Your "debating" style is like Trump's. Attack the messenger instead of the message.

As to the message, I read Menton's .pdf, and there are only two holes I can poke in it. He doesn't appear to fully account for the interconnection of the grid. That is, if the wind isn't blowing in Sweetwater, Texas, the sun may still be shining in Pecos. So that you can use power from Pecos to make up the shortage from Sweetwater, and don't need as much backup storage. Secondly, he says lithium ion batteries only last a few years and would then need to be replaced. From what I'm reading, they last longer. Wood MacKenzie estimates 15 years. He doesn't ever quantify the effect of battery replacement in his cost estimates -- he just mentions it.

However, I've read enough research generated by politically disinterested observers, like mining industry analysts, to know that in general he's correct. The world's not going to be able to provide sufficient backup storage with batteries.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Tiny

...Read some of of Bjorn Lomborg's work on this...

I have seen some of his opinion pieces in the WSJ and believe he has made many excellent points.

For those not familiar with his work, please note that he is most assuredly not a "climate denier." In fact, he has made clear that he thinks human-induced climate change is occurring, though it's hardly the impending calamity claimed by alarmists.

He has said that even if we spend tens of trillions of dollars on expensive green energy solutions over the next few decades, we will only affect the earth's average temperature by a fraction of a degree -- and that that's according to the UN's own climate models!

Lomborg has also noted that a wealthier world will be much better able to protect the health and lives of populations that may in the future be affected by warming; and that conversely, a world made poorer by humongous wasteful "green energy solutions" will be less capable of doing so, and thus the global human condition will deteriorate.

An inconvenient truth for some of the dreamers is that if we wish to enjoy a wealthier world over the near-to-intermediate term, we're going to be relying heavily on fossil fuel-derived energy.

Lomborg has also said that we will eventually innovate our way to a cleaner-energy world, not subsidize our way to it.

One concern I have with subsidies, as can be the case with various forms of action falling under the rubric of "industrial policy," is the risk that they may end up perversely stifling battery technology advances and other innovation, rather than encouraging it.

That's because EV makers might just enjoy becoming fat and happy off of mandates and subsidies, while remaining relatively unincentivized to invest sufficiently in engineering innovations.

On the other hand, we will be far better off as a nation if electric cars become "a big fucking deal" because it makes good practical sense for families to own them, rather than under circumstances where they are mandated to do so by phased-in prohibitions of ICE vehicles, or paid to buy an EV by way of large federal tax credits or other expensive direct means.

The only way we're going to get there is with battery innovations allowing at least a near-doubling of the current maximum range along with a substantial decline in the cost of the battery packs.

And the only way that's going to come to fruition anytime soon is that if there are powerful incentives for EV makers to develop such new technologies rather than just getting fat off subsidies they can milk to a fare-thee-well just by maintaining the status quo.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

One concern I have with subsidies, as can be the case with various forms of action falling under the rubric of "industrial policy," is the risk that they may end up perversely stifling battery technology advances and other innovation, rather than encouraging it.

I'd point to natural gas too. Through industrial policy and outright bans, even if temporary, the Biden Administration and Progressive Democrats in general run the risk of stifling investment in natural gas production and LNG (liquefied natural gas). In 2022, Europeans, Japanese, etc. substituted coal for natural gas because the gas and LNG cost too much or were unavailable. And as you know, per BTU, coal produces more CO2 than natural gas. And, also as you know, the primary reason we've reduced CO2 emissions a lot since, say, 2007 is because more natural gas has substituted for coal in electricity generation. Countries like India are going to build a lot of new coal fired generation capacity. They'd probably build less if they could count on lower LNG prices.

Sounding like a broken record, ideally instead of subsidies and EPA emission requirements and the like, we'd impose a reasonable tax on carbon, that wouldn't destroy jobs. And apply the proceeds to pay down the national debt or reduce income taxes, not pay for green subsidies. Structure it so our exports don't directly or indirectly bear the tax. Otherwise the world would just replace American LNG, American metallurgical coal, petrochemicals, etc. with oil, gas and coal from places like Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Australia.

That would allow the market to really find the most efficient solutions.

[Tiny]

I'd like to dedicate this video to Daneskold and all our other board members who want to get to net "0" carbon emissions by 2032.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZLb33uCg

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'd like to dedicate this video to Daneskold and all our other board members who want to get to net "0" carbon emissions by 2032.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZLb33uCg

Yeah, that's what it would take.

[Texas Contrarian]

The Amish Paradise? That's pretty fuckin' funny!

However, I'm not sure that it's quite good enough for the guys who don't want to engage in anything resembling critical thinking, and instead just want to snark at people.

I mean, look at all the animals in the video.

(Cows belching and farting! Methane! Greenhouse gasses galore!)

Can't these people feed their families by planting and harvesting their crops by hand, with human labor only?