Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 12:21pm

Well this took all of 5 minutes to refute...




So Dr. Frank doesn't know enough about how the climate models are produced and makes some very basic errors in his calculations. His whole "haystack" graph is garbage, his methods are rudimentary and fundamentally flawed.

Shocking! :mrgreen:

Time to denounce him hill, he's obviously some sort of disinformation purveyor paid by the climate cult to look like a foolishly ignorant denier.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 16 2019 12:56pm

Here's a good read from a former climate change denier.
==========================
Former climate 'denier' regrets 'how wrongheaded but certain I was' - Here's what led him to change his mind.

By Karin Kirk

John Kaiser wheeled a cart with a TV and VCR into the lobby of an academic building on the campus of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, popped in a well-worn VHS cassette, and played a video extolling the virtues of an atmosphere rich in CO2.

“It was a video that was made to look like a news show; there were people who looked like anchors in it,” recalled Kaiser. It was part of a campaign to attract students to join a conservative movement on his undergraduate campus.

“[The video] was all about how CO2 levels are rising, but that’s great! Because plants need CO2, and the more CO2 there is, the more plants will grow and the more crops we’ll have. And the more we’ll have to eat and this will be an age of abundance because of all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.”

Kaiser recounted the spin with a dash of wry humor, “So don’t worry about what the lefties and the liberals tell you, this is actually going to make things better.” . . .

When he left home and went to college, Kaiser said, his views surged further to the right. “I think it would be accurate to describe myself as kind of an Evangelical fundamentalist at the time.” Kaiser joined a conservative group called the Leadership Institute, which trains students to become effective in political engagement. “They would give us all kinds of stuff for how to talk about climate change,” he recalled, “in a way that advances the agenda of the political right.”

“At that time in my life I envisioned that I was going to become some kind of political operative,” he said.

Kaiser became heavily involved with the Leadership Institute, attending training events, meeting conservative icons, and learning the ropes as a political organizer, all paid for by the institute. “They would be quite disappointed in how I turned out,” mused Kaiser.

Kaiser sums up the primary reason he and other conservatives rejected the premise of climate change: “Because if climate change is as bad as they say it is, it would justify government intervention. And we can’t justify government intervention because that’s a bad thing.” . . .

By the time Kaiser was part way through his PhD program in history at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, his views began to shift. He was in his late 20s, and his education and exposure to details of American history led to eventual initial cracks in his hardline stance. “There were things that were part of my fundamentalist upbringing that I questioned. You’ve probably followed the polling that says that the majority of Republicans are now fearful that advanced education is dangerous. And I think my experience is kind of what they fear.” . . .

"So it was very odd, I was replacing these little pieces on gay marriage, on climate change, and suddenly my puzzle didn’t work. I realized I’m looking at the wrong puzzle. I have to go get a different box – a whole different puzzle.”

“Climate change went along with those beliefs,” he said. “I never quite believed it was a hoax like [President] Trump likes to say, but I kind of took the position that what if they’re just wrong about what the outcome is going to be.”

“So I wasn’t out there denying the temperature indications. I wasn’t out there denying CO2 levels. I was denying the consequences of them.”

“And that denial stopped in 2009 or 2010. I really kind of shifted significantly. I should have looked more deeply’

Kaiser says he now is motivated to publicly share his turnabout on climate change. “I just feel guilty that my generation was part of setting up the politics of today. That we played a role in spreading misinformation. That we were unwitting allies of merchants of doubt …. We didn’t realize that coal companies and oil companies were funding all of these things we were showing about the positive benefits of CO2.”

“I do feel some responsibility that I should have known better, that I should have looked more deeply into the issue, into who was funding the stuff that I was putting out there.”. .

“Maybe when climate change starts affecting their hometown, that’s when they’re going to accept it because that just seems to be ingrained within conservatism, that it has to be something that I can feel locally in my community. I think one of the quintessential aspects of conservatism is a distrust of outsiders.” . .

