So, you know what, let's just have as many new plans for oil and gas exploration and development as fossil fuel resources will allow and go out on a binge, serious climate mitigation be damned.

Verifiable proof you're nonserious. *shakes head* Have I told you lately that you sound like a raving right wingnut loon? Answer is "yes."

Oops, there goes another fallacy! Heh.

Exactly. I knew you would double down. Anyone who reads the blog regularly knew it too. :)

My [21] wasn't in reference to you. It was more of a description of this blog, in general.

You don't have to respond to every single one of my comments, in other words. Heh.

Sadly, this is one of the last public commenting spaces where I would have expected to find conversations either lacking in serious dialogue on the dawning climate apocalypse or outright denial of the impacts on our world of the failure to move past a fossil fuel-based economy.

You're now conflating my absolutely 100% correct statement regarding your "new development" all-or-nothing fallacy with an "outright denial of the impacts on our world," and that's a strawman fallacy wherein you're misrepresenting my position in order to make it easier to refute.

There's been zero denial from me ("outright" or otherwise) regarding the impacts of "new development" on "our world." I just simply noted that new development doesn't preclude a myriad of other measures that Biden (or anyone else) could take, for instance: Open one area while shutting down 10 of them... not a difficult concept to grasp, Elizabeth. :)

Waiting for the correction in grammar ... three, two, one ... :)

False equivalency fallacy, Elizabeth. Me explaining that I can spell isn't the same as actually correcting your grammar or even your spelling. :)

I give up.

Something tells me you'll double down on the fallacy, but okay: You give up.

There's just not enough hours in the day to deal with such tedium.

When I'm not training people to train people, I find your "tedium" doesn't take very much time at all to "deal with." :)

So, you know what, let's just have as many new plans for oil and gas exploration and development as fossil fuel resources will allow and go out on a binge, serious climate mitigation be damned.

Oops, there goes another fallacy! Heh.

Do you actaully know how to carry on a civil conversation with even a modicum of respect?

Yes... and I can actually spell. :)

Here I go again, trying to explain things ...

There is no need for you to explain things; your statements are ridiculous on their face.

It is indeed non-serious to think that any new oil and gas exploration and development could take place anywhere IF the world wishes to stay within the 1.5C limit on rise in global temperature, as the International Energy Agency warned two years ago.

So you and the IEA are both spewing that all-or-nothing fallacy. Doubling down on this type of common cognitive distortion wherein something/someone is deemed hopeless/nonserious unless it meets perfection in one area is absolute nonsense. It's binary thinking wherein only two options are considered with no other available course of action and dismissal of any other possibilities where a myriad of them exist.

And, that's no fallacy, of any kind. ;)

It actually falls under multiple fallacies. Your statement is akin to claiming someone is serious/nonserious in getting fit depending on whether they do/don't perform one particular exercise when there are a myriad of other ways to meet the stated goal.

So, to recap: There is more than one way to skin a cat. The approval of new development in no way whatsoever would preclude the shutting down of others... along with a myriad of other complexities, nuances, and possibilities that exist in most situations... including environmental issues and your dystopian hellscape "dawning climate apocalypse." :)

Do you actaully know how to carry on a civil conversation with even a modicum of respect?

Here I go again, trying to explain things ...

It is indeed non-serious to think that any new oil and gas exploration and development could take place anywhere IF the world wishes to stay within the 1.5C limit on rise in global temperature, as the International Energy Agency warned two years ago.

And, that's no fallacy, of any kind. ;)

While some or all of that may have been generally true for some things, when it comes to the dawning climate apocalypse, we no longer have that luxury.

Incorrect. On Earth 1, all of that is true for most things. The presenting of two options when there are obviously a multitude more in the middle ground between your defined extremes is a common fallacy.

Your assertion that Biden can't be serious or is "non-serious" about his commitment to the environment if he plans "any expansion at all" is obviously hyperbolic nonsense, cognitive distortion, and an abject all-or-nothing fallacy when there are a multitude of things beyond that single measure that combine to affect the environment. By your asinine assertion, Biden is "non-serious" unless he commits to cease all breathing.

I don't need your links to know what's actually going on in New York, but thank you for playing. :)

In case you missed the last two articles I linked to in the previous column, you should take a close look at what's happening in New York City this week.

While Biden is the only leader of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council attending the annual general assembly this year, the issues being focused on are of extreme importance to us all.

The Ukrainian leader will be there, too but will not be dominating the meeting this time around. Actually, it will be very interesting to see how he is received this year.

While some or all of that may have been generally true for some things, when it comes to the dawning climate apocalypse, we no longer have that luxury.

And, as the climate crisis is barreling us all toward an inhabitable world, five Global North countries - the US, Canada, UK, Australia and Norway - are responsible for half of all of the expansion plans in NEW gas and oil fields over the next 30 years.

Being fond of the concept of an "inhabitable world," I would like to express my profound and sincere gratitude to North America for "barreling us all toward" it. No pun intended... I think.

So, can any of these countries be seen as leaders in the fight to mitigate the dawning climate apocalypse?

Who could argue with an "inhabitable world"?

Will any of them come close to meeting their commitments to limit global temperature rise to not more than 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels?

Provide your definition of "close," but kindly express it in a measure of Fahrenheit rather than Celsius.

Ah, that would be an emphatic NO, on both counts.

So you don't think it's at all possible that over the course of those 30 years that one or more of those countries on your (s)hit list could allow for some new expansion while at the same time making requisite steps toward limitation? Rhetorical question.

Biden can tout his commitments to the environment all he wants but so long as he plans any expansion at all to new oil and gas fields, his commitments are, in a word, non-serious and hardly worthy of a country that fancies itself a global leader.

This may come as a shock to some, but a country with lots of acreage can actually plan to expand on some parts of it while enacting (or planning future) disproportionate limitations on the remainder of it... particularly over a time period involving multiple decades, and thus you are reasoning from "all-or-nothing" fallacy and also "either or" fallacy and "false dilemma" fallacy.

Very nice... more of this, please... and, yes, with the nonstop abundance of fallacies strewn frequently about, we also definitely need another call sign. :)

https://youtu.be/7zpxDjGtx8Q?si=Id0ykCheE-rEJPFg

So, can any of these countries be seen as leaders in the fight to mitigate the dawning climate apocalypse? Will any of them come close to meeting their commitments to limit global temperature rise to not more than 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels?

Ah, that would be an emphatic NO, on both counts.

Biden can tout his commitments to the environment all he wants but so long as he plans any expansion at all to new oil and gas fields, his commitments are, in a word, non-serious and hardly worthy of a country that fancies itself a global leader.

Exactly. After learning "so much" scandalous information from the GOP's 5-year investigation, I have actually made a blood oath to NEVER vote for either Hunter Biden or his...

laptop. :)

But, CW, that can't be correct; Hunter's father has only been president since 2021 so you're saying the Trump administration actually weaponized his DOJ against his political opponent and his family!? Election interference! Say it ain't so! Oh, wait! Didn't the weaponizer Trump actually call for his DOJ to arrest Joe Biden... but not before he was impeached (the first time) for trying to extort a foreign president into announcing an investigation into Biden?

It's all coming back to me now. ;)