Funny events in anti-woke world

[Silvanus]

And you gave me a Guardian article with the last source you cited, which has a massive political slant too. Everyone is biased to some degree, you can't just say such and such source/person is wrong because of political interest. Explain how she is wrong with what she said, which you never do, you only use ad hominem attacks.

The issue is that you're not actually presenting specific statements, but rather using the video to back up a broad argument, which the video is pushing for ideological reasons. I'm not going to sit through an entire video and debunk it point-by-point.

The Guardian article was posted to address a specific point you made. The information on that point is accurate. And it has stats and links to follow.

Barrelling towards some net zero policy is also harmful. Germany dismantled wind turbines to mine more coal. Investing in nuclear would've been a far better use of money and resources. Renewables just don't mix well with our current electrical grids so slowing transitioning to them be a better option than just going full steam ahead. And we have an amazing solution in nuclear power to use until we are ready to move to other renewables.

How, exactly, is the transition too fast and harmful?

Given that fossil fuels are already, right now, wiping out hundreds of species, flooding liveable and arable land, exacerbating natural disasters, poisoning our air and water, shortening our lifespans. What exactly is the huge harm of renewables that mandates we stick with the suicidal alternative?

How are renewables using less land than conventional power?

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/06/energy-electricity-sources-land/

Wind and nuclear are the most land-efficient. Hydro and most forms of solar are more land-efficient than coal, but do use more land than gas, to be fair.

I should adjust my statement to "dedicated land". Because part of the point is that land used for renewables can often also be used for other purposes at the same time-- farming, or roofing. And the land is then either continuously generating energy, or can be repurposed afterwards. Whereas with fossil fuels, the land cannot be used for anything else, and is then destroyed when all resources are extracted.

 

[Chimpzy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/05/27/what-americans-dislike-most-about-democrats-republicans-poll-finds/

Ah, but all of those answers are wrong

 

[Cicada 5]

The far right are such avid James Bond fans that they somehow missed Judi Dench has played a female M for decades and may in fact be the most prominant one. And from the very start that M took none of James' shit.

Its not just that the far right does not even like the things they claim for their cause, its that they do not even know the very basics of the stuff they seek to claim. They neither enjoy nor know about James Bond. They just want to abuse it to promote the far right.
View attachment 14646

The scene from GoldenEye where Dench's M calls Bond a misogynistic dinosaur alone would have been enough to keep the likes of the Critical Drinker fed and sheltered based off of how much money and rage they got out of it if it came out today.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The issue is that you're not actually presenting specific statements, but rather using the video to back up a broad argument, which the video is pushing for ideological reasons. I'm not going to sit through an entire video and debunk it point-by-point.

The Guardian article was posted to address a specific point you made. The information on that point is accurate. And it has stats and links to follow.



How, exactly, is the transition too fast and harmful?

Given that fossil fuels are already, right now, wiping out hundreds of species, flooding liveable and arable land, exacerbating natural disasters, poisoning our air and water, shortening our lifespans. What exactly is the huge harm of renewables that mandates we stick with the suicidal alternative?

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/06/energy-electricity-sources-land/

Wind and nuclear are the most land-efficient. Hydro and most forms of solar are more land-efficient than coal, but do use more land than gas, to be fair.

I should adjust my statement to "dedicated land". Because part of the point is that land used for renewables can often also be used for other purposes at the same time-- farming, or roofing. And the land is then either continuously generating energy, or can be repurposed afterwards. Whereas with fossil fuels, the land cannot be used for anything else, and is then destroyed when all resources are extracted.

The whole video isn't about the differences between conventional power and renewable power. She's more of an expert on the subject than you or me and all you've said to counter her argument is that she is biased. The Guardian article was a pointless source so far because all it said was how much subsidies are spent on fossil fuels with no context/comparison to renewables. She knows more about the subject than some journalist from the Guardian as well.


Germany going back to a dirtier form of energy (because they moved too fast to renewables) is beneficial to us?

