A step in the right direction.
People whom I regularly interact occasionally use this phrase. It's sort of an acknowledgement that no, renewables alone won't get us out of this, but they're a step in the right direction.
How does one define that? The right direction part?

2. Presumably a step means motion, and the right direction is towards an agreed upon goal.
Are we together so far?
What's the goal?
I propose that the stated goal would be "to reduce carbon emissions."
Any arguments? Am I right so far? Straight people, qualified scientists, y/n?

3. I thought the goal was "Halt climate change."
Am I wrong?

4. OK, I'm trying to be good. No silly psuedo science. Just regular, peer reviewed stuff.
If you take fossil fuel power sources out of the equation completely climate change doesn't stop.
This is known.
Farmland and cows and drying swamps and burning tundra - that's enough.

5. Toss in the Amazon and Katie-bar-the-door.
Does anyone disagree with the foregoing statement? (Aside from the colloquial Missouri accent, are the facts right to define the broadly agreed upon reality today? IPCC?)

6. If we follow the renewable energy goal one step, that is, worst, a step *away* from halting climate change and AT BEST it does not result in a cessation if the climate change process.
The train still goes off the cliff.
Based on the already agreed on points, is this true?

7. We must state the goal: halt the climate change process in its tracks and reverse it.
No "standard of living" factors apply except "continuing to do so."
Halt the process.
Reverse it.
Tell me how your system does it.
Individual parts don't count. The system. Halt the process.

8. Because anyone in this conversation who is not talking specifically of a whole-system approach including a rough step-by-step block diagram from here to there is engaged in a different conversation than "halt climate change and reverse it."

9. That machine to suck all the excess carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it harmlessly in the soil already exists.
We broke it.
We can't build another different one just as good.
That is science fiction. It is falsehood.
That's why I'm blocked.
I said so.

10. Does anyone disagree that when the whole global ecosystem was working the atmosphere was stable?
The accepted theory seems to be, that between then and now the only climatologically significant event which occurred was the invention of fossil fuel, so if we get past that

11. I would like to see that thesis published in a peer-reviewed journal.
I don't think it would do well.
Because *only* if that thesis is valid does building, transporting, and installing renewable energy equipment anywhere on Earth constitute a step in the right direction.

12. The respectable people are not talking to you in full scientific honesty.
Technology is not science. Science is knowledge, facts, on which we can agree and base rational action.
I've been specific. I've shown my work. Somebody get @Stonekettle to read this thread and grade.

13. The flow chart looks like this:

Find something we can do with less carbon without dying.
Do that thing.
Climate change ended?
If Y then
If N then
That's it. Start now.

Show me yours.
Donks are hungry.
--j