Your only question in your earlier reply was “you don’t think oil and gas kills way way more?”, to which I replied with a counter-question about two things being true simultaneously, and then I said “I’m not saying oil and gas are harmless, much to the contrary”, recalling my earlier excerpt about things buried by Mother Nature, things of which, if you didn’t catch it initially, are oil (and by extension gas) as well as radioactive minerals (those containing uranium, plutonium, etc).
So yes, I did answer your question.
There’s no need for nuance when cats kill 1,000 times more
So? What do you suggest we do with cats and how the heck could instinctive behavior, a behavior of which is found among species that predates us human, compare to artificially melting rocks and sand merged to mimick the naturally occurring photosynthesis in a very rough manner?
Because I didn’t criticize PV just for the sake of it, I said several times how PV panels could benefit of having a vantablack surface that could absorb the most sunlight possible while reflecting the least specular light possible. Still you seem to be deliberately ignoring those parts from a content you dismissed as a “wall of text” (while you’re curiously accusing me of being unwilling to discuss).
To blame renewables
You just strawman-d a constructive critique of mine about photovoltaic panels (in which, again, I didn’t say “we should stop using PV”, for Goddess sake) to “blaming (all) renewables”, which I defy you to quote and point out the excerpt from my replies where I supposedly said that. If you can’t pinpoint the excerpt where I say something in the lines “we should stop using renewables” or “we should stop using PV”, then I gentle ask you don’t put words in my fingers that I didn’t wrote.
There is no need for nuance when cats kill 1.000 times more mr “read my wall of text to blame renewables in some insignificant manner”.
Also, you didn’t answer my question. But you’re not here for discussions I guess.
@Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com @Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Your only question in your earlier reply was “you don’t think oil and gas kills way way more?”, to which I replied with a counter-question about two things being true simultaneously, and then I said “I’m not saying oil and gas are harmless, much to the contrary”, recalling my earlier excerpt about things buried by Mother Nature, things of which, if you didn’t catch it initially, are oil (and by extension gas) as well as radioactive minerals (those containing uranium, plutonium, etc).
So yes, I did answer your question.
So? What do you suggest we do with cats and how the heck could instinctive behavior, a behavior of which is found among species that predates us human, compare to artificially melting rocks and sand merged to mimick the naturally occurring photosynthesis in a very rough manner?
Because I didn’t criticize PV just for the sake of it, I said several times how PV panels could benefit of having a vantablack surface that could absorb the most sunlight possible while reflecting the least specular light possible. Still you seem to be deliberately ignoring those parts from a content you dismissed as a “wall of text” (while you’re curiously accusing me of being unwilling to discuss).
You just strawman-d a constructive critique of mine about photovoltaic panels (in which, again, I didn’t say “we should stop using PV”, for Goddess sake) to “blaming (all) renewables”, which I defy you to quote and point out the excerpt from my replies where I supposedly said that. If you can’t pinpoint the excerpt where I say something in the lines “we should stop using renewables” or “we should stop using PV”, then I gentle ask you don’t put words in my fingers that I didn’t wrote.
Oh no an actor arguing in bad faith.
Blocked.