Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

quote:

---

Conclusion & Significance: This paper also is intended to contribute to the existing knowledge on climate change while creating awareness on the need to regulate human activities to prevent the likely extinction of life form on earth while providing a collaborative ideas or solutions for developing nations especially to attain sustainable ecological development through adaption and mitigation.

---

Is this really any different than what has been said in the U.S. for the past 30 years or so, starting with Al Gore?How's this for an idea - why can't we appoint some kind of task force or committee to divide fossil fuel use into two catagories - essential use and non-essential use of fossil fuels? There would be a lot of debates and disagreements, but many conclusions could be reached. Some conclusions could be reached quickly, essential use would include the generation of electric power, gasoline and oil for cars and trucks, the manufacturing of products that contribute to the basics of life - some, not all, of the ones in my Message 650 (also Message 722). It couldn't happen overnight, it would take years to arrive at set conclusions, it's too bad we didn't start that 30 years ago, and it's too bad we're not doing it now, and it's too bad we'll never do it.Why do I say we'll never do it, you ask? Because politicians, scientists, environmentalists, regulation commanders, will never propose or do ANYTHING to jeopardize their own lifestyles. Here's some easy ones for non-essential use of fossil fuels - Pleasure boats, from the tiniest fishing boats to the biggest cruise ships, and everything in between. Including politicians yachts, houseboats and motor boats of all sizes that are tied up by the millions on rivers and lakes all over the U.S. This is all purely for non essential use, has nothing to do with providing heat, cooling, food etc. From my list, we have football cleats, fishing lures, golf bags and balls, perfumes, basketballs, footballs, skis, hair coloring, fishing rods, tennis rackets, dice, roller skates, surf boards, model cars. All non essential. How about the fossil fuels used to heat and cool basketball and football sports arenas? Fireworks weren't on my list, but it takes fossil fuels to make them. Non essential.How about we just knock all this stuff out right now, and allow the working poor to keep driving their old, polluting junk cars back and fourth to work so they can feed their families? We should be able to notice a difference in the earth's temperature in only a decade or two, and then determine how much more we can do, or if all the lost jobs, poverty and anger it caused didn't make one bit of difference. If we only do things that please rich politicians, like destroy the poor's ability to use an old car or truck, or destroy their ability to keep from freezing to death due to costly new regulations on power companies (that pass the costs on to the poor) then we have to wait 50 or 100 years to see if it did any good.This example shows that a meaningful, common sense cutback in unnecessary fossil fuel use would affect politicians, multimillionaire news anchors, and other "rich" people far more than if would affect working class Americans.But all we'll continue to hear is vague references like "creating awareness on the need to regulate human activities", and the only humans who will be regulated are the ones who don't have the money to buy off the politicians. They'll starve to death, they'll freeze to death, while all the politicians friends and families enjoy their lavish use of fossil fuels.

From your link;

quote:

---

"This is one of the first attempts to make renewable lubricants from abundant raw materials, and in a very precise chemical way so that the architecture of these large molecules is dialed in, something unachievable using crude oil,"

---

To replace current use of fossil fuels, we can't use "first attempts". We need finished attempts, cost effective, tested, ready to go. I can tell you who considers golf balls to be so important, politicians, and other rich people including Democrat news anchors who wring their hands about global warming. They can be pretty passionate about their golf games. When it comes to any future "regulation of human activity", you can be sure they'll have all the golf balls they want, no matter who else they've decided to "regulate".

