olofscience
-
Content
2,540 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11 -
Feedback
N/A
Everything posted by olofscience
-
May’s Global Temperature coldest in 9 years
olofscience replied to brenthutch's topic in Speakers Corner
And why would there be any names? It's not like covid - the rich and famous aren't affected as much. Don't let them set up the goalposts like this ridiculous one. Even if you do meet them, they'll move it anyway (actually, brent already did). -
May’s Global Temperature coldest in 9 years
olofscience replied to brenthutch's topic in Speakers Corner
That would require brent actually learning something. He's wayyyy too old for that, he'll just be on loop until he kicks the bucket, which is in his words - not too far away. -
lol. Like that has ever happened before with brent
-
I know right? Some of them even claim to have an MBA!
-
Well in this case I was actually thankful to brent providing proof that corporate taxes work he keeps digging though.
-
Took one recently myself but really strange for a text-based forum to have so many have trouble just reading stuff, right? It would be so much more interesting to actually be able to discuss things, but at this point they're so repetitive, you don't really miss much with the time outs.
-
You're the one confused. 11.5 billion total profit, record high. tripled refining profit margins. I do understand the difference. Unfortunately for you, both show how BS your argument is.
-
You don't know how to read and it shows. From my link with Shell's record profit: What you said: You're just making stuff up now aren't you.
-
Just to add sources on how stupid it is to think that oil companies are struggling with their margins and deregulating would lower costs: BP reports highest quarterly profit in 14 years Shell smashes record again with $11.5 bln profit
-
So we can protect them with better employee protection laws and collective bargaining. No, you ignored my suggestion of protecting consumers with better pricing laws and consumer protection laws. But the oil companies are already making record profits. Why can't they lower prices now? Edit to add: I know a lot of people in the oil and gas industry, and they're really enjoying the dividends now. But none of them shill anywhere as hard as brent for giving more breaks to the industry, he's like a teenage kpop fan when it comes to fossil fuels
-
Struggling to lie out of this one eh? We're all capitalists. You're just trying to substitute it for "shareholders" because you got caught out. Plus, many workers/employees are also shareholders themselves. So the definition of workers is too vague to even assign to the lowest wage earners, but vagueness and confusion suits you doesn't it? Without them the truth is way too visible.
-
You mean company employees and executives? You can protect them with laws for a good minimum wage and laws that protect collective bargaining. And no, I wasn't confused, nor was anyone else, except you.
-
In fact, according to brent's link, shareholders (31%) and workers (38%) total 69% - a majority - of a tax increase. And a corporation is basically made of shareholders and workers. See how he uses words like "proletariat" to try to confuse people into taking his side when the numbers actually make the opposite argument.
-
You know, it's not really a rebuttal to my point if you just repeat or rephrase the last thing you said. You know that, right?
-
<face palm> What do you think corporations are made of? Unicorn farts? They're controlled by shareholders, and run by workers aren't they? They can't reduce worker wages below legal minimums or risking too much attrition. They can't increase prices too much and lose market share with consumers. So yeah, your post pretty much proves that corporate taxes work. Thanks brent!
-
Another audible has just been announced...the Brilliant Pebbles Bluetooth Edition. https://www.aon2.co.uk/products/brilliant-pebbles-bluetooth Any thoughts on how this compares?
-
There was a lot left, you missed the rest of the sentence. Do you find reading difficult? There are classes you can take you know.
-
Now this squirming is hilarious, as well as not knowing what a coup is. You're really establishing a reputation here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'état A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ (listen); French for 'stroke of state'),[1] (also known as a coup or overthrow) is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. Typically, it is an illegal seizure of power by a political faction, rebel group, military, or a dictator.[2][3][4] Many scholars consider a coup successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days.[2]
-
First, it's spelled "flood levees". Not being able to spell that, and running away from actually supporting your statements in that AI thread makes me feel secure about any judgements you make of my technical ability. What's hilarious is you agreed with me about nuclear, but are now doing lots of mental gymnastics when I pointed out the inconsistency of your thinking, and are now resorting to personal insults. Oh and by the way, 1.3% can get quite significant due to the effect of compound interest. So thinking that won't make a difference is silly, but I guess you're used to that aren't you?
-
So...never then. In 2019 Australia burned, in 2022 it floods. Who knew having a stable climate is actually good for finances? To each his own I guess, after all, it's all about the money...
-
The vast majority of solar cells DO NOT contain toxic materials. Those which are toxic are perovskite solar cells or thin-film (CIGS) solar cells, neither of which are very common. (Perovskites are still in the lab research phase) Most solar cells just contain silicon and glass, and maybe aluminium or steel supporting structure. Edit to add: they do not use cobalt (and zinc is used in your ordinary galvanised steel so it's everywhere, not a conflict or rare metal at all) While the HBR article has a good point, partly-degraded solar cells are still useful, so it's unlikely their hypothetical "home user" would send it straight to landfill. There will be industrial or other users which would be glad to get their hands on a cut-price panel that's still generates some energy. It's the same with lithium batteries - their lifespans are now so long, that even degraded EV batteries can get a second life as domestic batteries or even grid-scale batteries.
-
Then why are you bringing it up again? You agreed that nuclear is expensive, why not just leave it at that? For that "exhausted" argument, you can look it up at the IEA. Then you should have started your argument as being about reliability, not about money. Why didn't you? You specifically mentioned money. Look, I'm actually agreeing with you about the need for nuclear and spending more money. But you're just being rather inconsistent.
-
Armed civilian yahoos. And they weren't up against the full force of the US Military, they were up against the unarmed Congress and their vastly outnumbered security. The timing and location was extremely strategic. That the execution was completely screwed up doesn't make the intention go away.
-
What's confusing is how he says it's about money - then turns around and says he supports nuclear power. Which is good, I agree with that, but nuclear power is the most expensive source of energy there is so it's not something I expect someone to support when "it's all about money".
-
Well also what I disagree with is, you seem to be saying that unless we can solve the problem 100% perfectly on the first try, there's no point even trying. There's value in whatever we can do, even if it doesn't solve things 100% immediately, because of compound interest.
