Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jmmengel]

We are hell bent ( well you are) in solving climate change instead of proceeding cautiously while developing new technology.

developing ?

News flash for you - wind and solar are developed.

If so it is time to move on to more choices.
Solar and wind are far from developed. Their popularity is due to heavy subsidies and government tax breaks. They are impossible of REPLACING coal and natural gas. There is a lot more development needed before we turn our backs on fossil fuels.
[

[LarryB!]

We are hell bent ( well you are) in solving climate change instead of proceeding cautiously while developing new technology.

developing ?

News flash for you - wind and solar are developed.

If so it is time to move on to more choices.
Solar and wind are far from developed. Their popularity is due to heavy subsidies and government tax breaks. They are impossible of REPLACING coal and natural gas. There is a lot more development needed before we turn our backs on fossil fuels.
[

[

Its  not just the US: according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel handouts hit a global high of $1 trillion in 2022 the same year Big Oil pulled in a record $4 trillion of income. In the United States, by some estimates taxpayers pay about $20 billion dollars every year to the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/sen-whitehouse-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-we-are-subsidizing-the-danger-#:~:text=It's%20not%20just%20the%20US,to%20the%20fossil%20fuel%20industry.

[jmmengel]

We are hell bent ( well you are) in solving climate change instead of proceeding cautiously while developing new technology.

developing ?

News flash for you - wind and solar are developed.

If so it is time to move on to more choices.
Solar and wind are far from developed. Their popularity is due to heavy subsidies and government tax breaks. They are impossible of REPLACING coal and natural gas. There is a lot more development needed before we turn our backs on fossil fuels.
[

[

Its  not just the US: according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel handouts hit a global high of $1 trillion in 2022 the same year Big Oil pulled in a record $4 trillion of income. In the United States, by some estimates taxpayers pay about $20 billion dollars every year to the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/sen-whitehouse-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-we-are-subsidizing-the-danger-#:~:text=It's%20not%20just%20the%20US,to%20the%20fossil%20fuel%20industry.

Sheldon Whitehouse.!
I love this line of his:

Oil and gas extraction represents only about 5 percent of GDP.  Farming, manufacturing, food and beverage, insurance, finance, restaurants, retail, housing, healthcare  all represent a larger share of GDP.
Mainly because all have stable and reliable sources of energy to make them productive.
And adding heavily subsided Wind and Solar has proved not capable of meeting  the growing demand without fossil fuels.
Using the faux crisis of a climate emergency is not changing the facts.

[DeeJ]

gradycartoons.com

Count Cotton (R-AR)
Caricature

[Hairy Lime]

Bambu, they had a family from Australia on the television news, they were tourists visiting Disneyland,

We are letting Australians in now? Seal the border!

the reporter told the Aussies that Disney is going to invest billions of dollars into improving Disneyland and she asked them if they were going to come back after the work is complete, the Aussies said they would love to come back. It is nice that the Aussies like it here.

On the issue of USC and the valedictorian, Spielberg is highly involved with the film department at USC, and other prominent Jews help to run USC, they are not going to allow antisemitic people to give speeches at USC.

USC is private so not covered by the 1st Amendment but equating support of the Palestinian people with anti-semitism is deliberately attempting to silence one side of an important issue.

The First Amendment covers speaking against the Government.

It covers all speech including commercial speech. But what it does not cover is the actions of private entities like USC.

It does not protect people threatening violence in a Commencement speech regardless of whether the school is public or private.
And Death To America is now to be equated with Pro Palenstinian?

No, you and your fellow right wing censors are equating pro-palestnian speech with "Death to America."

No, Palestinian protestors are unless you do not read the news.
 

Thank you for proving my point.

[jmmengel]

Bambu, they had a family from Australia on the television news, they were tourists visiting Disneyland,

We are letting Australians in now? Seal the border!

the reporter told the Aussies that Disney is going to invest billions of dollars into improving Disneyland and she asked them if they were going to come back after the work is complete, the Aussies said they would love to come back. It is nice that the Aussies like it here.

On the issue of USC and the valedictorian, Spielberg is highly involved with the film department at USC, and other prominent Jews help to run USC, they are not going to allow antisemitic people to give speeches at USC.

