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

All caps, oooo, testy.Don't flatter yourself. The TRUTH^© has already been revealed.Shouting you down is just sport.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Well, I looked at those posts and I note that I caught you in dishonesty more than once around that time. And your idea of ‘freedom” includes twisting the Constitution so that the government can suppress information you don’t want known.So far as I can see there are two issues. First, are we currently dependent on fossil fuels for these things and second do we have to remain so. I don’t see that you really addressed the second point. You mention trucks especially, but electric trucks are being worked on, and are likely to be available in the near future.

quote:

---

Maybe they approved them for different parts of the messages????? Who knows. Logic tells me one thing; SHOUTING ME DOWN HERE IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE TRUTH IS.

---

You’ve claimed that four posters are. Over an assertion that is questionable at best. And despite the fact that you are hardly interested in finding out what the truth is (and obviously want government intervention to stop people finding out certain truths!).Not convincing.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Message 34
You keep promising us a good time, but you don't seem to know what the word prove means. When you prove something, you have to offer proof and that takes objective evidence.So far, all we see is you, sputtering with rage, how typical.

Any specifics on any of this? What did I say I wanted to change about the Constitution?A strange way of debating, I showed that climate change alarmists want information suppressed on just how dependent we are on fossil fuels, and you accuse ME of using the government to suppress information? It's not even slightly questionable. One of my opponents (Tangle) agreed with my claim that fossil fuels are absolutely required to make most products that are taken for granted, while another of my opponents (AZPaul) claimed that i lied by making that claim. A desire for the truth would have caused them both to forget about me, and debate each other on which of them was right. They showed no interest in that. Tangle would have demolished AZP in short order, but I can only assume he didn't have the heart to do that. The name of the game here is shout ME down.Look at Message 682 again. There, you'll see that I tried to help my opponents out, by linking to some websites that address the possibility of making car and truck tires from grass and trees. Experimenting with grass tires would have been fine back in the horse-and-buggy days, or even the model T days. But in today's world, we can't put experimental tires like this on an 80,000 lb. tractor trailer and send it down the road at 70 mph. It's going to take a really long time to phase out fossil fuels. It might eventually become necessary, as fossil fuels start running out and prices go up and up. In 75 or 100 years. Government meddling isn't going to get it done, free markets are. I was interested in finding out the truth in how dependent the U.S. (and much of the world) is on fossil fuels. You're now reduced to accusing me of doing things that your side is actually doing.

The proof is above, that no interest was shown in finding out the truth between Tangle and AZPaul. Again, accusing ME of the problems from YOUR side.Let's take a look in the archives, and I'll show you yet another example of attempts to shout me down and sputter with rage. I'll let another of my opponents here, (yet a more honest one, Caffeine) do the talking for me. Message 42

quote:

---

I redded you all because it's clear that not one of you actually read marc's post properly (or, possibly, at all). It seems you all stopped at the first sentence.

---

and;

quote:

---

If we're going to criticise creationists for sloppy scholarship, we could at least do them the courtesy of attempting to read and understand what they write.

---

I've been plagued with that problem for most of the 10 or so years I've been here. But it makes it more fun. Truer words were never spoken. (by AZPaul3)

quote:

---

Any specifics on any of this? What did I say I wanted to change about the Constitution?

---

I said “twist’ not “change”. Sufficient detail may be found in Message 42

quote:

---

A strange way of debating, I showed that climate change alarmists want information suppressed on just how dependent we are on fossil fuels, and you accuse ME of using the government to suppress information?

---

Of course you didn’t show any such thing. Nor is there anything wrong with an introductory paragraph including background information. And of course I only accused you of wanting the government to suppress information (which they did on a far smaller scale - an EPA report due out in 2017 was finally released in the last week BBC)

quote:

---

It's not even slightly questionable.

---

Since you haven’t answered my point that there are two issues here, I will assume that you mean that it is certain that fossil fuel use can never be replaced for any of those items. Which obviously is not true - and you didn’t even try to argue otherwise.

quote:

---

One of my opponents (Tangle) agreed with my claim that fossil fuels are absolutely required to make most products that are taken for granted, while another of my opponents (AZPaul) claimed that i lied by making that claim.

---

That the US is currently dependent is true. That the US has to remain dependent indefinitely is not. I see Tangle agreeing with the first point and AZPaul disagreeing with the second. I note that despite my raising of the issue as a central point you haven’t addressed it at all. If you had any interest in getting to the truth, you would have at least said something about it.

quote:

---

It's going to take a really long time to phase out fossil fuels. It might eventually become necessary, as fossil fuels start running out and prices go up and up. In 75 or 100 years. Government meddling isn't going to get it done, free markets are.

---

Free markets have flaws. Like externalities - it’s rather relevant that polluting is largely free, absent government regulation. And certainly government can and should take actions to encourage the development of less-polluting alternatives.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

For the record, Tangle agrees that fossil fuels are currently used to produce millions - probably trillions - of goods, many of which are essential. He also agrees fossil fuels are used to distribute and make those goods and to heat and cool our homes and work places.That seems to me to be a non-contentious and obvious point.Tangle does not agree that this situation should or needs to continue.

although it doesn't say how long a coke would last in the refrigerator:

that was just googling "hemp bottle" images.

