How far back into Elementary School do we have to go ...

[Emily Lake]

It wasn't a paraphrase. The quote in the image is an exact quote.

It is a quote of him quoting someone else.

If I quote you saying:

I believe Rep. Barton is at best an ignorant fuck, at worst, an asshole.

It is not the same as me saying those words, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Quoting someone else is NOT saying the words yourself. That's how quoting works. To claim otherwise is frankly dishonest.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is a quote of him quoting someone else.

No... he quotes the report directly earlier in the hearing. The quote in the jpg is him paraphrasing the report himself.

If I quote you saying:

I believe Rep. Barton is at best an ignorant fuck, at worst, an asshole.

It is not the same as me saying those words, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Quoting someone else is NOT saying the words yourself. That's how quoting works. To claim otherwise is frankly dishonest.

Do I have to quote the whole bloody thing for you?

I am going to read a paragraph which is if true very ironic, and this is from Dr. Apt's paper and I quote:

``Wind energy is a finite resource. At large scale, slowing down the wind by using its energy to turn turbines has environmental consequences. A group of researchers at Princeton University,'' which is in New Jersey, parenthetically ``found that wind farms may change the mixing of air near the surface, drying the soil near the site. At planetary scales, David Keith, who was then at Carnegie Mellon, and coworkers found that if wind supplied 10 percent of expected global electricity demand in 2100, which is a number of years off, the resulting change in the earth's atmospheric energy might cause some regions of the world to experience temperature change of approximately 1 degree Centigrade,'' which I think is about 1-1/2 degrees or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Now, wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it is hotter to areas where it is cooler. That is what wind is.

I tossed that last bit in there for good measure to show what a twit this ass is. The bold text is his quoting another source directly.

Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I am not saying that is going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale--I mean, it does make some sense.

That isn't a quote from anything but his mouth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just one more quote from the Honorable Dumbass Representing Texas:

Let the record show, Mr. Chairman, astronomical in Texas means a big increase. Thank you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Questions regarding whether or not Rep. Barton actually believes in the cause or not are valid areas of discussion. That, however, is materially different from saying that he "seems more worried that we'll run out of wind".

I don't think he actually understands the issue very well.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Questions regarding whether or not Rep. Barton actually believes in the cause or not are valid areas of discussion. That, however, is materially different from saying that he "seems more worried that we'll run out of wind".

I don't think he actually understands the issue very well.

I think the biggest issue is that he does it as a condenscending tone instead of just asking about. There might be a concern over the impact of turbines around their area. So the question really is how big of an impact.

 

[Emily Lake]

No... he quotes the report directly earlier in the hearing. The quote in the jpg is him paraphrasing the report himself.

ORLY?

If I quote you saying:

I believe Rep. Barton is at best an ignorant fuck, at worst, an asshole.

It is not the same as me saying those words, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Quoting someone else is NOT saying the words yourself. That's how quoting works. To claim otherwise is frankly dishonest.

Do I have to quote the whole bloody thing for you?

I am going to read a paragraph which is if true very ironic, and this is from Dr. Apt's paper and I quote:

``Wind energy is a finite resource. At large scale, slowing down the wind by using its energy to turn turbines has environmental consequences. A group of researchers at Princeton University,'' which is in New Jersey, parenthetically ``found that wind farms may change the mixing of air near the surface, drying the soil near the site. At planetary scales, David Keith, who was then at Carnegie Mellon, and coworkers found that if wind supplied 10 percent of expected global electricity demand in 2100, which is a number of years off, the resulting change in the earth's atmospheric energy might cause some regions of the world to experience temperature change of approximately 1 degree Centigrade,'' which I think is about 1-1/2 degrees or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Now, wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it is hotter to areas where it is cooler. That is what wind is.

I tossed that last bit in there for good measure to show what a twit this ass is. The bold text is his quoting another source directly.

Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I am not saying that is going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale--I mean, it does make some sense.

That isn't a quote from anything but his mouth.

And in all of that, nowhere is Mr. Barton claiming that the worry is that WE WILL RUN OUT OF WIND. Which was your claim, was it not?

The point is that renewables aren't a panacea, they have their own problems which must be addressed.

That wasn't his concern. He seemed more worried about us running out of wind.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not ignoring reality; I'm being true to it. He did not claim that we would run out of wind.

Of course you are ignoring reality. Think about how wind energy is a finite resource if there is wind.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm not ignoring reality; I'm being true to it. He did not claim that we would run out of wind.

Of course you are ignoring reality. Think about how wind energy is a finite resource if there is wind.

Technically it is a finite resource since we don't have wind everywhere and we are in this mess because humans have been impacting climate.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course you are ignoring reality. Think about how wind energy is a finite resource if there is wind.