“Now I’m a 39-year-old man with children who are going to reach maturity in a world that will be worse than the one that I came to maturity in. That thought horrifies me, especially because I was out there on a weekly basis telling people, don’t worry about global warming, it’s not going to be a problem.”

“I’d like to say that there’s a part of me that believes that, politically and technologically, we will figure this out in time. And that the technology of geothermal, solar, wind, all of that, will advance … to fully replace coal, and a big chunk of oil. There’s a part of me that wants to believe that. But, having been a part of climate change denial, I worry about whether we can get to that point. And I worry especially as we see active attempts at sabotaging things like renewable energy industries. Time will tell, we will see. I worry that it won’t be enough.”

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/ ... his-shift/
--bill von

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 778
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Jul 16 2019 2:47pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 16 2019 9:05am
Have a break, and let this soak in...
That guy works for the Heartland Institute--a corporate propaganda machine. That alone should be enough to dismiss him. He is also not a climate scientist or any kind of Earth scientist. But, based on the overly simplistic and flawed method of compounding error that he presents in that video, I'd say the Heartland Institute is probably pretty proud of their employee. Not to mention, his analysis was never published in a peer-reviewed science journal. It is just based on a poster presentation for an American Geophysical Union (of which I am a member, BTW) poster presentation.
Last edited by jimw1960 on Jul 16 2019 3:28pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 778
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Jul 16 2019 2:57pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 15 2019 11:52pm

So, what exactly is that isotopic signature (data), and how does it show that 99% of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic ? .....Even the IPCC have only declared 40% is anthropogenic !
And it just so happens that atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 40% since preindustrial times. Coincidence? So, nearly 100% of that 40% is due to human fossil fuel burning, deforestation, and cement production since that time. Not sure why I'm arguing with a guy who doesn't even understand the basic concept of a mass balance and can't do fractions and percentages.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5228
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jul 16 2019 4:53pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 16 2019 4:25am
... ...YOU.. have NO CLUE what my “training, credentials, experience ” etc are !
Actually, in any relevant context, I do. As Jim's post above makes painfully obvious, the answer is "NONE".

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10016
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 16 2019 6:03pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 16 2019 11:38am
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 16 2019 10:10am
You should have watched all the video..
Then think about what you are saying.
He clearly contradicts everything you have stated in this thread. Have you watched it? Or are you just posting links you think support your own delusions?

Again, he openly supports AGW theory. And what he's pointing out doesn't seem to be anything new. And he doesn't disprove the general, prevailing thoughts on AGW; increased anthropogenic CO2 levels aren't going to be good for the planet.
..........
:shock: :?: .. i had to check the link to be sure you watched the same vide as me .. :o
You really do need help in comprehending and understanding of material presented to you.
He is not supporting AGW theory or any of its implications...Totally the opposite !
What he is doing is analysing the AGW theory and the IPCC warming models using some rigorous modeling and statistical methods, to show how false the whole IPCC conclusions are.
Did you not notice this slide ..?
Image
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10016
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 16 2019 6:31pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 16 2019 2:57pm
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 15 2019 11:52pm

So, what exactly is that isotopic signature (data), and how does it show that 99% of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic ? .....Even the IPCC have only declared 40% is anthropogenic !
And it just so happens that atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 40% since preindustrial times. Coincidence? So, nearly 100% of that 40% is due to human fossil fuel burning, deforestation, and cement production since that time. Not sure why I'm arguing with a guy who doesn't even understand the basic concept of a mass balance and can't do fractions and percentages.
That is not an answer jim.....its just regurgitation of the same assumption and a cheap way to avoid providing a real answer.
“Coincidence”.. no!..its not even a good “Correlation “ for reasons that have been posted earlier...
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 7:05pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 16 2019 6:03pm
Image
hill you're not using any comprehension skills. Dr. Frank is criticizing, very poorly mind you, climate models, not AGW.

Dr. Frank is just hand waving. It's intelligent hand waving but watch a real climate scientist with a PhD. expose it for what it is. It's kinda sad when you see it. Have Kleenex on hand.

This is the problem with climate change, and I've pointed it out before. People that don't know much like to talk trash when they're surround by other fools with the same group think. And don't kid yourself, a PhD doesn't come with a course on hubris. He's a smart guy, talking to presumably other smart guys, about something none of them actually know anything about. But you're never going to see him do that talk in front of anyone with just the slightest knowledge on the subject.

I would strongly urge you to consider why this is. Why are all these enlightened climate change revisionists not speaking up at the UN and Senate hearings, and instead passing their profound knowledge on to Doctors without Boarders in the club room at a Motel 76 off the I95?

Even you have to find this a little bit...unusual. Granted, lack a critical thinking is a prerequisite to being a denier, but still, use your head dude.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 7:09pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 16 2019 6:31pm
That is not an answer jim.....its just regurgitation of the same assumption and a cheap way to avoid providing a real answer.
“Coincidence”.. no!..its not even a good “Correlation “ for reasons that have been posted earlier...
You're right, 95% sure 100% of the observed temperature increase over the last 50 years is due to human influence isn't CORRELATION.

IT'S CAUSALITY. :mrgreen:

I don't care what you say, you're actually learning a bit hill. Kudos.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10016
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 16 2019 8:27pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 16 2019 12:21pm
Well this took all of 5 minutes to refute...

[youtube]rmTuPumcYkI[/youtube
So Dr. Frank doesn't know enough about how the climate models are produced and makes some very basic errors in his calculations. His whole "haystack" graph is garbage, his methods are rudimentary and fundamentally flawed.

Shocking! :mrgreen:
Shocking indeed !...
But a pity you didnt take a little longer to read the response from Frank....
It seems that Mr brown knows less about GCMs and model theory, than he thought he did !
But that is only to be expected from someone who claims to be a Climate Scientist :lol: :lol:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10016
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 16 2019 8:42pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 16 2019 7:05pm
Why are all these enlightened climate change revisionists not speaking up at the UN and Senate hearings, ..........
When you grow up, and have to confront the real world, of Politics, Power, Influence, the “lodge”, “Old Boy” networks, and even simple job security.......the you will know the answer to that.
The UN have an agenda that is totally dependent on AGW , and WILL NOT accept any input that is contrary to that .
They also have the power and influence to enforce that position.
Many have attempted to present contrary views, and all have suffered the consequences..funding withdrawn, careers destroyed, lives ruined, etc.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 9:48pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 16 2019 8:27pm
Shocking indeed !...
But a pity you didnt take a little longer to read the response from Frank....
It seems that Mr brown knows less about GCMs and model theory, than he thought he did !
But that is only to be expected from someone who claims to be a Climate Scientist :lol: :lol:
Which one? This one?

"Pat Frank has a guest post on WUWT about breaking the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling. It’s essentially about a paper of his that he has been trying to get published and that has now been rejected 6 times. As you can imagine, this means that there is some kind of massive conspiracy preventing him from publishing his ground breaking work that would fundamentally damage the underpinnings of climate modelling."

Not a climate scientist or a statistician, can't get published in a climate science journal, lectures in hotel lounges to anyone that will pay.

As a opposed to a practicing, published PhD in climate science. Exactly who do you think is claiming to be a climate scientist???

Dude, you're hilarious. If you can't tell the bat boy from the ball players how will you ever understand the game? :mrgreen:

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 10:02pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 16 2019 8:42pm
When you grow up, and have to confront the real world, of Politics, Power, Influence, the “lodge”, “Old Boy” networks, and even simple job security.......the you will know the answer to that.
The UN have an agenda that is totally dependent on AGW , and WILL NOT accept any input that is contrary to that .
They also have the power and influence to enforce that position.
Many have attempted to present contrary views, and all have suffered the consequences..funding withdrawn, careers destroyed, lives ruined, etc.
When all else fails, there's always this ^

Do you find your helmet interferes with your tinfoil hat, or do you take it off to ride? :mrgreen:

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 10:07pm

So apparently even the climate "skeptic" community is tired of Dr. Frank and his dumb theory:

https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/11874/


So for 8 years he's been pushing this theory, further and further down the rabbit hole. I imagine he'll be available for kitseneros and bar mitzvahs at a more reasonable price in the near future.