So you are saying you have evidence that fossil fuels are now causing shorter lifespans when all they've done before is expand lifespans beforehand? You have evidence that we're past the maximum benefit of fossil fuels and now we're on the down slope. I'd love to see the evidence for that.


The link does not work for me. I'm assuming it's measuring land use per unit of electricity produced vs just what is area of land is currently being used for each form of energy because, otherwise, that would be a rather pointless data point. Solar farms are very bad for the land/ecosystems. Wind farms are very bad for birds. Why is the land unusable after you say extract the natural gas? The land can still be used just fine.

 

[Chimpzy]

Corporations Can Vote in Some Delaware Elections, Judge Says (1)

Corporations, partnerships, trusts, limited liability companies, and other “artificial entities” have the right to vote in Delaware elections under some circumstances, a judge said in a novel ruling Tuesday.

news.bloomberglaw.com

Yes! Make it weighted voting based on market cap too.

 

[Silvanus]

The whole video isn't about the differences between conventional power and renewable power. She's more of an expert on the subject than you or me and all you've said to counter her argument is that she is biased.

Once again: because you're not using that video to substantiate specific points. I can't '"counter" a point when you're not making one.

All you're doing is using it to back you up on a broad ideological argument. So i'll respond in kind, about how little i value her ideological opinion.

Also, no, she's not an expert. Most of Kathryn Porter's career is in finance; her sole energy industry role was at EDF and was in pricing/corporate structure. She has no professional experience in science, energy itself, or actually anything relevant. Except for a 'consultancy' which is... just her.

The Guardian article was a pointless source so far because all it said was how much subsidies are spent on fossil fuels with no context/comparison to renewables.

So it wasn't "pointless" then, it just didn't provide you the exact point of comparison you now want. And which i've tried to provide further context for.

Germany going back to a dirtier form of energy (because they moved too fast to renewables) is beneficial to us?

Moved "too fast" is a matter of political opinion. Germany made a political decision.

So you are saying you have evidence that fossil fuels are now causing shorter lifespans when all they've done before is expand lifespans beforehand? You have evidence that we're past the maximum benefit of fossil fuels and now we're on the down slope. I'd love to see the evidence for that.

Air pollution and life expectancy: New evidence from the MINT economies - PMC

Life expectancy (LEX) has gained relevance among health and environmental scholars due to the current upsurge in carbon emissions. As a result, this article examined the impact of economic development (ECD), air pollution (AIP), human capital (HUC), ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/1090872?path=/bmj/383/8410/Research.full.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/5/1/kgaf011/8099165

The Impact of Climate Change on Health and Life Expectancy

Climate change poses a threat to global public health, amplifying existing humanitarian crises and affecting livelihoods and well-being.

earth.org

Facts and stats on air pollution - Clean Air Fund

Poor air quality is bad for our health, planet and economies. Here are alarming statistics and facts about air pollution.

www.cleanairfund.org

I await your usual tactic, of nitpicking something you didn't understand and then using that to dismiss everything.

The link does not work for me. I'm assuming it's measuring land use per unit of electricity produced vs just what is area of land is currently being used for each form of energy because, otherwise, that would be a rather pointless data point. Solar farms are very bad for the land/ecosystems. Wind farms are very bad for birds. Why is the land unusable after you say extract the natural gas? The land can still be used just fine.

Obviously it measures per MwH.

Solar farms and wind farms are absolutely nowhere near as damaging to the ecosystem as fossil fuel production. That's just insane false equivalence, ridiculous on the face of it.

And no, the land can't be "used just fine".

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Once again: because you're not using that video to substantiate specific points. I can't '"counter" a point when you're not making one.

All you're doing is using it to back you up on a broad ideological argument. So i'll respond in kind, about how little i value her ideological opinion.

Also, no, she's not an expert. Most of Kathryn Porter's career is in finance; her sole energy industry role was at EDF and was in pricing/corporate structure. She has no professional experience in science, energy itself, or actually anything relevant. Except for a 'consultancy' which is... just her.



