brenthutch
-
Content
11,005 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
37 -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by brenthutch
-
As a well intentioned right-libertarian-leaning old-ish man, I feel your pain. Their hearts are in the right place, however sometimes their collectivist tendencies get the best of them. We all want to arrive at the same destination, we just argue about the best route.
-
Now you're getting it. Plan A: Let's take a sober look at the impact of elevated CO2, let's examine the positives and negatives. Let's assess the cost/benefit of actions as well as inaction, then make some rational choices. Plan B: Oh my God! We are destroying the planet! We must take drastic action to avoid disaster! We are running out of resources! We only have until 1995....2000....2004.....2010...2013.....2015 until it is too late. Wet the bed while hair is on fire. I chose plan A. l
-
It's more like the doctor who told my 89 year old dad that his carcinoma would likely kill him in fifteen years if it were not aggressively/expensively treated right now.
-
Just a quick heads up, if you have not figured it out already, you are arguing with a bunch of well intentioned, left wing, aging, baby boomers. They cannot be moved. They feel that their cause is a righteous one and no amount of facts, logic or reason can influence them.
-
Too funny. Tell me again just who moved the goalposts? Let me remind you that the original parameter was old Tesla vs older Honda. Yes the goalposts were moved but in your favor. That’s ok though. You desperately need a win and I will graciously accommodate. Again congratulations!
-
Congratulations, your brand new $90,000 car is able to eke out a road trip race win over my tired, old $10,000 Honda. Unless it blows up of course.
-
No, I just wanted to remind the folks that I predicted Tesla’s failure last year.
-
Anyway you want to slice it plants and people are winning. IPCC predicted famine. The real world? Record food production. Oh BTW, my five year prediction for the demise of Tesla, might have been three years to generous.
-
Wrong again "Updating trends in satellite-observed GPP enhancement, Winkler et al. (2019) cite a statistically significant 52% greening trend during 1981-2016, outpacing the observed changes in browning (12%) by more than a factor of 4."
-
The prediction was increased desertification, the reality quite different: From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
-
I was wrong, it was actually by 2010 "In 2005, the UNEP warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by AGW would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be producing the most “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be fleeing those areas"
-
You guys are confusing guesses about the future with the facts of the present. The U.N.’s climate scientists state the the islands of the Caribbean will undergo climate forced depopulation by 2015. When I point out the population of the Caribbean is either stable or growing you call me names. Same goes for floods, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires.....
-
Yes and I’m pretty sure that the aforementioned elephant is PINK.
-
Ironically you are correct
-
I didn't rebut the paper, I rebutted the notion that your side doesn't peddle in hyperbole.
-
You guys say that you're not being hyperbolic, yet in the very same thread, you link to an article with the word "SCARY" in it. Too funny
-
Seriously though, the urgent need to adapt renewables is predicated on two notions, both of them false. The first is that we are going to run out of fossil fuels. Peak oil is a prediction that has never failed to fail. Given the recent discoveries in Guyana, Pakistan, India etc. etc. as well as the developments in the Permian Basin, it will continue to do so. First WE were going to run out, then our children were going to run out, now we are up to our grandchildren and soon it will be our great, great, great grandchildren. LOL. The other false narrative is that unless we took drastic measures to immediately reduce CO2, we would "destroy the planet." The hyperbole around this notion is as comical as it is imaginary. Destruction is always JUST around the corner yet never seems to arrive. The solution? Society must muster the resolve and intelligence to do nothing.
-
Yes climate change is so devastating that folks are fleeing New York for Florida and Texas. Again your fears are imaginary.
-
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2017/04/experts-link-wealth-with-higher-carbon-emissions The wealth/health connection is well established, however, I will walk you through it if you need me to. what IS unproven is a causal link between CO2 and climate calamity
-
There is zero EVIDENCE for that. All of the hyperbolic claims of impending doom are nothing more than wild speculation, while the benefits of fossil fuels are widespread and tangible.
-
And while I have my MBA hat on.....any financial burden imposed on fossil fuel production will just be passed on to the consumer, a de facto regressive tax on the poor.
-
Because the tax revenues from fossil fuels are much much more than $20 billion. BTW when conducting a cost benefit analysis, one must account for the benefit as well as the cost. It is undeniable that a larger carbon footprint correlates to greater longevity and a higher standard of living.
-
I’m pretty sure we (the taxpayer) are paying and the incentives run into the thousands. I just don’t understand, if EVs are so awesome, why do we need to incentivize their purchase?
-
And why do we need them?
-
My wife was having GNO, so I had the abandoned dads and kids over for fire pit, beers and s’mores. One of the dads is a surgeon and the conversation turned to scars. I quoted a military buddy who said “chicks dig three things: scars, tattoos and muscles and I just happened to have all three on one arm.” We had a good laugh and talked about how some guys wanted a big Frankenstein scar instead of a delicate trace of a scar. Again we laughed. My wife comes home and asks “what did you guys talk about?” I told her we talked about several things, including scars, to which she inquired “emotional scars?” Face palm