Thanks hill. It's been almost 10 years since I really bothered to look at the climate change deniers and the crazy things they come up with.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 10:11pm

Meh, double post.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10016
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 16 2019 10:29pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 16 2019 9:48pm

..Not a climate scientist or a statistician, can't get published in a climate science journal, lectures in hotel lounges to anyone that will pay.
Not doing your homework are you...?
Dr Frank is a Phd, Proffessor in Chemistry, specialising in modeling at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SLAC) and has multiple “peer reviewed” papers published .
....not that it matters ! :roll:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 11:57pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 16 2019 10:29pm
Not doing your homework are you...?
Dr Frank is a Phd, Proffessor in Chemistry, specialising in modeling at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SLAC) and has multiple “peer reviewed” papers published .
....not that it matters ! :roll:
I'm sure to you that sounds like it might be the same thing, but it's two complete different disciplines.

So they might share a B.Sc in common, but the other 4 years of research, thesis, teaching, publishing, defending, associating, conferencing, as well as the many years in their profession, are completely different. (that's basically 4 years of almost totally associated undergrad science compared to years, and years of specializing)

It took me all of a couple hours to find this guy being smacked around the internet by people way more versed in the topics; namely stats and climate science.

hill you can't even tell the difference. and look at you, you're so willing to believe anything you don't realize when you are being fooled. you're the mark. Dr. Frank might not be doing this for money, heck he might even believe half of what he's saying, but he's out of his league here and apparently doesn't know when to admit when he's wrong.

The sad fact is we all want him to be right. As much as you think people are out to get you, people just want things to stay the same. When you grow up you'll find the world isn't run by brick layers and frat boys, it's runs on maintaining the status quo.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 17 2019 12:18am

I know this goes against your faith, but you should read some of the links I posted. There are some very simple and devastating criticisms of Dr. Frank's analysis. Brown covers it in his video pretty well but Frank's methodology is seriously flawed. More importantly he never puts forth a hypothesis and tests it. His whole idea is based on assertions that if you actually apply them are pretty ridiculous.

You do realize by what he's saying, there's no way for the models to run backwards, which is essentially how they are made. If error propagated like he thinks it does the models would be just as incorrect running backwards as he thinks they do forwards.

There's some merit to what he's pointing out. You can think of the models as if they are aimed at a target. Small deviations in how something is aimed tend to have a greater effect on trajectory than things like the wind or humidity.

Models don't tend to start out with random variables that propagate though multiple iterations. Running them backwards is like aiming them. Having an initial trajectory makes them more accurate. This is basically why rifles are more accurate than handguns.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10016
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 17 2019 12:23am

Frank does not need to know anything about Climate science.... ( but most of its fundamentals are based on Chemistry anyway !)....
But his speciality is modeling and maths, and all he is doing is analysing the GCM models and conclusions in the IPCC papers.
In that area he is likely as well ..if not more ..qualified than Brown and most of the other “climate Scientists” !

Browns critique had several flaws, but the most fundamental was that he assumed that the core 4.0W/msq was a “Base state error”, when it is not,...its a “Theory bias error” ..a very different effect in a model.
Either Brown doesnt understand the difference, or he chose to assume incorrectly.
Another of his incorrect assumptions, was the choice of 1 yr time base for the analysis, showing how a 20 yr time base minimises the variability..Unfortunately for Brown, he ignored the fact that input data was specifically related to a yearly cycle... again a rookie gaff for such a smart “climate scientist”
Browns conclusions are invalidated on those two points alone, never mind the multiple others that have also been identified.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 17 2019 3:20am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 17 2019 12:23am
Frank does not need to know anything about Climate science....
lol, he's going out of his way to prove it.

