Texas Energy Crisis

[Cow Poke]

It doesn't. That's why I said "It was either a Freudian slip OR he trusted his whole talk would be taken in context." Have you see the whole talk?

And I noticed you neglected to answer the most important question.

(now, be honest - have you EVER used the word "wafting" in a sentence before? )

[whag]

I have.

I haven't, but I assume there's context. I can't find it on youtube.

[Cow Poke]

I haven't, but I assume there's context. I can't find it on youtube.

Since we're such good buddies, I'll hunt it down for you -- he was being rather arrogant, standing up for the greenies -- boasting that he's willing to make the hard choices even if it costs constituents dearly.

Now, answer my other question, you slacker!

[whag]

And I noticed you neglected to answer the most important question.

I confess I have not. But I have used "radii." And, yes, I did silently yelp with glee for my accomplishment.

[Cow Poke]

I haven't, but I assume there's context. I can't find it on youtube.

There's this....

and - he is one arrogant son-of-a-biscuit-baker....

[Cow Poke]

I confess I have not. But I have used "radii." And, yes, I did silently yelp with glee for my accomplishment.

It's about time you fessed up! And, yes, in response to your "radii", I coined the phrase POTII - more than one POTUS.

[oxmixmudd]

More like that, yes, except Obama wasn't responding to an incredibly rare natural disaster - he was wanting to cause one.

False. 100x + was NOT the meaning of skyrocket. Just listen to what he says after he uses the term 'skyrocket'. He is saying that initially rates will have to go up. But that eventually as the forms of power production move away from fossil fuels and more efficient appliances are developed it will come back down. He is talking about creating a financial environment where - over time - clean energy development is made financially expedient. And that is single digit multiples at most. There is no world where what Obama was saying equates to a natural disaster of our own making, or energy bills 10x normal, let alone 100x. Indeed, Texas has already built up a large amount of wind power, and it did not require electric bills anywhere near 10x normal. And had they not pursued ultra cheap electricity along the way. They could have even winterized those turbines and the rest of the infrastructure and this cold snap would have just been a great time for some Texas kids to play in the snow.

This is the sort of dishonesty in debate that is /has ruined not just TWEB over the last few years, but the entire political landscape in this country.

[Cow Poke]

False. 100x + was NOT the meaning of skyrocket. Just listen to what he says after he uses the term 'skyrocket'. He is saying that initially rates will have to go up. But that eventually as the forms of power production move away from fossil fuels and more efficient appliances are developed it will come back down. He is talking about creating a financial environment where - over time - clean energy development is made financially expedient. And that is single digit multiples at most. There is no world where what Obama was saying equates to a natural disaster of our own making, or energy bills 10x normal, let alone 100x. Indeed, Texas has already built up a large amount of wind power, and it did not require electric bills anywhere near 10x normal. And had they not pursued ultra cheap electricity along the way. They could have even winterized those turbines and the rest of the infrastructure and this cold snap would have just been a great time for some Texas kids to play in the snow.

This is the sort of dishonesty in debate that is /has ruined not just TWEB over the last few years, but the entire political landscape in this country.

I sense the meltdown is heating up. Jim, you really need to stop seeing the world through the "HATE THE RIGHT" filter.

Obama was very confidently claiming that, because of his loyalty to climate change and climate responsibility, that "cap and trade" was going to bring financial havoc to coal and oil. He wanted to own it.

And you're continuing your cowardly accusations of lying without being man enough to call somebody a liar. You, instead, use phrases like "dishonesty in debate", and calling people "slime balls".

And blaming everybody else for what you described as "has ruined not just TWEB over the last few years, but the entire political landscape in this country" -- you are a HUGE part of that.
It takes two sides, Jim - - and the left is every bit as responsible as the right for the current climate.

[oxmixmudd]

I sense the meltdown is heating up. Jim, you really need to stop seeing the world through the "HATE THE RIGHT" filter.

Obama was very confidently claiming that, because of his loyalty to climate change and climate responsibility, that "cap and trade" was going to bring financial havoc to coal and oil. He wanted to own it.

And you're continuing your cowardly accusations of lying without being man enough to call somebody a liar. You, instead, use phrases like "dishonesty in debate", and calling people "slime balls".

And blaming everybody else for what you described as "has ruined not just TWEB over the last few years, but the entire political landscape in this country" -- you are a HUGE part of that.
It takes two sides, Jim - - and the left is every bit as responsible as the right for the current climate.

I know you hope I meltdown. I'm sure it was nice while I was gone - nobody quite as willing to take all the crazy things you say to task

I see you're on you typical gaslighting rant. Maybe you can get it together in a few more days.
---

Yes - something was needed to help push adoption of non-fossil fuels. And making it less profitable to use coal and oil was one way to do that. But to compare that plan, which was designed NOT to reach financial havoc overall, but rather just shift the jobs and wealth and power generation from coal to renewables, with the disaster that just occurred is just simply not a legitimate comparison. It's more crazy rhetoric where the conclusion has no actual basis in fact.

