Marky-Mark
pfm Member
I'll post this because you replied to me, but after that I'm out, as I wrote earlier; this has all come to cross purposes.
You keep stating "what I think" and that's not a basis for any reasoned discussion. I know that's how you approach things over in Brexit, or wherever, but telling someone what they think is always soon followed by how they think and ultimately why they think that way, and it's always nothing more than subterfuge for avoiding facts of argument. And I'm just not going to entertain any more it.
Interestingly, you keep going back to the "meat thing" because I assume, no - I know - it's because you feel that single exchange debunks everything else I've written by virtue of, again, being at cross purposes in making competing points and relying on patently lazy non-arguments to the substantive questions or alternative viewpoints posed to you.
I've read what is in your link before - the "decoupling" from fossil fuels suggestion. It's all basically supportive of the Green New Deal. What it does is outline a lot of very hopeful ideas - with footnotes - about what could, should, or would happen if the human race were to do A, B, C and D (and others) by 'decoupling' from fossil fuels as if it somehow the term didn't amount to "stop using it and do all this other stuff" and always with short shrift to human habits and expectations. What it doesn't do, as with the Green New Deal, is offer anything specific or actionable in the near term about how this is to be accomplished.
The term decoupling was used back in my early days in programming to describe constructing program subroutines in such a way as to reduce redundant and cumbersome code. And so I'd say the term is quite apt here, where its use reduces cumbersome details and explanation of just how any of it is supposed to happen in 9 years time.
Finally, the fact that the author is still projecting timelines out well beyond even the scientifically acknowledged as optimistic IPCC 2030 deadline goes to how out of touch this "decoupling" is. I think it's more Green hopium with an ever stretched timeline, not unlike all the other timelines that inevitably end in failure because something happens "faster than expected." Which actually is mostly a lie because if one were reading something not being hopelessly optimistic the shorter timeline is plainly in view. And with that I'm done with climate change on PFM.