So it wasn't "pointless" then, it just didn't provide you the exact point of comparison you now want. And which i've tried to provide further context for.



Moved "too fast" is a matter of political opinion. Germany made a political decision.

Air pollution and life expectancy: New evidence from the MINT economies - PMC

Life expectancy (LEX) has gained relevance among health and environmental scholars due to the current upsurge in carbon emissions. As a result, this article examined the impact of economic development (ECD), air pollution (AIP), human capital (HUC), ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/1090872?path=/bmj/383/8410/Research.full.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/5/1/kgaf011/8099165

The Impact of Climate Change on Health and Life Expectancy

Climate change poses a threat to global public health, amplifying existing humanitarian crises and affecting livelihoods and well-being.

earth.org

Facts and stats on air pollution - Clean Air Fund

Poor air quality is bad for our health, planet and economies. Here are alarming statistics and facts about air pollution.

www.cleanairfund.org

I await your usual tactic, of nitpicking something you didn't understand and then using that to dismiss everything.



Obviously it measures per MwH.

Solar farms and wind farms are absolutely nowhere near as damaging to the ecosystem as fossil fuel production. That's just insane false equivalence, ridiculous on the face of it.

And no, the land can't be "used just fine".

You've not countered any point she made nor have sourced any other expert that is superior to her knowledge.

Kathryn Porter | Energy Expert Witness | SEDA Experts

Kathryn Porter is an independent energy consultant with 25+ years of experience across the energy and finance sectors. She specializes in utilities, oil and gas, and has broad expertise in equities, debt capital markets, M&A, loans, and risk management.

www.sedaexperts.com

Just telling me how much money goes to fossil fuel subsidies is meaningless without context. Like a friend that said light beer is one point less than normal beer on Weight Watchers, and I'm like "I don't have any idea what that means because it could mean a beer is 3 points and a light beer is 2 points or 50 points and 49 points." Not to mention Weight Watchers is a pretty shitty diet program to begin with.

If wind is better (giving more energy at a cheaper price), then why would any politician(s) decide to get rid of wind and use coal again?

I'm not saying there aren't negative impacts from fossil fuels but they do enable progress that allows increases in life expectancy, which keeps going up (not down). Again, you've not shown that OVERALL fossil fuel negatives are now out-classing the benefits, which was what I was asking for...

So you are saying you have evidence that fossil fuels are now causing shorter lifespans when all they've done before is expand lifespans beforehand? You have evidence that we're past the maximum benefit of fossil fuels and now we're on the down slope. I'd love to see the evidence for that.

There's bias in every source and every side. The fear mongering about climate change doing all these horrible things so soon is simply overblown. We don't have to immediately pivot from fossil fuels to "save the world". You're in Britain, on the world level, whatever you guys do has hardly any impact on the rest of the world so why push so hard for net zero carbon and cause everyone to pay the highest energy costs in the developed world?

Billions have been wasted on UN’s climate change lies

The claims made by the International Panel on Climate Change were ludicrous, but the money that flowed to green groups and politicians to promote them and their preferred “solutions” was only too r…

nypost.com

Literally the first result on Google about natural gas extraction and land use afterward.

The seven steps of oil and natural gas extraction

Everyone talks about fracking, but that’s only one step of a larger process. Check out the 7 steps of oil and natural gas extraction.

www.cred.org

Birds vs. Wind Turbines: New Research Aims to Prevent Deaths

Window collisions and cats kill more birds than wind farms do, but ornithologists say turbine impacts must be taken seriously. Scientists are testing a range of technologies to reduce bird strikes — from painting stripes to using artificial intelligence — to keep birds safe.

e360.yale.edu

 

[tstorm823]

Its not just that the far right does not even like the things they claim for their cause, its that they do not even know the very basics of the stuff they seek to claim. They neither enjoy nor know about James Bond. They just want to abuse it to promote the far right.