[Sparko]

False. 100x + was NOT the meaning of skyrocket. Just listen to what he says after he uses the term 'skyrocket'. He is saying that initially rates will have to go up. But that eventually as the forms of power production move away from fossil fuels and more efficient appliances are developed it will come back down. He is talking about creating a financial environment where - over time - clean energy development is made financially expedient. And that is single digit multiples at most. There is no world where what Obama was saying equates to a natural disaster of our own making, or energy bills 10x normal, let alone 100x. Indeed, Texas has already built up a large amount of wind power, and it did not require electric bills anywhere near 10x normal. And had they not pursued ultra cheap electricity along the way. They could have even winterized those turbines and the rest of the infrastructure and this cold snap would have just been a great time for some Texas kids to play in the snow.

This is the sort of dishonesty in debate that is /has ruined not just TWEB over the last few years, but the entire political landscape in this country.

People who disagree with you are not being "dishonest" Jim, they just hold a different view than you do. This seeing everyone as purposefully being dishonest or lying when they debate anything with you needs to stop. All it does is foster anger and arguments. If you truly feel that we are dishonest and have "ruined" Tweb then I think your best move would be to shake the dust off of your sandals and move on to another forum.

[whag]

Obama was very confidently claiming that, because of his loyalty to climate change and climate responsibility, that "cap and trade" was going to bring financial havoc to coal and oil. He wanted to own it.

I wouldn't argue with that, but what Jim said was also correct. Obama was willing to take responsibility for the decline of the fossil fuel industry but the context of what he said is key. Climate responsibility requires power production to move away from fossil fuels and eventually those rates will come back down. In the meantime, he addressed ways to offset those high bills for poor families.

Banning the chemicals that caused ozone hole also caused financial havoc for the businesses that depended on them.

Also, let's not forget how coal industry has exploited the land and its workers for decades. My wife is from West Virginia, so I know. This issue is fraught with ambiguity and pregnant with context.

[Cow Poke]

I wouldn't argue with that,

but what Jim said was also correct. Obama was willing to take responsibility for the decline of the fossil fuel industry but the context of what he said is key. Climate responsibility requires power production to move away from fossil fuels and eventually those rates will come back down. In the meantime, he addressed ways to offset those high bills for poor families.

He also very clearly said that the "skyrocketing cost" would be passed on to consumers. And you'll even hear him start to include Natural Gas, then kinda back off.

Banning the chemicals that caused ozone hole also caused financial havoc for the businesses that depended on them.

Also, let's not forget how coal industry has exploited the land and its workers for decades. My wife is from West Virginia, so I know. This issue is fraught with ambiguity and pregnant with context.

My wife is also from West Virginia!

[oxmixmudd]

People who disagree with you are not being "dishonest" Jim, they just hold a different view than you do. This seeing everyone as purposefully being dishonest or lying when they debate anything with you needs to stop. All it does is foster anger and arguments. If you truly feel that we are dishonest and have "ruined" Tweb then I think your best move would be to shake the dust off of your sandals and move on to another forum.

Ok - this not about disagreeing. This is about saying 100x is 'the same' as a 1 or 2 or 3x. That is only true if x is 0.

It is dishonest intellectually and pretty much any other way to make an argument based on the assumption there is an equivalence between say 2x and 100x when we are talking about $/Kwh.

Obama is talking about some single digit multiplier, maybe 2, maybe 3x, when he says 'skyrocket' in that video (based on research into the potential short term effects on electrical costs of cap-n-trade) But this disaster produced 100x or more the electrical rate for some customers. Yet the arguments is "except Obama wasn't responding to an incredibly rare natural disaster - he was wanting to cause one.", and the focus was on the COST of a Kwh per Obama's use of the word 'skyrocket'.

So the statements in bold are equivalenced in terms of the impact on the cost of electricity.

But there is no comparison between the short term change in rate that would be associated with cap-n-trade and the actual impact on rates of this disaster.

which means that is not just a 'disagreement' Sparko, that is a dishonest argument.

[oxmixmudd]

He also very clearly said that the "skyrocketing cost" would be passed on to consumers. And you'll even hear him start to include Natural Gas, then kinda back off.

Skyrocketing in that context is wrt the reasearch on the short term impact of cap-n-trade on electrical rates, which is a single digit factor at most, and which is not anywhere even remotely near to the impact of this 'rare natural disaster'.

[Sparko]

Ok - this not about disagreeing. This is about saying 100x is 'the same' as a 1 or 2 or 3x. That is only true if x is 0.

It is dishonest intellectually and pretty much any other way to make an argument based on the assumption there is an equivalence between say 2x and 100x when we are talking about $/Kwh.

Obama is talking about some single digit multiplier, maybe 2, maybe 3x, when he says 'skyrocket' in that video (based on research into the potential short term effects on electrical costs of cap-n-trade) But this disaster produced 100x or more the electrical rate for some customers. Yet the arguments is "except Obama wasn't responding to an incredibly rare natural disaster - he was wanting to cause one.", and the focus was on the COST of a Kwh per Obama's use of the word 'skyrocket'.

So the statements in bold are equivalenced in terms of the impact on the cost of electricity.

But there is no comparison between the short term change in rate that would be associated with cap-n-trade and the actual impact on rates of this disaster.

which means that is not just a 'disagreement' Sparko, that is a dishonest argument.

I didn't expect you to agree with me. You seem pretty good at rationalizing your own behavior while condemning others for theirs. I am just telling you how I see it and, yes things were calmer while you were gone. You seem to have a knack of derailing threads into arguments about accusations of dishonesty. I am telling you to stop it. Find some other way to disagree with others, especially Cow Poke, or just avoid him altogether. Same with Mountain Man. I think they should do the same in regards to you.