3 ms·

> Well done on being condescending It isn't condescension. Is it no longer OK these days to suggest someone might not understand something? Must it always be

> Well done on being condescending It isn't condescension. Is it no longer OK these days to suggest someone might not understand something? Must it always be a personal attack when someone disagrees with you? > you utter muppet Wow. Questions answered. My guess is, if we were having this discussion in person you would resort to physical violence. How sad. The absolute lack of tolerance and violent nature of today's cult-like attachment to ideas and ideology make me think of the kind of people who threw someone like Galileo in prison (house arrest) for the rest of his life for daring to suggest they were wrong. This is what we've come to. Full circle. The mobs win. Nobody can dare disagree with them. Because they are right. Always. And they will resort to violence and ruin your life if you dare exist outside the accepted line of thinking. This is a modern tragedy of untold proportions. And, BTW, after all of this, neither you nor anyone else can point to a a proposed solutions that provides a full honest accounting of timeline, energy and fuel requirements, materials, resources, emissions/pollutants produced, support, maintenance and ecological impact AT A PLANETARY SCALE. These are supernatural claims without any attempt to actually prove or justify what is being claimed. You believe what you believe because you believe what you believe and everyone else be damned. Bravo. You talk about building a thousand square kilometers of solar without bothering to do any reality-check calculations, even at the most basic level. For example, you'll have to replace a thousand square kilometers of solar panels every 15 to 20 years. Same goes for the batteries. And the computers. And the electronics. Etc. One wave of the hand, Thanos snaps his fingers and a thousand kilometers of solar panels appear to save the planet with absolutely no negative consequences at all for a hundred years. Conversation over. Live long and prosper.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
It's condescention when you repeatedly bring it up whilst not acknowledging or even giving any indication you understand the second law or the phrase "a much stricter limit". What I'm getting from this is you're just a concern troll with no interest in matching your ideas to reality.
- robomartin 4y ago
  > you're just a concern troll More personal attacks. A typical tool of last resort when people who do not relish the idea of being wrong simply cannot face being challenged. Someone making supernatural claims has the burden of proof. Reducing atmospheric CO2 faster than about 100 ppm per 100K years (or 1 ppm per thousand years) is a supernatural claim. This is an indisputable matter of evidence borne from nearly a million years of atmospheric ice core sample data. This data is as accurate and reliable as can be. And it says something brutally simple: The natural rate of change is about 1 ppm per thousand years. Any proposal claiming the ability to affect change at a faster rate is, by definition, supernatural. And, as such, carries the burden of proof. We have people claiming to be able to drop 100 ppm in 30 years, fully 3000 times faster than the natural rate. If there's anything that is preposterous, that is it. I am still waiting for you, or anyone else, to publish a link to a peer-reviewed/verified proposal that includes a full accounting of energy, resources and the myriad components that should be accounted for if one were to honestly want to evaluate proposals. And, of course, at a planetary scale, not a laboratory table or simulator. If such a thing existed it would be published, known and promoted all over the world. We would be talking about that instead of me trying to help you understand how it is the emperor has no clothes and you can't see it. Still waiting. I can ignore the insults. They mean nothing to me and say volumes about your position. In fact, they say your position has no support at all in reality, otherwise you would present reality instead. It's much easier. If it exists. The best way to shut me up and put me in my place is to post the kind of information that would do precisely that. The problem is, you can't, because it does not exist. And it does not exist because an honest evaluation of the many so-called solutions would fail the most fundamental of physics tests. I am truly sorry your only outlet is to post insults. Having facts on your side would be far a more powerful and effective way to show them them they are wrong. It's sad. Really. Like I said. Still waiting. Anyone? Good day.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

It's condescention when you repeatedly bring it up whilst not acknowledging or even giving any indication you understand the second law or the phrase "a much stricter limit". What I'm getting from this is you're just a concern troll with no interest in matching your ideas to reality.

robomartin 4y ago
> you're just a concern troll More personal attacks. A typical tool of last resort when people who do not relish the idea of being wrong simply cannot face being challenged. Someone making supernatural claims has the burden of proof. Reducing atmospheric CO2 faster than about 100 ppm per 100K years (or 1 ppm per thousand years) is a supernatural claim. This is an indisputable matter of evidence borne from nearly a million years of atmospheric ice core sample data. This data is as accurate and reliable as can be. And it says something brutally simple: The natural rate of change is about 1 ppm per thousand years. Any proposal claiming the ability to affect change at a faster rate is, by definition, supernatural. And, as such, carries the burden of proof. We have people claiming to be able to drop 100 ppm in 30 years, fully 3000 times faster than the natural rate. If there's anything that is preposterous, that is it. I am still waiting for you, or anyone else, to publish a link to a peer-reviewed/verified proposal that includes a full accounting of energy, resources and the myriad components that should be accounted for if one were to honestly want to evaluate proposals. And, of course, at a planetary scale, not a laboratory table or simulator. If such a thing existed it would be published, known and promoted all over the world. We would be talking about that instead of me trying to help you understand how it is the emperor has no clothes and you can't see it. Still waiting. I can ignore the insults. They mean nothing to me and say volumes about your position. In fact, they say your position has no support at all in reality, otherwise you would present reality instead. It's much easier. If it exists. The best way to shut me up and put me in my place is to post the kind of information that would do precisely that. The problem is, you can't, because it does not exist. And it does not exist because an honest evaluation of the many so-called solutions would fail the most fundamental of physics tests. I am truly sorry your only outlet is to post insults. Having facts on your side would be far a more powerful and effective way to show them them they are wrong. It's sad. Really. Like I said. Still waiting. Anyone? Good day.