I felt compelled to watch the bit that guy was talking about. The writing was quite James Bond.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Its not just that the far right does not even like the things they claim for their cause, its that they do not even know the very basics of the stuff they seek to claim. They neither enjoy nor know about James Bond. They just want to abuse it to promote the far right.

They only "think" as far as "James Bond scores the hot chicks and can kill whoever he wants" and decide that he's their role model.

 

[Asita]

I don't think that is the question. Trump is both the victim of a government related crime and the President of the United States, whether this case could go through under those circumstances is an interesting legal hiccup, but not terribly pertinent to the question of corruption, which is the thing anyone actually cares about. The accusation is that he just made a big slush fund for his allies, and the things we know and the circumstances that lead here just don't reach that conclusion. To be clear, I'm not saying that it's impossible that Trump ordered them to make this fund with the intention of hiding big payouts to his allies. What I am saying is that's an illogical conclusion to reach given what we know.

You're still shifting the discussion away from the actual point being raised.

We aren't claiming that Article III concerns automatically prove criminal corruption, or that Trump’s underlying grievance is fabricated. The point is narrower: the circumstances here create legitimate grounds for serious suspicion because the normal structural safeguards that are supposed to ensure adversarial litigation appear to have broken down.

And that concern has nothing to do with whether one can imagine alternative lawful explanations, or whether compensation for leak victims is appropriate in the abstract. It turns on the structure of this specific case.

The relevant facts, taken together, are that:

• the executive branch effectively controlled both sides of the litigation,
• The DOJ allegedly failed to assert standard dispositive defenses,
• a federal judge raised concerns about adverseness and jurisdiction,
• the case was promptly withdrawn after the judge scheduled a hearing on the matter,
• and substantially similar practical relief appears to have been recreated through executive action outside the litigation process.

That is not ordinary adversarial litigation. It is precisely the kind of pattern that triggers scrutiny about whether a proceeding is genuinely adversarial in the Article III sense or instead reflects aligned institutional incentives.

And importantly, suspicion does not require certainty. Institutional integrity analysis routinely works from cumulative irregularities long before intent can be established.

You also still haven’t engaged the Article III concern itself. You keep reframing the issue as whether Trump had a valid underlying grievance or whether some compensation mechanism could exist in principle. But the question is whether this particular litigation functioned as a genuine adversarial proceeding, as opposed to one where the adversarial safeguards were materially weakened.

Even if every participant believed they were acting lawfully, it can still be true that the adversarial structure failed in a way that raises reasonable concerns about executive self-dealing.

Finally, the statute-of-limitations issue further reinforces that concern. In ordinary federal litigation, the DOJ is expected to act as genuine defense counsel for the United States (in this case, that meant the IRS), which includes raising obvious threshold defenses like timeliness when they are available. The underlying disclosures occurred in 2020, and this case was filed well outside the 2 year limitations window. So, the failure to even raise that defense is not a minor omission. It is another data point consistent with an unusually non-adversarial litigation posture.

None of this proves corruption in itself. But it does make it difficult to treat the process we saw as unproblematic, beneath suspicion, or simply ‘normal adversarial litigation’ in the way you’re suggesting.

 

[Chimpzy]

DOJ launches criminal probe into E. Jean Carroll — reports

The US Justice Department has launched a criminal inquiry into former magazine writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her at a department store 30 years ago.

amp.dw.com

If this gets thrown out, Carroll should apply for the 1.7B fund for a lark.

 

[Silvanus]

You've not countered any point she made nor have sourced any other expert that is superior to her knowledge.

Third time: Because you haven't used her to substantiate any specific point! I am not going to sit here and debunk an entire video for you.

Kathryn Porter | Energy Expert Witness | SEDA Experts

Kathryn Porter is an independent energy consultant with 25+ years of experience across the energy and finance sectors. She specializes in utilities, oil and gas, and has broad expertise in equities, debt capital markets, M&A, loans, and risk management.

www.sedaexperts.com

Yes...?