In Message 658 RAZD said everything there could be made without fossil fuels. (I'm sorry by the way, that he has passed, I considered him to be in the top 50% of the more civil posters here) But this kind of amazing disinformation is really dangerous. The Democrat party and fake news media have been very successful in downplaying the importance fossil fuels play in everyone's life all over the world. You'd have to forget it, because every product at some point has to ride on a fossil fuel burning truck on rubber tires. Without distribution there would be no products, with no one to buy or pay for them. And the increased "regulation" of the manufacture and distribution of those products is a much more serious issue than many Democrats and the people who voted for them realize, since they're so clueless about how the world actually works. Fasted growing IN USE, but not in any technology that would make it reliable in all weather conditions. (Texas) It's not possible to get wind power when the wind isn't blowing. It's true of course that fossil fuels will eventually have to be replaced as they start running out and costs increase. Free markets will get it done, the cost increases will incentivize it. I suspect it will have something to do with nuclear. Today's smart phones are light years beyond the citizen's band radios of the 1970's - I suspect today's nuclear technology is in the cb phase right now. It will take cost increases in fossil fuels, combined with getting many of today's nuclear hating Democrats out of the way, to see some new breakthroughs with nuclear power.They are also discovering new problems with wind and solar. (Texas - unusually cold weather) Windmills wear out, and the blades are not recyclable. The solving of problems with wind and solar, seem to be equally offset by the cropping up of new problems.https://www.sunengis.com/...ommon-problems-with-solar-panels

Sweaters - wool It requires steel to cut wood. Can't get steel without fossil fuels. Takes tools, (plastic, steel) to shear sheep. To raise them domestically, it takes fossil fuels in many ways. Salt, vinegar, leather, the processing of them takes fossil fuels in several ways. And all those things have to be transported by trucks, all currently powered by fossil fuels.

No, I don't claim that they are. Some scientists, not nearly all, are quite skilled at making a seamless transition from actual science, to what their own projections are about what will happen in the future, and what should politically be done about it. The good scientists who don't bother to do that don't get much attention, while the ones who DO do that get plenty of attention, resulting in profits for themselves. No, I'd only have to show that they trumpet some things much louder than they do others. One example, it's seldom mentioned that the world population has multiplied by 4 in the past 100 years. Or that today's non essential uses of fossil fuels, like pleasure boats, have skyrocketed in only the past 50 years, and were practically non existent 100 years ago. I just did a quick Google search on "non essential fossil fuel uses". Didn't see anything that broke down the percentages of fossil fuel use for essential uses versus non essential uses. That's a big red flag for politics. That's because, with few exceptions, the rest of the world points to the U.S. and says "It's all your fault - you fix it!" They have little desire to change anything they're doing. I don't ignore them, I believe them. I ignore the doom and gloom predictions of what it will cause by power seeking governments.

It's not, thanks for admitting it. But it's contentious with some here, after being posted here one full year ago, I just proved Message 658 100% WRONG. As you might have noticed, it caused a two posters here to have a complete emotional meltdown. I used Texas as an example that unexpected challenges and problems can happen if something new is implemented and depended on too quickly. The world isn't ready to replace fossil fuels in any meaningful way in the near future. Fossil fuels are TIME TESTED. Any complete replacements for them also need to be time tested, and it takes time.

We can't go back to primitive, labor intensive methods of the horse and buggy days, when the world population was 1/5 of what it is today, and expect to keep up with current volumes of what is required in today's world.

What do you think of the idea of studies and discussion to determine essential versus non-essential uses of fossil fuels? Why aren't you sputtering with rage and calling Tangle every vulgar name you can think of? I'd like to see you two discuss it, better yet, you and 10 of your helpers discuss it with only him. If he wanted to, he could demolish all of you in a week, because he'd have a little thing called the TRUTH on his side. Republican politics didn't bring green, untested, solar and wind power to Texas in recent years, to the extent that it failed them last month. But increasingly liberal voters in Texas did. Where did they come from? I'm glad I pretended you asked that.

quote:

---

A 2020 Texas Relocation Report by Texas Realtors showed that 86,164 Californians moved to Texas as new residents in 2018, and it is showing no signs of slowing down.

​

The cost of living in California has increased to the point to where it is not affordable for the average family to stay in the West Coast state, so the majority are looking to places like Texas where housing and the overall cost of living is more affordable.

---

https://www.txmemes.com/...rnians-moving-to-texas-went-up-36The California liberals have screwed it all up, and now they're moving to Texas, and are well on their way to screwing it up just as badly. Let's see what happens in a few more years. Yes, wind and solar worked great in Texas. Until February 2021.I put up 2 links back in Message 682 about new technology (still in its infancy) about making tires from grass, to try to help RAZD out. . Both of those links still work. As I pointed out somewhere, not in that exact message, that rubber tires in the 1930's, 40's,50's were much more dangerous (subject to sudden blowouts) than tires are today. That's because the process of making them was incrementally improved slowly, over the following decades. No interstates in the 30's and 40's, 30 or 40 mph was all the faster many people cared to go in those days. And yet there were still many more injuries and deaths from tire blowouts back then than there are today, where it's now routine to go 70 or 80 mph today. Are you ready to go 70 mph on tires made of grass? Time tested, your ass, yes. I've asked since the beginning of this thread, many times, several global warming alarmists; What specifically do you want to be done about it? I never get an answer. What action do you want? Here's a repeat of a link I showed earlier;Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise InstituteWhat's different about now? Why should we believe doom and gloom predictions now?

Since you have been offended by AZPaul3, are you now ready to discuss this with him? I suspect you're not - this place seems to be much more about shouting down conservatives than it is any desire to find out what the truth is.DID YOU NOTICE THAT THE SAME 3 POSTERS GAVE YOU BOTH APPROVAL DOTS? I LOVE this place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What specifically has to change? Do you think discussions and debate about essential versus non essential uses of fossil fuels should be happening? I'm not denying that it isn't, but it isn't in any noticeable way. If you know of a link where it is, show me.

The significant increases in sales and size of the recreational boating industry.U.S. Recreational Boating Industry Sees Seventh Consecutive Year of Growth in 2018, Expects Additional Increase in 2019 One is essential, one is non essential. If that means nothing to you, okay, but it does to some people, and it's logical. It's also logical to assume that a significant percentage of gasoline powered boats are not registered. As that link shows, 95% of boats on the water are less than 26' in length. An insignificant size to justify registration, in the minds of many. Could be, when combined with all other forms of non-essential, really large boats. Here's a list of cruise ships currently in operation;List of cruise ships - WikipediaIt shows the year they went into service. A rough count shows almost 3/4 of them were built since the year 2000. Let's see, then we have politicians and other millionaire's yachts. Numbers of millionaires and billionaires increases every year. Non essential uses of fossil fuels could be a real eye opener, if only someone was interested in studying it. Yes I have, and I'm wondering what we should do about it. "Regulate" is the usual very vague term I often hear. It means of course, that some small segment of the population, needs to lose their long-time freedom to use fossil fuels as they see fit. Yet no one commits to any speculation on just how, or who. It's different, yet just a volatile as slavery was in the late 1850's, and could have the same result.

Then you should have no trouble providing me with links to examples of this discussion. ESSENTIAL versus NON-ESSENTIAL are the key words I'm looking for. It really is good enough for a lot of people, could be good enough to avoid another internal war. So it's politics, not an effort to find out what the truth is? I know he is. It's becoming obvious that the political attempt to downplay the significance of fossil fuels (like the denial that all those products I listed can't currently be made without fossil fuels) is only a U.S. liberal talking point, that many from across the pond haven't gotten the memo. Lies and disinformation from the U.S. political left is VERY dangerous. I'll elaborate more with your helpers in the coming messages. Yes really, because all that was, was a list of copies of past, failed gloom and doom predictions from the political left. It was simply past historical fact. Your attempt to poison that well is very telling. So past fact should be covered up? It's misinformation to show copies of past news columns?

So it can be done solely with free markets, or it can be done solely by government mandates. Or obviously a combination of the two. The U.S government already meddles a lot with its various subsidies and tax breaks to experimental attempts to reduce the use of fossil fuels. I think that's enough, or too much. So while I don't favor a 100% free markets / 0% government involvement, I'd prefer more of an 90 / 10 ratio. Government action is already about 15%. What would you say your ideal ratio would be? 0 free markets, to 100% government action? 50/50? What?

Haha, I agree, when it comes to increases in fossil fuel use over the past few decades. Many people don't see either one, when it comes to climate change. I was an adult back in 76 and 77, two brutally cold mid-west winters in the U.S. I shudder to think of what today's climate change alarmists would be shrieking if that were to happen today. All cars? By the time the political dust settles, it won't be anywhere near all cars. Just the old ones, the ones that aren't used very much anyway. Just a very insignificant impact, but enough to destroy the lives of the people who depend on them. The auto makers who itch to supply tiny econobox cars to replace them have millions to donate to Democrat politicians. Very minor things, compared to the threats that free people feel from the Democrats today. I can't either, who knows how much more it will cost.

Today, a few Republicans are somewhat more likely to cross the aisle and side with Democrats if the political winds blow them there. (pressure from their constituents can be an acceptable reason) Romney, Murkowski, Collins, McConnel, or the 10? who voted to remove Trump are examples. Other than possibly Joe Manchin, Democrats are more likely to follow orders from their leadership. Some Texas Republicans caved to green energy demands sooner than they should have, contributing to the blackouts. Your "nothing whatsoever" claim is false.Texas has a LOT of government incentives for wind and solar. They guarantee profits to big, often foreign companies and lead to market distortions, especially when the voters are brainwashed into accepting the lie that fossil fuels are easily replaceable. "Too cold for natural gas to flow"? I wonder why it flows so well in Alaska and Canada. I heard something that makes a lot more sense - that ERCOT was caught off guard by how soon demand exceeded supply. Before the grid frequency fell to dangerously low levels, some fossil fuel plants had to shut down to protect their equipment. The failure was human error. We can blame ERCOT, we can blame Republican politicians, but ultimately, the blame is with PEOPLE, people who believe the lie that doing without fossil fuels would be easier than it actually is. Maybe Republicans in Texas were trying to save money, money that they need for their ever increasing problems. Like record numbers of illegals pouring over their southern border sporting Biden tee shirts, or an influx of Californians hoping their liberal ideas that are destroying California will somehow work differently in Texas. They should try to accept Californians on one condition, that they don't let them vote! Considering the incentives for solar and wind, and the brainwashing that Texans and everyone else has that AOC is wiser than a tree full of owls, the GND really did have something to do with it. I didn't see Abbot on Hannity, I seldom catch Hannity. I'll have to circle back to you. What do you think of the lie, that all those products I listed in Message 722 can be made without fossil fuels? Or the lie by omission by the mainstream media, that illegals are now pouring over the southern border, many of them wearing Biden tee shirts? Maybe those Texas Republicans, caved to their constituents who believe the lies they are told by climate alarmists, that losing fossil fuels is no big deal. I agree, there are three power grids, the eastern U.S., the western U.S. and Texas. Texas established their own to avoid federal meddling, the advantages of that for Texas have undoubtedly been many, but we can't tell, the mainstream media continues to lie by omission. And yes, some of extreme west and east Texas are on the others, and didn't have as many problems. But the main reason wasn't because of all the additional federal involvement in the two big grids, it was because they are bigger and more diverse, and can divert and cover additional power in some comparatively small areas when needed. And another thing everybody should know, whether they believe climate alarmists lies or not, is that solar doesn't work at night. A Monday night was one of the key times when demand exceeded supply. It's only natural that power generating equipment is better protected in central and northern climates, Texas isn't the only southern state that has some equipment outside rather than inside, since it seldom gets cold there. Alaska doesn't have much air conditioning either. Human error and spending decisions aren't always the fault of Republicans. Can you provide examples where the scientific community and Democrats have, for the past 10 years, been warning them that they needed to IMPROVE THEIR FOSSIL FUEL CAPACITY? Or has it all been about spending more money on wind and solar? Edited by marc9000, : spelling

Hopefully your questions were answered in my previous message. Can you give any examples of climate alarmists warning Texas that they'd better get busy and improve their fossil fuel energy sources?