It's not as cheap as wind or solar at current upfront costs.
They don't seem to squirm in the same way when people call them that.
It's a bit more than a math equation; things like how much ice there is are meaningfully path dependent. Just dropping CO2 concentrations won't get us back the world we had.
That's mostly about it's incredibly high cost
They are; the decision to always have the largest energy source at the top results in some really miserable design. They do however tell an important story about the decline of coal and regional rises of wind and solar.
They are ugly, but they also tell an important story, which is the decline of coal, and (in some areas) rise of wind and solar.
This doesn't come across as a good-faith argument. Numerous claims in it are simply false.
The actual Democratic party platform should be published during the convention.
That's called gerymandering.
And yes, unilateral disarmament is a dumb idea — the Democrats ended gerrymandering in a few states (eg: California) but aren't going to end it nationally except as part of a law to do it for the whole country. Which the Republicans have blocked at the federal level.
Voting is most definitely not a sham; there are real issues with gerrymandering, but the reality is that power is in fact awarded in the US on the basis of who wins elections.
You can't really just dismiss it — it's accurate. But it doesn't seem to resonate in the same way.