B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:56:49 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:
That's a little unspecific.
The credibility is a matter of opinion, and you haven't identified any particular step in the chain of logic as false.
The step from 4443 TWh of potential enegry in the gasoline sold to 1111 TWh of energy used to drive the car wheels around is a bit crude, but the potential error is a few perecent, not the order of magnitude that would be required to make you estimate plausible.
> You must be fucking desperate to quote garbage like that.
You seem to be pretty desperate to avoid saying anything specific.
Rational argument in all its glory.
But you can't single out even one of them.
As was the original spherical chicken line - you wanted to sound like a physicist, but don't know enough to do it properly.
That does seem to be the style you have adopted.
Actually, it isn't. The wide-spread adoption of electric cars is something that hasn't happened yet, and the fossil carbon extraction industry doesn't want it to happen at all, which is why they lie with such enthusiasm in an effort to propagate the idea that it can't happen.
They have much the same problem, which is to persuade lots of voters to vote for them while not being bright enough to sell a complete and accurate story.
Seems unlikely. Her parents were, and she seems to have been when young, but she was an adherent of the Russian communist party, which doesn't exist any longer.
If she had any affiliations with the Chinese Communist party, she might still be some kind of communist, but the essence of communism always has been an adherence to the idea of the leading role of the party, and she seems to be much too self-directed to qualify.
If she been selling bher political influence to Chinese communist front organisations in Australia, like certain Labour politicians, you might have something to puke about, but she looks more like a dedicated socialist of the sillier sort.
In other words you are a lazy arsehole.
It's not the only place I've seen the 30% figure, and I've never seen anything that supports your claim.
How embarrassingly precise. But with an order of magnitude difference of opinion, one doesn't need to be all that precise to be embarrassing.
But you seem to suffer from some of the same character defects.
> I have never posted about "warming" - cos that is all politics, not fact..
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
presents some facts that you can only deny by being as stupid as Cursitor Doom.
They might, if nuclear energy was cheaper than solar energy. The current generation of nuclear plants under construction are all over budget and behind schedule and will lose money if they get completed.
They haven't got the spare cash to pay for the denialist propaganda, while it is a demonstrable fact that fossil carbon extraction industry is paying for loads of it.
"So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire power grid - at huge public expense.
Excluding the nuclear option, cos warmies all hate it, doing this requires 3 or 4 times more coal to be burnt."
It introduces the specific assertion without any attempt at justification.
This isn't any kind of "reasoning".
You seem to share Trader4's enthusiasm for argument by repeated assertion.
> Please do not reply, cos I an damn sick of this nonsense.
That makes sense. The nonsense is all yours, and I can imagine that you aren't happy about posting such obvious nonsense.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
That's a little unspecific.
The credibility is a matter of opinion, and you haven't identified any particular step in the chain of logic as false.
The step from 4443 TWh of potential enegry in the gasoline sold to 1111 TWh of energy used to drive the car wheels around is a bit crude, but the potential error is a few perecent, not the order of magnitude that would be required to make you estimate plausible.
> You must be fucking desperate to quote garbage like that.
You seem to be pretty desperate to avoid saying anything specific.
Rational argument in all its glory.
But you can't single out even one of them.
As was the original spherical chicken line - you wanted to sound like a physicist, but don't know enough to do it properly.
That does seem to be the style you have adopted.
Actually, it isn't. The wide-spread adoption of electric cars is something that hasn't happened yet, and the fossil carbon extraction industry doesn't want it to happen at all, which is why they lie with such enthusiasm in an effort to propagate the idea that it can't happen.
They have much the same problem, which is to persuade lots of voters to vote for them while not being bright enough to sell a complete and accurate story.
Seems unlikely. Her parents were, and she seems to have been when young, but she was an adherent of the Russian communist party, which doesn't exist any longer.
If she had any affiliations with the Chinese Communist party, she might still be some kind of communist, but the essence of communism always has been an adherence to the idea of the leading role of the party, and she seems to be much too self-directed to qualify.
If she been selling bher political influence to Chinese communist front organisations in Australia, like certain Labour politicians, you might have something to puke about, but she looks more like a dedicated socialist of the sillier sort.
In other words you are a lazy arsehole.
It's not the only place I've seen the 30% figure, and I've never seen anything that supports your claim.
How embarrassingly precise. But with an order of magnitude difference of opinion, one doesn't need to be all that precise to be embarrassing.
But you seem to suffer from some of the same character defects.
> I have never posted about "warming" - cos that is all politics, not fact..
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
presents some facts that you can only deny by being as stupid as Cursitor Doom.
They might, if nuclear energy was cheaper than solar energy. The current generation of nuclear plants under construction are all over budget and behind schedule and will lose money if they get completed.
They haven't got the spare cash to pay for the denialist propaganda, while it is a demonstrable fact that fossil carbon extraction industry is paying for loads of it.
"So major upgrades to power generation capacity ( like 3 or 4 times now) and matching upgrades to the entire power grid - at huge public expense.
Excluding the nuclear option, cos warmies all hate it, doing this requires 3 or 4 times more coal to be burnt."
It introduces the specific assertion without any attempt at justification.
This isn't any kind of "reasoning".
You seem to share Trader4's enthusiasm for argument by repeated assertion.
> Please do not reply, cos I an damn sick of this nonsense.
That makes sense. The nonsense is all yours, and I can imagine that you aren't happy about posting such obvious nonsense.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney