Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[Foxi4]

There is nothing about our current technologies that prevents us from moving to primarily green energy. To do this though, the solutions are going to have to be systemic. That means laws, regulations, etc.

To be more specific, I said that it's a matter of adaptation, which it is. You're always missing the forest for the trees - on purpose at that. It's truly remarkable. I outlined precisely what's wrong with the current state of technology that prevents us from moving onto "primarily green energy", so by all means, educate yourself. When you figure out how to store 15 terawatts of the world's energy need, with the ability to scale upwards, give us all a quick run-down. Besides standard power walls we have a couple candidates going - using the generated energy to produce hydrogen for later use (this is implemented in hydrogen stations in some locations specifically for hydrogen vehicles), compressed/liquified air, pumped water towers, flow batteries and other unconventional batteries I've mentioned earlier. Until we're capable of storing energy for use when "it's not windy" or "it's not sunny" for more than just individual households going 100% renewable, or anywhere close to "primary source" is a complete pipe dream. It's a great supplemental source, it absolutely is not a replacement, and no engineer worth their salt will claim otherwise.

 

[Elrinth]

I think GI Joe will without a doubt trump the previous president. But we will all see in time.

 

[Lacius]

Always missing the forest for the trees - on purpose at that. Truly remarkable.

What's truly remarkable is the following exchange that just occurred:

• You: Climate change isn't really a problem.
• Me: Climate change is indeed a problem. Here's why.
• You: Don't twist what I said.
• Me: You literally said climate change isn't really a problem.
• You: No, you're the one missing something.

I'm not especially interested in having a conversation with someone so flagrantly dishonest. Perhaps you're just thinking about this for the first time as you go, because your stream-of-consciousness solutions to your own energy storage concerns laughably make it so I don't even need to respond.

In reality, it is more than technologically feasible to get to 100% renewable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%_renewable_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production

"The biggest roadblocks preventing implementation of large-scale de-carbonisation strategies at the speed required to prevent runaway climate change are primarily political not technological."
https://cpd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Post-Carbon-Pathways-Report-2013_Revised.pdf

Educate yourself, please.

 

[Plasmaster09]

I think GI Joe will without a doubt trump the previous president. But we will all see in time.

The bar there is so low that microorganisms could use it for Limbo.

 

[Foxi4]

What's truly remarkable is the following exchange that just occurred:

• You: Climate change isn't really a problem.
• Me: Climate change is indeed a problem. Here's why.
• You: Don't twist what I said.
• Me: You literally said climate change isn't really a problem.
• You: No, you're the one missing something.

I'm not especially interested in having a conversation with someone so flagrantly dishonest. Perhaps you're just thinking about this for the first time as you go, because your stream-of-consciousness solutions to your own energy storage concerns laughably make it so I don't even need to respond.

In reality, it is more than technologically feasible to get to 100% renewable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%_renewable_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production

It's a matter of adaptation. I said that in the very first post in this exchange. It would be a "problem" if the climate wasn't changing up until now and all of a sudden it started to change - that'd be a big surprise. This isn't. The climate has been changing for as long as our planet has existed, and it will continue to change regardless of what you try to do about it. What you can do is adapt to the world changing and address the energy needs of the population, ideally without contributing too much in terms of greenhouse gasses which accelerates the process. The way you do that is by redesigning the grid with that in mind. It's completely false to say that "we can just switch", the feasibility of doing so is *highly* dependent on the area discussed, both in terms of geolocation and in terms of weather. It's not a "stream-of-consciousness", I'm listing currently available technologies which are promising candidates if such a grid redesign was to take place globally - that's all we've got. This might be news to some, but the sun isn't up 24/7 - not only that, if you know anything about solar at all, you'll know that the window of opportunity for peak efficiency (specified as "sun hours") that isn't a total waste of time is as narrow as 3-4 hours out of the 7 hours of sunlight a panel gets. In that short period of time you must necessarily collect enough energy for the remaining 20 hours of the day in order to truly get "off the grid", and that's just for a typical household, not for an industrial application. The same applies to wind energy, but that's less predictable. The single best, most predictable and reliable source of renewable energy is hydro, but those can only operate on rivers, particularly in areas with a difference in elevation. If you're not well-versed in the subject of the challenges we face in regards to renewable energy deployment, I don't know why you're replying at all. If you don't have anything to contribute besides picking apart semantics, you're wasting everyone's time.

EDIT: *Checks paper*
*Looks at authors*
*Checks credentials*

"Professor Wiseman’s major research and policy contributions have been in the fields of social justice and citizen engagement; globalization impacts; social, economic and environmental policy frameworks and indicators; sustainability transitions; and climate change risks and solutions."

"Taegen completed a Bachelor of Arts /Commerce at the University of Melbourne and Honours at Monash University analysing the implications of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change."

*Can't even find much about the third besides... Sustainable clothes swaps? Can't be the right fellow...*

Oh. So... Not one engineer. Thank you for this wonderful sociology paper, I'll be sure to file it in the correct cabinet.

*Puts paper in bin*

 

[Lacius]

It's a matter of adaptation. I said that in the very first post in this exchange. It would be a "problem" if the climate wasn't changing up until now and all of a sudden it started to change - that'd be a big surprise. This isn't. The climate has been changing for as long as our planet has existed, and it will continue to change regardless of what you try to do about it. What you can do is adapt to the world changing and address the energy needs of the population, ideally without contributing too much in terms of greenhouse gasses which accelerates the process. The way you do that is by redesigning the grid with that in mind. It's completely false to say that "we can just switch", the feasibility of doing so is *highly* dependent on the area discussed, both in terms of geolocation and in terms of weather. It's not a "stream-of-consciousness", I'm listing currently available technologies which are promising candidates if such a grid redesign was to take place globally - that's all we've got. This might be news to some, but the sun isn't up 24/7 - not only that, if you know anything about solar at all, you'll know that the window of opportunity for peak efficiency (specified as "sun hours") that isn't a total waste of time is as narrow as 3-4 hours out of the 7 hours of sunlight a panel gets. In that short period of time you must necessarily collect enough energy for the remaining 20 hours of the day in order to truly get "off the grid", and that's just for a typical household, not for an industrial application. The same applies to wind energy, but that's less predictable. The single best source, most predictable and reliable source of renewable energy is hydro, but those can only operate on rivers, particularly in areas with a difference in elevation. If you're not well-versed in the subject of the challenges we face in regards to renewable energy deployment, I don't know why you're replying at all. If you don't have anything to contribute besides picking apart semantics, you're wasting everyone's time.

As I already told you at the beginning of this exchange, climate change is in fact a problem, and carbon dioxide is being put into the atmosphere at a rate never before seen by the Earth. The idea that "this is just another example of the climate changing as it always does" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the climate science.

 

[Doran754]

Sleepy Joe rigged the election.

 

[tabzer]

Every election, since JFK, has probably been rigged. This cycle, it was the most obvious rigging. Over half the country believes it. Maybe a lot more. People deny it because they would prefer someone who enables pedophilia to take Trump's place. "It's for the greater good", like "saving the planet".

 

[Deleted member 414991]

Sorry for Trump, he was a good guy, capable...

How

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Every election, since JFK, has probably been rigged. This cycle, it was the most obvious rigging. Over half the country believes it. Maybe a lot more. People deny it because they would prefer someone who enables pedophilia to take Trump's place. "It's for the greater good", like "saving the planet".

Evidence?

 

[Foxi4]

Sleepy Joe rigged the election.

Welcome back. The subject naturally gravitated towards climate policy, but I'm pretty sure we're done with that. Please maintain an acceptable level of decorum and we won't have any issues going forward.

 

[tabzer]

Evidence?

Evidence isn't lacking. What has been confused though is the burden of the proof. Some people think that there needs to be absolute proof that election fraud happened in order to doubt the validity of an election. For that, it is likely that there is enough evidence. For others, they want to deny the existence of evidence, at all costs--so they would say "evidence?" in the face of absolute proof.

Then there are those, who are more rational, imo. Those who think that we should be convinced that a fair election is even possible before playing along. For those people, there is no hope or future in politics. They'd be right so far, too, because political trend has always sold their heritage, education (or access to information), and inheritance from under them. If things go according to trend, it won't be "global warming" that changes people into lumps of goo. The political ideologies that succeed in the corruption game would win that race.

 

[Lacius]

Every election, since JFK, has probably been rigged. This cycle, it was the most obvious rigging. Over half the country believes it. Maybe a lot more. People deny it because they would prefer someone who enables pedophilia to take Trump's place. "It's for the greater good", like "saving the planet".

1. There is no evidence of any presidential election since JFK having been rigged.
2. There is no evidence the 2020 election was rigged, obviously or otherwise.
3. A majority of Americans do not believe the 2020 election was rigged.
4. Whether or not "over half the country" believes the 2020 election was rigged is irrelevant to its truthfulness.
5. There is no evidence that Biden "enables pedophilia."

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Evidence isn't lacking.

Evidence is lacking that the election was rigged. No evidence has been provided that there was any widespread voter fraud.

What has been confused though is the burden of the proof.

Yes. The burden of proof is on the person claiming there was widespread voter fraud. I'm glad that's cleared up.

Some people think that there needs to be absolute proof that election fraud happened in order to doubt the validity of an election.

Evidence of widespread voter fraud needs to be provided before it's reasonable to believe there was widespread voter fraud. Evidence of widespread voter fraud needs to be provided before it's reasonable to doubt the validity of the election.

For that, it is likely that there is enough evidence.

Not even close.

For others, they want to deny the existence of evidence, at all costs--so they would say "evidence?" in the face of absolute proof.

No evidence, nor absolute proof, of widespread voter fraud has been provided.

Then there are those, who are more rational, imo. Those who think that we should be convinced that a fair election is even possible before playing along.

We have evidence the election was fair and secure, and we have no evidence it wasn't.

Some people think that there needs to be absolute proof that election fraud happened in order to doubt the validity of an election.

There should be evidence of widespread voter fraud before doubting the validity of the election.

For those people, there is no hope or future in politics. They'd be right so far, too, because political trend has always sold their heritage, education (or access to information), and inheritance from under them. If things go according to trend, it won't be "global warming" that changes people into lumps of goo. The political ideologies that succeed in the corruption game would win that race.

I'm not going to touch this incoherent rambling except to say that human-caused climate change and global warming are demonstrably real.

 

[tabzer]

Plausible deniability has taken us over the edge of objective rationalization. There is nothing honest about what you said.

There should be evidence of widespread voter fraud before doubting the validity of the election.

America had an election yesterday, and everyone here missed it. It was a re-vote, and I actually won it this time.

 

[Plasmaster09]

Plausible deniability has taken us over the edge of objective rationalization. There is nothing honest about what you said.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



America had an election yesterday, and everyone here missed it. It was a re-vote, and I actually won it this time.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Your persistent avoidance of any and all facts you don't like is not only an example of pure, unfiltered confirmation bias, but it also manages to make even my polarized, stubborn ass look like King Solomon in comparison.

Oh, and even if every single instance of alleged voter fraud on that bullshit website in your sig happens to be true (which is extremely unlikely)... that's 2 mil. Biden won by about 7 mil. Please, I highly encourage you to grasp at straws for the other five million votes.

 

[Lacius]

Plausible deniability has taken us over the edge of objective rationalization. There is nothing honest about what you said.



America had an election yesterday, and everyone here missed it. It was a re-vote, and I actually won it this time.

Without providing any evidence of widespread voter fraud, anything you have to say about widespread voter fraud is no different from talking out of you ass. I am sorry the facts are inconvenient for you.

 

[tabzer]

Your persistent avoidance of any and all facts you don't like is not only an example of pure, unfiltered confirmation bias, but it also manages to make even my polarized, stubborn ass look like King Solomon in comparison.

Your suggestion of bias assumes that I am being unfair to politicians and others who want to play politics.

 

[Foxi4]

Your persistent avoidance of any and all facts you don't like is not only an example of pure, unfiltered confirmation bias, but it also manages to make even my polarized, stubborn ass look like King Solomon in comparison.

Who's the baby we'll be sawing in two? I have a couple candidates.

Jokes aside, we've been through a couple of recounts and signature checks, so many of the allegations were in fact investigated. It's not like the allegation was made and *nothing* was done about it. How well they were investigated is another matter, and in the eyes of the beholder, but it's up to Trump's team to demonstrate that shenanigans were afoot if anyone's going to have a look at the ballots on this large of a scale, and they have failed to do so. You need *something* to base your investigation on, it's not Scooby Doo, you need to start with some clues from the get-go. "Dominion sus" is not enough.

 

[Plasmaster09]

Your suggestion of bias assumes that I am being unfair to politicians and others who want to play politics.

That's... not what confirmation bias means.
Confirmation bias is starting off with, well, a bias of some sort, and ignoring any facts contrary to it.
You insist the election was rigged, so you cherry-pick bits and pieces while ignoring the vast amount of cases Trump and team have thrown about that have come back showing that things were legitimate.
This doesn't mean you're being unfair to politicians, it means you're fundamentally biased in such a way that you ignore facts you don't like.

Who's the baby we'll be sawing in two? I have a couple candidates.

Considering how large a political rift Trump and team are tearing over their loss, I'd say the baby is Lady Liberty.

 

[tabzer]

"Dominion sus" is not enough.

I disagree, for the sake of a free and fair election, it is enough to warrant an audit. If election proceeding are hidden behind closed source and redacted for reasoning besides proving a fair election, then there is reason to doubt.

 

[Foxi4]

I disagree, for the sake of a free and fair election, it is enough to warrant an audit. If election proceeding are hidden behind closed source and redacted for reasoning besides proving a fair election, then there is reason to doubt.

In all fairness, those eVoting machines should be auditable at any time at the click of a button. There's a lot of weird features embedded into the system that raise an eyebrow, particularly the way the database stores data (been a subject of many-a-hacking conventions before), but that alone is not enough.