And no, it has nothing to do with the bias error. It has to do with the fact that Dr. Frank's assumptions about the temperature record are incorrect because he has no idea how they are kept. Because it's not his field of specialty.

Again, it's pretty clearly explained if you choose to read the criticisms. None of them are from Brown, they're from other specialists in the field 5 years prior to the video I posted.

The UN isn't holding this guy back and keeping him suppressed hill. He's been told for almost a decade now he's wrong, there isn't a single expert that supports his analysis, and now he's using his sophistry on people like you that are willing to believe anything if it maintains the status quo.

Like I said, if you're getting your science at the Ramada Inn, you might want to check your source. :mrgreen:

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10016
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 17 2019 5:10am

furcifer wrote:
Jul 17 2019 3:20am
And no, it has nothing to do with the bias error. It has to do with the fact that Dr. Frank's assumptions about the temperature record are incorrect because he has no idea how they are kept. .....
:?: exactly what assumptions are you refering to now ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 17 2019 10:18am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 17 2019 5:10am
:?: exactly what assumptions are you refering to now ?
It's in Brown's video. He's assuming the noise in the weather is an error that propagates through the models. It's not, it's relative error that smoothes out over the trend line.

The way I understand it is how Dr. Frank handles the error propagation, models wouldn't be able to predict the temperature in July 5 years from now. The error would be so great you could have something like April, or you could have something like September. Actually knowing that July (in the NH) is warmer than April or September isn't a bias, it's a matter of following the trend.

This is why they are referring to it as Monte Carlo math. He's assuming randomness where there's actually a trend. You can look at his graphs, they shows swings of -20C - +20C , we know for a fact that this isn't possible.

If you apply his error analysis to the actual temperature data collected over the last century his "theory" falls apart. Think of it, if he were right the models would be spitting out the same numbers (error bars) for 100 years ago as they do for 100 years from now!

Of course this is obviously not true. If a climate model doesn't follow the past temperature history, especially to the extent Dr. Frank is suggesting it wouldn't be used.

Again for clarity and simplicity, the climate is following a trajectory, it's not random like the weather is from day to day or even from one gathering station to another.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 17 2019 11:13am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 17 2019 12:23am
Frank does not need to know anything about Climate science.
Ah yes, bothsiderism. That woman on Youtube selling essential oils knows just as much about vaccines as your doctor. Hey, she doesn't need to know anything about medicine; she just have to have an opinion, and then her opinion is worth as much as anyone else's! That's how we got the Truthers, the Flat Earthers, the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers, "5G causes cancer" and chemtrails.
--bill von

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 601
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 17 2019 2:43pm

billvon wrote:
Jul 17 2019 11:13am

Ah yes, bothsiderism. That woman on Youtube selling essential oils knows just as much about vaccines as your doctor. Hey, she doesn't need to know anything about medicine; she just have to have an opinion, and then her opinion is worth as much as anyone else's! That's how we got the Truthers, the Flat Earthers, the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers, "5G causes cancer" and chemtrails.
:mrgreen:

When you find yourself making similar arguments to every conspiracy on the planet, it's time to evaluate your argument.

The whole "opinion" thing is the topic of another thread. It happens to be one of my pet peeves. I feel like an old man saying it but the world is going to hell in a hand bag allowing every idiot with two thumbs and a smart phone to have an "equal and valid opinion" about anything. The PC police have gone too far and it doesn't do society any good to create a safe space for some idiot at Starbucks to voice his thoughts on climate change or stem cell research. It's not nice to call someone stupid, but neither is telling them their opinion matters when it doesn't.

Life sucks and you don't matter. The number of Instagram followers you have doesn't change that.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 17 2019 4:15pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 17 2019 2:43pm
The PC police have gone too far and it doesn't do society any good to create a safe space for some idiot at Starbucks to voice his thoughts on climate change or stem cell research. It's not nice to call someone stupid, but neither is telling them their opinion matters when it doesn't.
Hey, I am all for the freedom of idiots to say whatever they want. I am also all for the freedom to call them idiots.
--bill von

Post Reply