Climate continues to change.

[von_Bismarck]

I'm conflating nothing. Just stating the inevitable outcome. You really should look up what words mean before you use them. You screwed up trying to use "irony" last night, too.

So, we order China to give up fossil fuels and they refuse. What's YOUR plan? What next? (hint - it involves everybody dying)

There are two hypotheticals. One involving adopting alternative energy, and one involving compliance at the end of the barrel. You fail to distinguish the two. You're conflating them.

You haven't justified this conflation. It's bizarre and unmotivated. That was my point.

 

[von_Bismarck]

How about this : he can acknowledge that he could have articulated it slightly better and you can go ahead and acknowledge that you didn't think about or realize the implications of what he was saying and that you are now simply blustering in order to cover your shame. Own your shame. I realize it's kind of late at your age to learn to be a better person but you really should try.

No, Queef, it isn't just a matter of articulation. It's a matter of intellectual dishonesty. Gunny was conflating two hypotheticals as a way of denying that we ought to persue alternative energy strategies. I realize this move was probably too subtle for you to catch, and it's too late at your age to learn to be a better person, but it's an imperfect world.

 

[Que]

No, Queef, it isn't just a matter of articulation. It's a matter of intellectual dishonesty. Gunny was conflating two hypotheticals as a way of denying that we ought to persue alternative energy strategies. I realize this move was probably too subtle for you to catch, and it's too late at your age to learn to be a better person, but it's an imperfect world.

BottomBoof, I don't think you know what conflating is.

He "conflated" no such thing. He was pointing out that short of going to war, we can have no impact on the numbers. To be fair he neglected the option of us just asking other countries to pretty please not emit carbon.

Whether he articulated it to your satisfaction in the initial post or not is irrelevant; he is clarified his position since and you're wanting to argue from your (predictably) flawed misunderstanding of his original post.

Try to keep up with the discussion you have engaged in instead of trying to score meaningless points based on the since clarified position.

 

[von_Bismarck]

BottomBoof, I don't think you know what conflating is.

He "conflated" no such thing. He was pointing out that short of going to war, we can have no impact on the numbers. To be fair he neglected the option of us just asking other countries to pretty please not emit carbon.

Whether he articulated it to your satisfaction in the initial post or not is irrelevant; he is clarified his position since and you're wanting to argue from your (predictably) flawed misunderstanding of his original post.

Try to keep up with the discussion you have engaged in instead of trying to score meaningless points based on the since clarified position.

Your reading comprehension really sucks. Par for the course, I guess.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Your reading comprehension really sucks. Par for the course, I guess.

So speaking of reading comprehension...

So, we order China to give up fossil fuels and they refuse. What's YOUR plan? What next? (hint - it involves everybody dying)

Again, what's your plan to get the entire world to go along with giving up fossil fuels?

 

[von_Bismarck]

So speaking of reading comprehension...



Again, what's your plan to get the entire world to go along with your plan?

In broad strokes, continue what appears to be working for USA. Research and development of new energy technologies. Drive down the cost of alternative energy sources compared to hydrocarbons. And open up markets for these technologies around the globe. Make fossil fuels non competitive.

 

[gunthernehmen]

In broad strokes, continue what appears to be working for USA. Research and development of new energy technologies. Drive down the cost of alternative energy sources compared to hydrocarbons. And open up markets for these technologies around the globe. Make fossil fuels non competitive.

Ok. And if/when developing countries choose not play the game?

Again, stipulating ACC, it's ALL or NOTHING. Everybody plays by the rules or that ONE, massive, developing country ruins it for everyone.

So, von BS has developed cold fusion and can generate electricity so cheaply he can literally give it all away for nothing. Enough for all the energy needs of every country in the world!

Yet, one of two with populations in the billions chooses to ignore you. Everybody but that one or two giant countries is cleaning up their act but they're going to kill us all because they refuse to do their part.

Your move...

Why do you not understand that YOU do not dictate the world?

 

[Que]

Hey!

Where did von_BottomBoof go? I was going to introduce him to BoofDownSouth so he could get access to Boof's canned climate alarmism talking points but just as Boof showed up, von_BottomBoof faded out.

