olofscience

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    2,543

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

  • Feedback

    N/A

Everything posted by olofscience

  1. olofscience
    And yet again you fail to highlight HOW he got to his conclusions. Then the same trap - making it my responsibility to refute his points which you don't really support with any evidence here. YOU need to do some work to build credibility, right now it's non-existent. The "solar is cheapest" claim is taken from the IEA World Energy Outlook 2020, which is FULL of hard numbers. Source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/a72d8abf-de08-4385-8711-b8a062d6124a/WEO2020.pdf
  2. olofscience
    So... the best you can do is an opinion piece, written by a student in Columbia University? You clearly didn't read until the end where the disclaimer was. You've clearly forgotten how you lost the argument a few months ago - the IEA announced that solar was now the cheapest energy available: https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-turbocharged-as-countries-seek-to-strengthen-energy-security Not an opinion piece - just a news piece from the IEA. With numbers to back it up.
  3. olofscience
    No, I looked up the source, and they were a climate-denying organization with shadowy funding sources. If you want me to refute your arguments, make them here. It's almost like you're too ashamed to cut and paste how they arrived at their conclusions. But really, it's just a stupid trap you keep setting to make your opponent do a lot more work than you. It's not like you've ever argued here in good faith.
  4. olofscience
    Go on then, lay it out for us here so we don't have to keep going to the article. Pick out the most important points that leads to their conclusion, then post it here. Use the quote function. Then I can pick it apart.
  5. olofscience
    I did, by invalidating the source as extremely biased. This is really low effort for you, you need an article to lay out your arguments for you, then you command us to rebut it? You didn't even make their arguments to begin with, you're just riding on their biased coattails. You can't even do the simplest maths billvon asked you to.
  6. olofscience
    It's an excellent trolling strategy, spew a torrent of lies then say "PROVE ME WRONG" - Slim King does it, you do it too. Until you realise that the burden of proof is actually on you.
  7. olofscience
    Published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, who changed their name to Net Zero Watch, who doesn't publish their funding sources. "In 2014 The Independent described the foundation as "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".[3]"
  8. olofscience
    Is that because you can't? Do your own maths, it's going to be fun to pick it apart. again.
  9. olofscience
    Someone hasn't done the maths on the maintenance and efficiency of a solid-state semiconductor with no moving parts, in a relatively benign thermal and chemical environment. Oh wait, it's brent. He hasn't done any maths, period.
  10. olofscience

    NPR

    olofscience replied to brenthutch's topic in Speakers Corner

    Ford isn't going to love you back, brent. Fossil fuels won't either
  11. olofscience

    NPR

    olofscience replied to brenthutch's topic in Speakers Corner

    Well one person here has certainly fossilized...he's still championing the F150 even when its own manufacturer has committed to going full EV.
  12. olofscience

    NPR

    olofscience replied to brenthutch's topic in Speakers Corner

    I don't agree with lefty environmentalists who keep saying this "planet is dying" crap, then you pull the same thing? After making fun of them too. Coal beds were created in the Carboniferous period because plant lignin and cellulose was non-biodegradable to the organisms back then. This caused a huge reduction in atmospheric CO2. However, it stopped reducing in the Permian period, not because of humans (there were no humans 250 million years ago) but because of fungi evolving. Fungi are still here, so coal beds similar to the Carboniferous will never form again. So humans aren't doing shit, except making things shittier for ourselves. I would not like to live in a climate similar to the Carboniferous, because I'm not a fucking dinosaur or frog. But with your support of coal burning you really seem to be pining for those days...
  13. olofscience
    Don't tell me what to do, do it yourself.
  14. olofscience
    Right here:
  15. olofscience
    Nope, you called for war crimes to be committed, it's all recorded here.
  16. olofscience
    Geez, the numbers keep getting bigger, and also STILL COMPLETELY MADE UP. No, you PROVE your numbers. Provide actual evidence. I think when I'm bored later on I'll add them up, to see how big of a pile of bullshit you've cumulatively added to this thread.
  17. olofscience
    Why do I get the feeling that those numbers are completely made up?
  18. olofscience
    Warehouse workers for one: https://www.fastcompany.com/90842005/boston-dynamics-and-dhls-new-robot-hyper-efficient-warehouse-worker Amazon, for all their mistreatment of fulfilment centre workers, is also investing millions into automating manual jobs: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-automation-exclusive-idUSKCN1SJ0X1
  19. olofscience
    Interesting how the slightest mention of ICE car workers and coal miners triggered this meltdown...
  20. olofscience
    Despite the UK government's desperate attempt to scrape the barrel for more votes, even car companies aren't going to follow them: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/25/nissan-all-electric-by-2030-rishi-sunak-petrol-ban-europe
  21. olofscience
    Uh huh. That's like saying algebra isn't maths because letters can't be numbers.
  22. olofscience
    Completely agree. We need to automate as much as possible, and have a plan in place once we automate our own jobs (and that plan shouldn't be to hire people for useless and obsolete jobs, or to skip on automation). Luckily, because of technology we only need to spend 3% of our GDP to produce all the food we need. Nowhere close to 50%. (and it will get smaller)
  23. olofscience
    What happened to your original topic? Looks like you have run out of arguments there. As for EVs, demand in the UK has fallen at the same time real estate prices have crashed. Something to do with interest rates but you won't understand. Unless you think real estate prices have crashed because all people want are really old, dark, drafty, coal-heated houses. None of that lefty modern efficient insulated crap. /s
  24. olofscience
    Sure, but only as a side hobby after their 9-5. They might not be able to make much money because of AI: https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/1/23703087/ai-drake-the-weeknd-music-copyright-legal-battle-right-of-publicity Isn't unrestricted capitalism great? /s
  25. olofscience
    No, quite the opposite - the Conservatives just committed electoral suicide. The image is from last October but the Conservatives haven't made much progress since then. Hence the scraping of the barrel for anything that would win them a few more votes, like the net zero policy. It's not working though, they're still way behind Labour.