olofscience

You don't care about bats, brent. Yes, I'm quite sure how dishonest you're being. Because in another thread you actually started arguing against grid-scale batteries as "renewable energy" when they weren't - the slightest link to Tesla triggered you. You can lie to yourself that you care about bats, but several posters here already expressed scepticism. Anyway, getting back to the topic - there are possible mitigations for avoiding bat deaths from wind turbines, are you aware of any of those?

AKA "I can't spend 10 seconds to check this" brent (also "articles I used to argue for several pages I actually completely misunderstood because I just did a quick 5 minute search") hutch

You're not engaged in honest debate, as you don't actually care about bats. But anyway, with a population of 0.6 million, compared to the US' 325 million, their total emissions aren't very significant. Before 2005 the US had the largest total emissions, but probably even then you'd find other ways to deflect, because again - you're not engaged in honest debate.

So nothing about my arguments why billvon's argument is valid while BH's isn't? And by the way, while China has the highest emissions, they have less than 50% of the emissions per person compared to the US.

Ok I'll have to correct my last statement - yes, the two arguments seem to be the same logic, but in my opinion one argument is more valid than the other because of the reasons I outlined.

Then let's try to keep those out of the discussion. I didn't bring them in. NASA is name dropped a lot because they have a good reputation. But individual scientists' views in random news articles are not official NASA views, and until NASA makes an official press release or the scientist actually publishes a peer-reviewed paper (or in the TRS) then you can't assume that anyone affiliated with NASA is reputable by "lefty" standards. Even Brent name-drops NASA when it suits him. The problem with this analogy is that the larger causes of bird deaths (wildfires, etc) is STILL under our control. China isn't under our control. But we can still reduce the impact massively without them, and the purpose of these international agreements is to get them to join the cause. The size of the impact of wind turbines on wildlife is still debatable - they're currently being studied and people are trying to come up with ways to improve the issue. At least there's the possibility of fixing the problem (and solar doesn't have this problem). Are people on the right determined to put the same effort into making coal plants *not* emit any CO2 or other pollutants? This is why I don't think it's the same logic. Let me know if I need to clarify my points above.

But I was quoting BH's arguments made here, by him. Now you're using arguments I never made. I was never making any doom prophecies, although you did accuse my analogy of being hyperbole (but you haven't really explained why). You can certainly choose the most wild, extreme and wrong predictions of the climate-change side and use that to attack their credibility, but you have to actually make arguments why the mainstream science view now is wrong. I'm not going to get dragged down defending why people in the 70s were wrong, what matters to me - is the science wrong NOW? In any case, many of the past agreements were trying to limit the heating to 1.5C. However, data from the past 7 years clearly indicates we've already warmed 1C. I think we're going to overshoot 1.5, and while panicking isn't the solution - like having a mal we need to deal with this calmly - those in denial about the situation pose a far bigger threat.

That's the most reluctant answer I've seen in a while sorry I had to drag it out of you...

Well I asked you why you thought it was weak, and all you could answer was I equated sewage to CO2. Do you not see that you haven't answered the question?

Do you not know what an analogy is?

Answering a question no one asked because nobody cares, brent I am, however, mildly interested in hearing what you think made my analogies weak.

My several analogies already explained why your earlier comment shouldn't apply (in either scenario)

No they're not hyperbole, because they're dumping gases into the atmosphere that everyone breathes. And creating legislation (or empowering bodies like the EPA) to regulate that has been opposed by, no offense, people like you. They're already cheaper in most western countries. IEA report showing that is here and shorter article describing that is here.

BH argument cycle: climate change isn't happening ok it is happening, but it's perfectly natural and humans have nothing to do with it <-------- we are here it is happening but there's nothing we can do about it, because China if renewables were so great why do they need subsidies* to compete with fossil fuels? rinse, repeat ad infinitum

I can also make your water bills cheaper by starting a sewage company that simply dumps all that sewage into the nearest river or coastline and not bother about the cost of building a sewage treatment plant. Because forcing me to increase costs by building a sewage treatment plant would be "unfair competition". Or a garbage disposal company who just dumps the garbage into any public land. Why should I care about leaching, smells, or wrecking public land? It'll make your municipal taxes so much cheaper.

Brent has made this exact same argument several times, and you're using the exact same strawmen and goalposts that he did. Strawman: that they're still heavily subsidised. They're not - read the IEA report. Competing "fairly": all taxpayers have to deal with the costs of climate change, so why should fossil fuel companies get away with not including that cost into their energy? Not including that cost actually acts as a subsidy. Coal plants emit mercury into the air, for crying out loud. They got away with it for decades while getting to undercut all other competition because they didn't have to clean it up. Now that they do have to clean it up, they're actually more expensive, and now they're crying "unfair".

Good post, but one thing to help this situation - get rid of Facebook. Like, the entire thing. Facebook corporate has been alarmed that it's losing an entire generation of young people (https://www.theverge.com/22743744/facebook-teen-usage-decline-frances-haugen-leaks) but it's actually hope for the future. Facebook's rise has coincided with the resurgence in conspiracy theories, and it's degenerated to ads, "suggested posts" which promote extreme political positions, and I'm watching whatever friends I have left there slowly descend into conspiracy theories.

Sorry, done now. Just found it extremely ironic that someone with his post history is now asking for, and I quote:

He has to, because he can't answer your original question. He needs to deflect. A personal attack like that does need the attention of the mods, though.

You really don't get it...

Your departure would greatly help with that. Go on, you've said goodbye already...

Suuure. /s

This guy's definition of freedom seems to be freedom from consequences of whatever crap they say or do, then when they get less than a welcoming reaction, we get this drama. Jeez.

But, he says he didn't even lose the 2020 one!

For someone who sucks at math (sober) and is wrong so, so many times here, you sure sound like a certain someone