Just telling me how much money goes to fossil fuel subsidies is meaningless without context.

Which is why we've also been talking about the context.

If wind is better (giving more energy at a cheaper price), then why would any politician(s) decide to get rid of wind and use coal again?

Why do you think? Fossil fuel industries are some of the wealthiest, most well-established industries around. They have hundreds of millions invested in lobbying governments around the world to continue handing them contracts and expanding their operations.

I'm not saying there aren't negative impacts from fossil fuels but they do enable progress that allows increases in life expectancy, which keeps going up (not down). Again, you've not shown that OVERALL fossil fuel negatives are now out-classing the benefits, which was what I was asking for...

They "enable progress" by... providing energy. So, the same role that could today be filled by other energy sources.

They were necessary back when we didn't have the tech for large-scale renewables and nuclear. Now we do.

I've given you a huge number of links to do with the harms. Now, keeping in mind that the benefits can also be provided by clean sources that don't cause those harms, my point is made.

The fear mongering about climate change doing all these horrible things so soon is simply overblown.

Not according to the overwhelming scientific consensus.

 

[tstorm823]

You're still shifting the discussion away from the actual point being raised.

No, I'm shifting the discussion back to the actual point that was raised. Silvanus (in a post you responded to) declared this to be a "$1.7bn slush fund for political allies" and "one of the most spectacularly brazen examples of corruption". If your point is that this demonstrates a weakness in the system of checks and balances that could be exploited, I could agree to that, though I'd probably argue it's not particularly distinct from the giant crack that is executive orders generally. But using a method that is weak to corruption is not evidence that specific use is itself corrupt, it's only reason to be suspicious if there aren't simple explanations for why the events transpired the way that they did. I think it's a silly conclusion to look at this as "brazen corruption", unless of course someone looks at every action Trump takes automatically as brazen corruption and just gets excited when it finally looks like that stance is maybe half-justified if you squint hard enough.

You're saying reasonable things, but they aren't what I came in here to acknowledge, so if you'd like to turn your attention to Silvanus and let him know that he's unreasonable, I would appreciate that, and likely be amenable to the rest of what you're saying. If, however, you think Silvanus is totally reasonable, then you believe a much harsher claim about this situation than what you are saying, and you are trying to shift the discussion away from your actual opinion.

To expand a little more concretely:

If this fund is established and starts paying people and the Judicial Oversight Committee does not request and receive the records, I would be surprised and disappointed. That is justified scrutiny.

If people say without even a second thought that this is an impeachable offense, that's not real scrutiny at all. That's just saying the thing they want to be the truth.

 

[Silvanus]

If this fund is established and starts paying people and the Judicial Oversight Committee does not request and receive the records, I would be surprised and disappointed. That is justified scrutiny.

Why are you expecting them to?

The "settlement agreement" says nothing about this. The panel is appointed by Todd Blanche, and the report of usage goes to Todd Blanche. Nobody else has the power to stick their nose in.

I'm also quite curious about your opinion about the 'agreement' including a stipulation that the IRS can't audit Trump's tax affairs. And the fact the suit was already withdrawn before Blanche ordered the creation of the fund. You've tactfully avoided those little hitches so far.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Third time: Because you haven't used her to substantiate any specific point! I am not going to sit here and debunk an entire video for you.



Yes...?



Which is why we've also been talking about the context.



Why do you think? Fossil fuel industries are some of the wealthiest, most well-established industries around. They have hundreds of millions invested in lobbying governments around the world to continue handing them contracts and expanding their operations.



They "enable progress" by... providing energy. So, the same role that could today be filled by other energy sources.

They were necessary back when we didn't have the tech for large-scale renewables and nuclear. Now we do.

I've given you a huge number of links to do with the harms. Now, keeping in mind that the benefits can also be provided by clean sources that don't cause those harms, my point is made.



Not according to the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Renewable energies don't gel great with our current power grids, you've said nothing to debunk that claim or provided no evidence outside of just use inverters (like they magically fix every issue with renewable energy). She specializes in the very thing you claim she doesn't specialize in.

I have been talking about context, you haven't. I provided a source that said that less than 15% of energy subsidies went to fossil fuels in the US since 2016 while half went to renewables. All you did was respond with the Guardian article that provided no context.

Remove all fossil fuel energy today and see what would happen, you wouldn't be able to build the infrastructure for your renewable energy. Hell, you wouldn't be able to get people to hospitals that need an ambulance. You wouldn't be able to get food to people. There'd be a massive down slope in life expectancy if you did this.

Any scientist that says anything different gets buried and attacked like say Roger Pielke. Do you not understand everyone and every side has bias? You think your side/take is free from bias and that's simply not true. Every dire prediction that was made by climate fear mongering that was supposed to have already happened has, shocker, not come close to happening.

They keep trying to push the narrative that storms are worse because of climate change but there actually isn't evidence proving that. As the NOAA scientist had to tell Don Lemon (horrible journalist) that you can't link any one storm to climate change and that climate change MAY be intensifying storms (but there's no concrete proof for it).

 

[tstorm823]

Why are you expecting them to?

Because Congressional oversight is implicit in everything the government does that is not explicitly and strictly designated to the other 2 branches.

I'm also quite curious about your opinion about the 'agreement' including a stipulation that the IRS can't audit Trump's tax affairs. And the fact the suit was already withdrawn before Blanche ordered the creation of the fund. You've tactfully avoided those little hitches so far.

No, you aren't. You are hoping these things magically fix your broken perspective.

Trump sued the IRS because the IRS under Biden essentially said he could.
Then they negotiated a settlement that would settle all the victims and give Trump something he wants without paying him off directly.
They dropped the suit because the judge indicated it was going to be dismissed.
They're enacting the settlement anyway because it could avoid many, many potential future suits.

Obvious, straight forward answers to every question. Nothing requiring conspiracy.

 

[Asita]

No, I'm shifting the discussion back to the actual point that was raised. Silvanus (in a post you responded to) declared this to be a "$1.7bn slush fund for political allies" and "one of the most spectacularly brazen examples of corruption". If your point is that this demonstrates a weakness in the system of checks and balances that could be exploited, I could agree to that, though I'd probably argue it's not particularly distinct from the giant crack that is executive orders generally. But using a method that is weak to corruption is not evidence that specific use is itself corrupt, it's only reason to be suspicious if there aren't simple explanations for why the events transpired the way that they did. I think it's a silly conclusion to look at this as "brazen corruption", unless of course someone looks at every action Trump takes automatically as brazen corruption and just gets excited when it finally looks like that stance is maybe half-justified if you squint hard enough.

You're saying reasonable things, but they aren't what I came in here to acknowledge, so if you'd like to turn your attention to Silvanus and let him know that he's unreasonable, I would appreciate that, and likely be amenable to the rest of what you're saying. If, however, you think Silvanus is totally reasonable, then you believe a much harsher claim about this situation than what you are saying, and you are trying to shift the discussion away from your actual opinion.

To expand a little more concretely:

If this fund is established and starts paying people and the Judicial Oversight Committee does not request and receive the records, I would be surprised and disappointed. That is justified scrutiny.

If people say without even a second thought that this is an impeachable offense, that's not real scrutiny at all. That's just saying the thing they want to be the truth.

Now you're going too far in the other direction in your misunderstanding of the point. And frankly, you seem to be going out of your way not to understand it and avoid substantively engaging the issues this case faced.

It's not "This is simply weak to corruption", it's that there are legitimate grounds for serious suspicion.

You're conflating the idea that "There is more than enough here to allege that a crime may have been committed" (the actual claim) with the idea that the crime has been "proven beyond even unreasonable doubt". And you're markedly insisting that even going "RED FLAG! This stinks to high heaven!" (like the court itself did) is necessarily ridiculous.

