olofscience

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    2,510

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

  • Feedback

    N/A

Everything posted by olofscience

  1. olofscience
    I'm not sure, you'll probably find that I use uppercase 50% of the time, then lowercase 50% of the time. I simply don't pay attention to these things. I really don't mind if you use lowercase 'olof' though.
  2. olofscience
    what on earth are you talking about? Of my many digs on you, spelling your name in lowercase is NOT one of them. I'm simply very inconsistent with my own noun capitalization. I'm sorry you took that as a dig though. Do you need a space safe from people spelling your name in lowercase? Safe from that big, bad, mean olof right? (sorry, that was a small dig at you if you didn't notice, lol)
  3. olofscience
    There's nothing to debate here, the very first post had absolutely no substance whatsoever. I suggest thread locking or deletion.
  4. olofscience
    Yeah, you go tell everyone brent! How people perceive you is definitely something you can impose on other people! Definitely! You're such a big man and not insecure at all, right?
  5. olofscience
    No, I'm not really saddened nor disheartened to see how insecure brent is with his own masculinity...
  6. olofscience
    The Russian Army withdrawing from Ukraine is the second. Fair elections is the 3rd. Or are you implying they should have elections at gunpoint?
  7. olofscience
    You didn't defend CALLING for war crimes to be committed. If you really detested war and murder, you should be calling for Russia to withdraw from Ukraine. But you're a russian stooge, so you won't.
  8. olofscience
    This sentence still has no substance to discuss...
  9. olofscience
    Well your original post, like always, had no substance about the contents of the link. All I did was describe what you did (without clicking the link). Did it strike a nerve? You're not even discussing your link anymore.
  10. olofscience
    Go on then, what does it say about me? And where's the ad hominem, war crimes supporter? (and that's not an ad hominem - since you don't deny it)
  11. olofscience
    Everything OK between you and your wife? Nah, don't answer that - I don't really care.
  12. olofscience
    You don't need to click the link. By itself, the URL shows a lot of information already: it's a google search for "sneaky fucker strategy peterson" he's doing the search on iphone, using the safari browser the browser width is 1121 pixels, height 728 pixels (might narrow down the iPhone model he's using) Brent did the search 08:51:57 local time So... Brent is the kind of person who google searches "sneaky fucker strategy peterson" before 9am on his phone. It just paints such a sad picture...
  13. olofscience
    Still pretending you can do maths
  14. olofscience
    This comment hasn't aged well, has it? https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/01/politics/house-republicans-infighting-matt-gaetz-kevin-mccarthy-shutdown/index.html
  15. olofscience
    "The IEA was founded on November 18, 1974, after the 1973 oil crisis, to avoid future shocks by helping to ensure reliable energy supplies, promote energy efficiency, ensure energy security and encourage technological research and innovation." "The IEA operates autonomously, with its own budget and governance structure. The organization began with 16 founding member countries and has since expanded to 31, with the latest addition being Lithuania in 2022. Full members of the IEA must also be members of the OECD and are required to hold 90 days worth of oil imports as emergency stocks. These emergency stocks can be released to stabilize oil markets worldwide" And didn't you quote them before? Soon you'll be saying something similar about the NOAA when it gets too difficult for you to do your mental gymnastics.
  16. olofscience
    You didn't share any substance. You linked an article, then challenged people "rebut this multi-page article" without actually posting how the article arrived at its conclusions (which strangely just coincided with your conclusions /s). So...where's the substance? I'll help you out, could you post here HOW the articles say they increase the costs?
  17. olofscience
    Well if you do a google search for what you're looking for, you will find articles like that. But I'm pretty sure you have no idea what 'confirmation bias' is. Fixed it for you. Stop pretending you're even trying to be unbiased. So why aren't you posting from the NOAA and the IEA anymore? Getting more difficult to cherry pick isn't it? Hence you're back to the deniers and the obscure opinion articles.
  18. olofscience
    And yet again you fail to highlight HOW he got to his conclusions. Then the same trap - making it my responsibility to refute his points which you don't really support with any evidence here. YOU need to do some work to build credibility, right now it's non-existent. The "solar is cheapest" claim is taken from the IEA World Energy Outlook 2020, which is FULL of hard numbers. Source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/a72d8abf-de08-4385-8711-b8a062d6124a/WEO2020.pdf
  19. olofscience
    So... the best you can do is an opinion piece, written by a student in Columbia University? You clearly didn't read until the end where the disclaimer was. You've clearly forgotten how you lost the argument a few months ago - the IEA announced that solar was now the cheapest energy available: https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-power-s-growth-is-being-turbocharged-as-countries-seek-to-strengthen-energy-security Not an opinion piece - just a news piece from the IEA. With numbers to back it up.
  20. olofscience
    No, I looked up the source, and they were a climate-denying organization with shadowy funding sources. If you want me to refute your arguments, make them here. It's almost like you're too ashamed to cut and paste how they arrived at their conclusions. But really, it's just a stupid trap you keep setting to make your opponent do a lot more work than you. It's not like you've ever argued here in good faith.
  21. olofscience
    Go on then, lay it out for us here so we don't have to keep going to the article. Pick out the most important points that leads to their conclusion, then post it here. Use the quote function. Then I can pick it apart.
  22. olofscience
    I did, by invalidating the source as extremely biased. This is really low effort for you, you need an article to lay out your arguments for you, then you command us to rebut it? You didn't even make their arguments to begin with, you're just riding on their biased coattails. You can't even do the simplest maths billvon asked you to.
  23. olofscience
    It's an excellent trolling strategy, spew a torrent of lies then say "PROVE ME WRONG" - Slim King does it, you do it too. Until you realise that the burden of proof is actually on you.
  24. olofscience
    Published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, who changed their name to Net Zero Watch, who doesn't publish their funding sources. "In 2014 The Independent described the foundation as "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".[3]"
  25. olofscience
    Is that because you can't? Do your own maths, it's going to be fun to pick it apart. again.