USC is private so not covered by the 1st Amendment but equating support of the Palestinian people with anti-semitism is deliberately attempting to silence one side of an important issue.

The First Amendment covers speaking against the Government.

It covers all speech including commercial speech. But what it does not cover is the actions of private entities like USC.

It does not protect people threatening violence in a Commencement speech regardless of whether the school is public or private.
And Death To America is now to be equated with Pro Palenstinian?

No, you and your fellow right wing censors are equating pro-palestnian speech with "Death to America."

No, Palestinian protestors are unless you do not read the news.
 

Thank you for proving my point.

LOL!

[bambu.]

Bambu, they had a family from Australia on the television news, they were tourists visiting Disneyland,

We are letting Australians in now? Seal the border!

the reporter told the Aussies that Disney is going to invest billions of dollars into improving Disneyland and she asked them if they were going to come back after the work is complete, the Aussies said they would love to come back. It is nice that the Aussies like it here.

On the issue of USC and the valedictorian, Spielberg is highly involved with the film department at USC, and other prominent Jews help to run USC, they are not going to allow antisemitic people to give speeches at USC.

USC is private so not covered by the 1st Amendment but equating support of the Palestinian people with anti-semitism is deliberately attempting to silence one side of an important issue. I hope Spielberg is better than that.

As tourists they're spending money, providing jobs for Americans and supporting businesses in America.
They're fingerprinted, face scanned, their US govt approved documents checked thoroughly and their luggage searched.

[facilitatorn]

They are a crime spree with the stupidest possible accent. Send em packing. Stick them on a raft and send them south. If they do not hit Antarctica they should make it home eventually.

[Walter Sobchak]

Solar and wind are far from developed. Their popularity is due to heavy subsidies and government tax breaks. They are impossible of REPLACING coal and natural gas.

You are shown evidence that is exactly what renewables are doing, when paired with storage systems.  Apparently still can't read for meaning.  If clean energy is now 96% of new projects, then fossil fuel is on its way out.  The only question is time frame, and that depends on public policy.  Could take fifty years, could take twenty.  Depends on the level of carbon taxes, subsidies (yes, governments do subsidize things that are a public benefit) towards startup investment, and how well base load sources like geothermal and batteries are brought into the mix. 

[jmmengel]

Solar and wind are far from developed. Their popularity is due to heavy subsidies and government tax breaks. They are impossible of REPLACING coal and natural gas.

You are shown evidence that is exactly what renewables are doing, when paired with storage systems.  Apparently still can't read for meaning.  If clean energy is now 96% of new projects, then fossil fuel is on its way out.

Wrong.  The World demand for energy needs 10 million barrels of oil PER DAY over the next five years PLUS  tens of more millions due to normal depletion.
The USA is the largest producer so it can be the biggest benefactor to world demand while keeping prices stable.Too bad we have a President who is clueless.

[Hairy Lime]

Solar and wind are far from developed. Their popularity is due to heavy subsidies and government tax breaks. They are impossible of REPLACING coal and natural gas.

You are shown evidence that is exactly what renewables are doing, when paired with storage systems.  Apparently still can't read for meaning.  If clean energy is now 96% of new projects, then fossil fuel is on its way out.

Wrong.  The World demand for energy needs 10 million barrels of oil PER DAY over the next five years PLUS  tens of more millions due to normal depletion.
The USA is the largest producer so it can be the biggest benefactor to world demand while keeping prices stable.Too bad we have a President who is clueless.

Except of course US fossil fuel production has increased every year under Biden, even as has edged us towards the future. Increasing current production while preparing the future sounds awfully cluefull to me.

[jmmengel]

Solar and wind are far from developed. Their popularity is due to heavy subsidies and government tax breaks. They are impossible of REPLACING coal and natural gas.

You are shown evidence that is exactly what renewables are doing, when paired with storage systems.  Apparently still can't read for meaning.  If clean energy is now 96% of new projects, then fossil fuel is on its way out.