That is not a reasonable standard. You're demanding ironclad proof well beyond what any court would require for conviction before you will even consider an allegation of impropriety to be anything other than hysterics that only make sense if "someone looks at every action Trump takes automatically as brazen corruption and just gets excited when it finally looks like that stance is maybe half-justified if you squint hard enough."

It is reasonable to say that the guilt has not been proven in court. It is not reasonable to be - as you have been - contemptuous of the suspicion or even accusation of impropriety given the available data. It is even less reasonable to assert that the only reason people would reach that conclusion is prejudice against Trump so profound that they interpret anything he does as necessarily corrupt, a conclusion you only adopt by pointedly ignoring all the specific details people are calling foul on to instead treat it as a generalized abstraction in the broadest possible terms.

That is by no means the neutral or grounded opinion that you are presenting it as.

 

[Silvanus]

Renewable energies don't gel great with our current power grids, you've said nothing to debunk that claim or provided no evidence outside of just use inverters (like they magically fix every issue with renewable energy).

Because "don't gel with" is meaningless guff.

She specializes in the very thing you claim she doesn't specialize in.

Except she's not. She's someone who's never had a meaningful professional role in science or energy, except for in pricing. Then she made a consultancy. Which is just her.

I have been talking about context, you haven't. I provided a source that said that less than 15% of energy subsidies went to fossil fuels in the US since 2016 while half went to renewables. All you did was respond with the Guardian article that provided no context.

I provided a link that showed the fossil fuel subsidies your source listed were drastically understated. That is directly relevant. Then i detailed what kinds of subsidies were excluded from your analysis, and how they benefitted fossil fuels more than renewabes. This is all directly relevant context.

Remove all fossil fuel energy today and see what would happen, you wouldn't be able to build the infrastructure for your renewable energy.

Hence why I'm not saying to just turn it all off overnight. Strawman nonsense.

Any scientist that says anything different gets buried and attacked like say Roger Pielke

By "buried" you mean criticised? Yes, people making public statements are open to criticism.

 

[Silvanus]

Because Congressional oversight is implicit in everything the government does that is not explicitly and strictly designated to the other 2 branches.

Implicit, ok. So why does the settlement agreement, which has a section specifically about audits and fraud detection, give Congress nothing, and hand the sole specified role to the AG?

Trump sued the IRS because the IRS under Biden essentially said he could.
Then they negotiated a settlement that would settle all the victims and give Trump something he wants without paying him off directly.
They dropped the suit because the judge indicated it was going to be dismissed.
They're enacting the settlement anyway because it could avoid many, many potential future suits.

Ok. A lot of convenient assumptions there, and not really anything that justifies exempting someone from IRS audit, especially given his long history of dodgy financials.

Obvious, straight forward answers to every question. Nothing requiring conspiracy.

Resulting in a situation that looks exactly the same as if Trump's lawyer just gave Trump's friends 1.7bn dollars, and only Trump's lawyer can audit it, and only Trump's lawyer's employees can decide where it all goes! Neat.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Because "don't gel with" is meaningless guff.



Except she's not. She's someone who's never had a meaningful professional role in science or energy, except for in pricing. Then she made a consultancy. Which is just her.



I provided a link that showed the fossil fuel subsidies your source listed were drastically understated. That is directly relevant. Then i detailed what kinds of subsidies were excluded from your analysis, and how they benefitted fossil fuels more than renewabes. This is all directly relevant context.



Hence why I'm not saying to just turn it all off overnight. Strawman nonsense.



By "buried" you mean criticised? Yes, people making public statements are open to criticism.

You can watch like the 5 minutes where she explains everything...

According to you... You do not have any expert opinion on the matter.

No you didn't. My article didn't list any totals, it was all percentage-based. Your article giving the total money for fossil fuel subsidies is literally a meaningless number and disproved nothing from my article.

And there's no reason to "floor it" to switch to renewables either. A nice steady transition is fine.

The Obama White House attacked him, he was investigated by Congress, his speeches were cancelled, and his research center at Colorado University was shut down.