Vaccine

Grace T. said:
You, the king of the subtle insult, just love to play the victim, particularly when your own behavior is called into question. Again don’t tell me it’s an emergency if you are going ahead adestroying the planet yourself. And it’s not just the having children thing. You do club soccer with the extra driving involved which is bad for the environment, are all for Arizona tournaments and let’s not forget the blind eye you turned towards the damage masks are doing let alone your takeout containers. But everyone else you expect to sacrifice a little.

and again just like the let’s just mask and do internal dining, you don’t comprehend the size of the problem or the time factor. It’s not a static problem. It’s one that gets worse since everyone wants to be the us and live the us lifestyle. Just having a single family home for all those families would be ecologically ruinous let alone a dog and hamburgers for all of them. The problem is under the water and you are just concerned with the ice berg tip.

and I posted the video for why on why electric cars aren’t as much of a savings as you think. You are better off driving an existing beater into the ground than manufacturing a new Tesla.
Click to expand...
2/3 of that was ad-homimnems. With respect the the policy points,

Better off fixing an old car than driving a new one? Sure. But old cars don’t last forever, so we will still make new ones. The question is just what type they should be. I’ll happily agree that the oversize battery in a Tesla undoes much of the benefit of having an electric in the first place. So don’t choose a Tesla. Choose cars that are actually efficient.

The world is in trouble if all of China and India decide to live on quarter acre lots and eat hamburgers? True. But there is room for each of us to have a nice 3 bedroom flat and a chicken sandwich.

Will the Kennedys complain if we put windmills in their view? Maybe. Put windmills in their view anyway. And raise the taxes on their aviation fuel while you’re at it.

The point remains that we can eliminate well over half of electricity and transportation emissions by changing zoning, upgrading long distance transmission lines and switching power generation to wind, solar, and nuclear. Expensive, but better than not doing it.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
We have too many Charlie Brown's with pantophobia and too many ideologues. It's not a good mix for reasoned problem-solving and my impression is that we have become less able to appropriately assess risk/reward. Of course, when those overseeing endeavors with risk fall short in their responsibilities of transparency, such as in gain of function research, some of it is justified.
Click to expand...
The criticism of the left is it mostly cares about feelings (and there is some data to back this up…Jordan Peterson is always throwing it about). The criticism of the right is that it is callous and lacks compassion. But if you are concerned with feelings, problem-solving is a different part of the brain (reason) and feelings don’t care about risk/reward. Feelings only care about being validated and satisfied.
 
Grace T. said:
Again your comprehension is lacking. The point is I’m just not the only one that holds you in such high esteem. If you are going to damn me, feel free to critique that I’m not clever enough to make it up myself…though I certainly enjoy being the one to shove it in your face.
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension! Drink!
 
Grace T. said:
The criticism of the left is it mostly cares about feelings (and there is some data to back this up…Jordan Peterson is always throwing it about). The criticism of the right is that it is callous and lacks compassion. But if you are concerned with feelings, problem-solving is a different part of the brain (reason) and feelings don’t care about risk/reward. Feelings only care about being validated and satisfied.
Click to expand...

It's not always left v. right. Sometimes it's truth v. fantasy.
 
dad4 said:
2/3 of that was ad-homimnems. With respect the the policy points,

Better off fixing an old car than driving a new one? Sure. But old cars don’t last forever, so we will still make new ones. The question is just what type they should be. I’ll happily agree that the oversize battery in a Tesla undoes much of the benefit of having an electric in the first place. So don’t choose a Tesla. Choose cars that are actually efficient.

The world is in trouble if all of China and India decide to live on quarter acre lots and eat hamburgers? True. But there is room for each of us to have a nice 3 bedroom flat and a chicken sandwich.

Will the Kennedys complain if we put windmills in their view? Maybe. Put windmills in their view anyway. And raise the taxes on their aviation fuel while you’re at it.

The point remains that we can eliminate well over half of electricity and transportation emissions by changing zoning, upgrading long distance transmission lines and switching power generation to wind, solar, and nuclear. Expensive, but better than not doing it.
Click to expand...
A world where folks have a 3 bedroom flat and eat chicken sandwiches is not going to happen. You want Venezuela light I see. If you think such sacrifice is easy you can start by pulling your kid out of travel soccer and telling her you’ll only pay for a local school. My burger may be very well important to me (not to mention the cow bone to my dog). If you aren’t prepared to show we are in an emergency by changing your life, don’t lecture me about mine. And unless you are prepared to execute the bolivaran revolution to force that, you are preaching again (only this time doing it badly since you aren’t even walking the walking but preaching hellfire and damnation while everyone knows the preacher is going out to the Whore house on saturdays and Sundays). And what’s worse is you put a cherry on top of it all with your masks and takeout (which hopefully is all vegetarian or chicken).
And don’t decry “oh the ads”. Pointing out your hypocrisy and lack of urgency isn’t an ad (it’s showing you don’t believe your own message and just want to virtue signal to feel good about yourself). And you’ve lost that right anyhow oh king of the subtle insult.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
We have too many Charlie Brown's with pantophobia and too many ideologues. It's not a good mix for reasoned problem-solving and my impression is that we have become less able to appropriately assess risk/reward. Of course, when those overseeing endeavors with risk fall short in their responsibilities of transparency, such as in gain of function research, some of it is justified.
Click to expand...

Pantophobia? I had to look that one up.

I myself have a fear of misplaced apostrophes.

Don't fear the apostrophe

grammarguide.copydesk.org grammarguide.copydesk.org

Actually, it's more like a distaste than a fear.

And what is missing from the transparency about gain of function research?
 