Wrong.  The World demand for energy needs 10 million barrels of oil PER DAY over the next five years PLUS  tens of more millions due to normal depletion.
The USA is the largest producer so it can be the biggest benefactor to world demand while keeping prices stable.Too bad we have a President who is clueless.

Except of course US fossil fuel production has increased every year under Biden, even as has edged us towards the future. Increasing current production while preparing the future sounds awfully cluefull to me.

Even Biden cannot shut off  demand and ruin our economy. Yet  are  strategic reserve was used for politics and the export of LNG severely curtailed. He better hope Israel does not bomb Iranian oil tankers or his re-election bid will be a non starter.

[facilitatorn]

Trump shut off demand and ruined the economy. Biden will not do that and that is a big part of why he will be re-elected.

Stop hoarding horse paste Red.

[Oiled]

Solar and wind are far from developed. Their popularity is due to heavy subsidies and government tax breaks. They are impossible of REPLACING coal and natural gas.

You are shown evidence that is exactly what renewables are doing, when paired with storage systems.  Apparently still can't read for meaning.  If clean energy is now 96% of new projects, then fossil fuel is on its way out.

Wrong.  The World demand for energy needs 10 million barrels of oil PER DAY over the next five years PLUS  tens of more millions due to normal depletion.
The USA is the largest producer so it can be the biggest benefactor to world demand while keeping prices stable.Too bad we have a President who is clueless.

How does any of that make my post (which you removed part of and did not answer) wrong?  Nowhere did I say we can eliminate fossil fuel immediately. NO ONE IS ASSERTING THAT.  This is a Straw Man you keep making up.  I said the time frame for replacement depends on continued policies that aid the transition to renewables and provide storage of peak outputs.  I pointed out the current proportion of new utility construction that is renewables.  It is extremely dishonest to ignore these points and keep attacking something I never said.

Here is the entirety of my post which you selectively edited relevant comments from.

You are shown evidence that is exactly what renewables are doing, when paired with storage systems.  Apparently still cant read for meaning.  If clean energy is now 96 percent of new projects, then fossil fuel is on its way out.  The only question is time frame, and that depends on public policy.  Could take fifty years, could take twenty.  Depends on the level of carbon taxes, subsidies (yes, governments do subsidize things that are a public benefit) towards startup investment, and how well base load sources like geothermal and batteries are brought into the mix.   

So, and this time I think it will be permanent, I am done trying for reasoned discussion when such dishonest tactics are the only answer you provide. 

[jmmengel]

Solar and wind are far from developed. Their popularity is due to heavy subsidies and government tax breaks. They are impossible of REPLACING coal and natural gas.

You are shown evidence that is exactly what renewables are doing, when paired with storage systems.  Apparently still can't read for meaning.  If clean energy is now 96% of new projects, then fossil fuel is on its way out.

Wrong.  The World demand for energy needs 10 million barrels of oil PER DAY over the next five years PLUS  tens of more millions due to normal depletion.
The USA is the largest producer so it can be the biggest benefactor to world demand while keeping prices stable.Too bad we have a President who is clueless.

How does any of that make my post (which you removed part of and did not answer) wrong?  Nowhere did I say we can eliminate fossil fuel immediately. NO ONE IS ASSERTING THAT.  This is a Straw Man you keep making up.  I said the time frame for replacement depends on continued policies that aid the transition to renewables and provide storage of peak outputs.  I pointed out the current proportion of new utility construction that is renewables.  It is extremely dishonest to ignore these points and keep attacking something I never said.

Here is the entirety of my post which you selectively edited relevant comments from.

You are shown evidence that is exactly what renewables are doing, when paired with storage systems.  Apparently still cant read for meaning.  If clean energy is now 96 percent of new projects, then fossil fuel is on its way out.  The only question is time frame, and that depends on public policy.  Could take fifty years, could take twenty.  Depends on the level of carbon taxes, subsidies (yes, governments do subsidize things that are a public benefit) towards startup investment, and how well base load sources like geothermal and batteries are brought into the mix.   

So, and this time I think it will be permanent, I am done trying for reasoned discussion when such dishonest tactics are the only answer you provide.

That Bawl you keep threatening to take home must be tethered here by a rubber band.