Technically it is a finite resource since we don't have wind everywhere and we are in this mess because humans have been impacting climate.

Where don't we have wind? Wind is not constant, but that does not make it a finite resource. One can run out of a finite resource.

 

[Emily Lake]

Of course you are ignoring reality. Think about how wind energy is a finite resource if there is wind.

Technically it is a finite resource since we don't have wind everywhere and we are in this mess because humans have been impacting climate.

Right now neither of you make any sense.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ORLY?

If I quote you saying:

I believe Rep. Barton is at best an ignorant fuck, at worst, an asshole.

It is not the same as me saying those words, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Quoting someone else is NOT saying the words yourself. That's how quoting works. To claim otherwise is frankly dishonest.

Do I have to quote the whole bloody thing for you?

I am going to read a paragraph which is if true very ironic, and this is from Dr. Apt's paper and I quote:

``Wind energy is a finite resource. At large scale, slowing down the wind by using its energy to turn turbines has environmental consequences. A group of researchers at Princeton University,'' which is in New Jersey, parenthetically ``found that wind farms may change the mixing of air near the surface, drying the soil near the site. At planetary scales, David Keith, who was then at Carnegie Mellon, and coworkers found that if wind supplied 10 percent of expected global electricity demand in 2100, which is a number of years off, the resulting change in the earth's atmospheric energy might cause some regions of the world to experience temperature change of approximately 1 degree Centigrade,'' which I think is about 1-1/2 degrees or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Now, wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it is hotter to areas where it is cooler. That is what wind is.

I tossed that last bit in there for good measure to show what a twit this ass is. The bold text is his quoting another source directly.

Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I am not saying that is going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale--I mean, it does make some sense.

That isn't a quote from anything but his mouth.

And in all of that, nowhere is Mr. Barton claiming that the worry is that WE WILL RUN OUT OF WIND. Which was your claim, was it not?

The point is that renewables aren't a panacea, they have their own problems which must be addressed.

That wasn't his concern. He seemed more worried about us running out of wind.

It was the part about wind energy being "finite".

 

[coloradoatheist]

Technically it is a finite resource since we don't have wind everywhere and we are in this mess because humans have been impacting climate.

Where don't we have wind? Wind is not constant, but that does not make it a finite resource. One can run out of a finite resource.

So we can put wind turbines anywhere in the world?

 

[Emily Lake]

It was the part about wind energy being "finite".

1) Which was him referencing what someone else said
2) Which was very clearly from context not about RUNNING OUT OF WIND but about the effect on temperature of using wind turbines

You are taking a quote of him PARAPHRASING SOMEONE ELSE, and you are taking it OUT OF CONTEXT, then you are presenting it as if it means something entirely different.

How exactly is that honest argumentation?

 

[Shadowy Man]

It was the part about wind energy being "finite".

Is it fair to say it is not infinite?

 

[laughing dog]

Where don't we have wind? Wind is not constant, but that does not make it a finite resource. One can run out of a finite resource.

So we can put wind turbines anywhere in the world?

Of course. Doesn't mean that they will generate much electricity or make economic sense. But that is not equivalent to claiming wind energy is finite.

 

[laughing dog]

It was the part about wind energy being "finite".

1) Which was him referencing what someone else said

You keep ignoring the reality of the purpose of the statement. I can understand why you think people normally quote things they do not believe in order to further an argument, but that tactic is either illogic or intellectually dishonest.

2) Which was very clearly from context not about RUNNING OUT OF WIND but about the effect on temperature of using wind turbines

Until you can explainjhow wind energy can be finite resource without wind being a finite resource, your argument is invalid.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is this like in football where there is a infinite amount of half the distance to the goal penalties, but there is only so many places a football can actually go? There is a finite amount of places and number of wind turbines we could build to harness the power of the wind and there is a finite amount of power that the wind is providing around the world at one time. It might be large, but it is finite.

 

[RavenSky]

And in all of that, nowhere is Mr. Barton claiming that the worry is that WE WILL RUN OUT OF WIND. Which was your claim, was it not?

The point is that renewables aren't a panacea, they have their own problems which must be addressed.

That wasn't his concern. He seemed more worried about us running out of wind.

Do you know the definition of "finite"?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

More science wisdom from Joe Barton

 

[laughing dog]

Is this like in football where there is a infinite amount of half the distance to the goal penalties, but there is only so many places a football can actually go?

No.

There is a finite amount of places and number of wind turbines we could build to harness the power of the wind and there is a finite amount of power that the wind is providing around the world at one time. It might be large, but it is finite.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the notion that we could exhaust the wind via wind turbines so that we would be unable to get more energy from them.