Hüsker Dü said:
They use the “all or nothing” like a crutch.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of "all or nothing", its a matter of substance over form. The left is the king of virtue signaling. Paper straws for example. (and I couldn't care less what my straws are made out of but paper straws have zero green impact). Population control is a non-starter; whereas, nuclear power and battery technology would be a great place to start as opposed to crazy diesel engine regulations that only increase the cost of everything and provide little benefit to the environment. It's also the less privileged that are hurt the most by the token "green" regulations. It's easy to say drive a electric car when you can afford it and have charging access at your home. Not so easy when you can't afford one and live in an apartment.

To take a page out of Grace's book, we need to do what works not what feels good. If does both great!
 
watfly said:
It's not a matter of "all or nothing", its a matter of substance over form. The left is the king of virtue signaling. Paper straws for example. (and I couldn't care less what my straws are made out of but paper straws have zero green impact). Population control is a non-starter; whereas, nuclear power and battery technology would be a great place to start as opposed to crazy diesel engine regulations that only increase the cost of everything and provide little benefit to the environment. It's also the less privileged that are hurt the most by the token "green" regulations. It's easy to say drive a electric car when you can afford it and have charging access at your home. Not so easy when you can't afford one and live in an apartment.

To take a page out of Grace's book, we need to do what works not what feels good. If does both great!
Click to expand...

I drive an E85 car, which is sort of a compromise, especially when I need fuel and there is no E85 station available so I have to use regular gasoline.

To confess, I didn't do this as a result of a drawn-out research plan into green alternatives. My wife's car was totaled due to a flood (in Rancho Bernardo, no less) and her car-savvy friend found this car as a short-term replacement until she got the bigger car she wanted for her real estate business. Then it became mine, replacing the 25-year-old pickup I had been driving for years.
 
Grace T. said:
Complaining about ads and playing the victim all while doing the subtle dig….chug!
Click to expand...
So reply to the policy items and stop calling other people stupid.

Very large CO2 emissions reductions are possible by changing zoning, upgrading y[transmission lines, building non-fossil fuel power generation, and choosing small electric cars for most new vehicles. Ball is in your court.
 
espola said:
I drive an E85 car, which is sort of a compromise, especially when I need fuel and there is no E85 station available so I have to use regular gasoline.

To confess, I didn't do this as a result of a drawn-out research plan into green alternatives. My wife's car was totaled due to a flood (in Rancho Bernardo, no less) and her car-savvy friend found this car as a short-term replacement until she got the bigger car she wanted for her real estate business. Then it became mine, replacing the 25-year-old pickup I had been driving for years.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't hesitate to buy an electric car when its time for a new car. I'm not a fan of ethanol as a solution, not being critical of your E85, just from what I've read I don't think its a good way to go (energy and land required to produce it, etc.
 
watfly said:
I wouldn't hesitate to buy an electric car when its time for a new car. I'm not a fan of ethanol as a solution, not being critical of your E85, just from what I've read I don't think its a good way to go (energy and land required to produce it, etc.
Click to expand...
Ethanol began as a subsidy to corn farmers. Last time I looked at it, the whole process was net negative for energy. You use more fuel to make the extra fertilizer than you create by fermenting the corn.

Might be better now if they are using waste products like stalks for the fermentation.
 
dad4 said:
So reply to the policy items and stop calling other people stupid.

Very large CO2 emissions reductions are possible by changing zoning, upgrading y[transmission lines, building non-fossil fuel power generation, and choosing small electric cars for most new vehicles. Ball is in your court.
Click to expand...
a. while I might very well call espola stupid, I would never dream of calling you stupid. I do critique your line of thinking. It is limited when it comes to certain issues where you go with emotions instead of reasoning. This is one of them. You also repeatedly ignore the time factor which is why you've been called out on it time and time again (you are playing 3 d chess when you need to be playing 4...espola is still playing 2 and not even doing that very well). You also repeatedly treat things like they are a US only problem and fail to factor in the rest of the world.That doesn't mean you are stupid and I actually have a lot of respect for your intellectual chops. I just think you let your emotions get the better of you.
b. I agree those steps would lead to less CO2 emissions. Like your "masks and indoor dining" though it's not enough particularly as this is a problem that GLOBALLY grows with TIME.
c. Here we have a philosophical disagreement. Like many on the left, your inclination is to "do something" because it makes us feel better, even if it causes suffering on others and doesn't rectify the problem. My position is sure do that, so long as it doesn't hurt others (particularly if it doesn't solve the problem).
d. The car thing is the perfect example. The policy to work isn't "choosing small electric cars for most new vehicles"....it's "and run existing beaters into the ground".
e. That leaves you in the end with a dilemma and a choice that you always seem to be reluctant to articulate and go full all in, because I suspect you are conscious of your authoritarian tendencies and want to keep them in check knowing that if you don't you'll go full Mao. We saw it with your admiration for Australian, New Zealand and China even though you never came out and said yeah let's do that. We see it here with your wanting to ban people from getting big cars, wanting to force the Obamas to get windfarms and the Kerrys to stop flying private, wanting to take the bone out of my dog's mouth and the burger from my hand, and wanting to force everyone into flats (except when the sacrifice is required from you of course, since club soccer and masks are totally o.k.). In the end, you know deep down inside what would be required....you just don't want to say it so you prefer to preach about it and hope for the best (which in the end I really don't see as all that different than my faith in humans and technological solutions).
 
dad4 said:
Especially because I’m recommending the more efficient cars which have a more limited range.
Click to expand...

There's another Adam video that goes into this. It has environmental repercussions too particularly given the issue of fast charging, absent a technology solution.
 
Grace T. said:
There's another Adam video that goes into this. It has environmental repercussions too particularly given the issue of fast charging, absent a technology solution.
Click to expand...
Every option option has environmental repercussions, as long as we're on this earth. I think we can find a better balance (which likely will still include fossil fuels to some extent).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top