I am beginning to think I just am not going to have any luck getting them in the same room to cross-pollinate their "ideas" on AGW.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Bitches be thirsty. But you've used up all my fucks for the day.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Bitches be thirsty. But you've used up all my fucks for the day.

Oh... Did I sink your battleship?

 

[von_Bismarck]

Oh... Did I sink your battleship?

Just my patience.

 

[Que]

Bitches be thirsty. But you've used up all my fucks for the day.

Just my patience.

Weird how right when Boof got into a long, drawn-out series of posts, you suddenly turned taciturn. Cat got your tongue?

You know if you'll preload some meaningless little snark into one browser and continue your discussion in the other, I bet you could post simultaneously.

Go on. You can do it!

 

[Hal9000_]

Ah...the new narrative:

"Yes, we are causing climate change through non-neutral CO2 emissions, but we can never stop because no one else will! There are no alternatives!"

Also:

https://carolynthomas.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/chesterfield.jpg?w=584

 

[phrodeau]

If it was a graph showing temps increasing, you would be touting it as fact, and jumping for joy.
Since it disagrees with your viewpoint, it’s garbage to you.

That’s how you you work skidmark.

The graph does show temps increasing. You can’t read graphs.

 

[Que]

Ah...the new narrative:

"Yes, we are causing climate change through non-neutral CO2 emissions, but we can never stop because no one else will! There are no alternatives!"

Also:

https://carolynthomas.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/chesterfield.jpg?w=584

You never explained the concept of "neutral" carbon emissions.

Does Phrodeau's wood-fired steam car contribute to global warming or not? He seems similarly vague on the point.

He seems to think that trees (that he cut down and burned and have been replaced with mete seedlings) will sequester the carbon he emitted in large quantities while powering his inefficient wood burning car, but the nature, uncut trees will not sequester the carbon from the much more efficient store of energy in the petro-chemical chains I burn in my Prius.

He apparently has a different copy of the laws of conservation of matter land energy.

What say you?

 

[Que]

The graph does show temps increasing. You can’t read graphs.

No it doesn't. . .you cannot read scale.

 

[von_Bismarck]

No it doesn't. . .you cannot read scale.

Your momma never told you that stupid isn't a good look?

 

[Que]

Your momma never told you that stupid isn't a good look?

Hey. Speaking of stupid looking-

Have you seen Boof? He seems to have scampered off.

 

[phrodeau]

You never explained the concept of "neutral" carbon emissions.

Does Phrodeau's wood-fired steam car contribute to global warming or not? He seems similarly vague on the point.

He seems to think that trees (that he cut down and burned and have been replaced with mete seedlings) will sequester the carbon he emitted in large quantities while powering his inefficient wood burning car, but the nature, uncut trees will not sequester the carbon from the much more efficient store of energy in the petro-chemical chains I burn in my Prius.

He apparently has a different copy of the laws of conservation of matter land energy.

What say you?

You still don’t know about the carbon cycle.

 

[heathergives]

https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Climate_Change_Meme.jpg

 

[Hal9000_]

How do we know the climate has changed?

 

[Que]

You still don’t know about the carbon cycle.

Not your version of it, which is why I asked

Repeatedly.

You still seem to think that only "good" carbon is a part of that cycle and that, all things being equal, a ton of carbon from clear-cutting a forest is environmentally preferable, from a carbon sequestration perspective, than a ton of carbon from, say, natural gas.

Why don't you explain it to me?

 

[Que]

How do we know the climate has changed?

The same way the data was derived (and distorted) for the (subsequently faked) hockey stick graph.

 

[Klinkster]

When it comes to answering a question, ANY question, fro-doh is a doh-doh.

Not your version of it, which is why I asked

Repeatedly.

You still seem to think that only "good" carbon is a part of that cycle and that, all things being equal, a ton of carbon from clear-cutting a forest is environmentally preferable, from a carbon sequestration perspective, than a ton of carbon from, say, natural gas.

Why don't you explain it to me?

 

[icanhelp1]

So speaking of reading comprehension...



Again, what's your plan to get the entire world to go along with giving up fossil fuels?

Maybe we can plant millions and millions of trees?