It was today reported that the International Energy Agency, an organization of 30 member states that includes most countries of North America and Europe, advised world nations to abandon fossil fuels as quickly as possible if we're to avoid the most calamitous effects of climate change (Nations Must Drop Fossil Fuels, Fast, World Energy Body Warns - The New York Times).--Percy

Do you think it would be a good idea to classify all fossil fuel uses into two catagories, essential and non essential? I do, so you automatically won't. Wouldn't that be a good way to cut back on its use, to identify and control strictly un necessary, recreational fossil fuel use? (pleasure boats, fireworks displays, auto racing etc?)

Is there any point to replying to this, or are you gone for six months?Anyway, your questions go off in directions that no one's proposing. You and your fellow Republicans hear that Democrats want to reduce reliance of fossil fuels, and you immediately jump to the conclusion that they want to directly regulate it's use, like your proposal to create essential and nonessential categories. Where I *can* see regulation playing a role is things like high-sulfur/low-heat content coal such as lignite, and so forth.But plans for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels consists of increasing our reliance on electricity and then making generation of that electricity just as clean and efficient as possible. It includes encouraging electric vehicle use by regular consumers, industry and government. Clean and efficient electricity generation will be encouraged. Great effort should be expended in this area because each power plant made more clean and efficient affects the carbon footprint of thousands of homes, businesses, cars (to the extent they're EV) and public transportation. More efficient power transmission should also be a priority. Tesla sells a nice solar-cell/battery combo where the solar cells sit on the roof send power to the house and batteries during the day, then the batteries power the house at night. A friend in Florida has this setup and loves it - he sells power to the grid and hasn't had a long enough run of cloudy days to have needed to draw power from the grid in a couple years. Of course, that's Florida. The further north you go the less satisfactory that approach would be.But the bottom line is that we're still going to require fossil fuels for electricity generation for decades to come because there won't be enough wind, solar and hydro for a long, long time. And we'll still require petroleum products for plastics (we have to reduce and eliminate this too because it's killing our environment, especially the oceans) and lubrication and a raft of other purposes. The last oil well won't close down in this century.But why love oil, Marc? What is it about oil that turned you into its big defender? Why do you seem to care so passionately where your power comes from, preferring that it come from the worst possible source for the environment. If tomorrow all your power suddenly started coming from wind and solar instead of gas and oil (which is possible, since power is fungible), why would you care?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I'm gone forever in the "who is the bigger offender" thread, but I have a little more here, and probably a lot more in the "Is Science Atheism" thread. Essential versus non-essential seems perfectly logical to me, and it's also perfectly logical why that discussion will never see the light of day. Because it wouldn't work politically, and it's not corruptable. Climate change is about finger pointing, few people are going to hold still for government curtailing of their recreational activities.Democrats calls to reduce fossil fuels has one main target, cars and trucks. You remember back in 2008 when the executives of the "big three" (the only three) U.S. automakers flew their private jets to Washington to beg for their $25 billion taxpayer bailout. Wonder why we only have three? Hondas, Nissans, and Toyotas started really flooding into the U.S in the 80's, largely because such a huge percentage of the car buying public didn't think the three auto makers we have were supplying their needs. Why do we only have three? Here's a list of U.S. car manufacturers that are out of business now. Hundreds and hundreds of them, most all of them started and died before 1950.List of defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States - WikipediaWhy were all those people 80, 90, 100 years ago interested in starting a new auto manufacturing company, and NO ONE seems to be today? It's complicated I know, there are a lot of reasons, but corruption is no small part of it. I had a GM employee tell me 15 years ago that $2000 in the price tag of every new GM vehicle went for NOTHING but past employees retirement plans. It's probably up to 3 or 4 thousand now, for all three U.S. auto manufacturers. Companies stagnate, most all other big retail businesses die out and new ones replace them every hundred years or less. Not auto companies. Why?Do you think the auto makers might be engaging in some talks right now with the EPA and politicians, looking for ideas on how to increase their sales and keep them afloat? Maybe increasing regulations on the free use of older cars and trucks? Some new auto emissions testing maybe? With some suggestions on percentages of how many will flunk?This is what me and my fellow Republicans are concerned about. A country that's 28 trillion in debt can't logically afford to throw away useful products, especially ones that are privately owned, and are none of the governments business how they're used. I remember the circus of emissions testing in my area 17 years ago, it wasn't fun. I care about costs and efficiency. But I'm not concerned about electric power, that will evolve however it will, the public won't be involved or informed, and I actually think it will work out for the best. I worry about government involvement in private property. Older vehicles are seldom used near as much as newer ones, obviously restricting them will have little or no impact on the climate. But it's a feel good measure, one that will satisfy a big enough segment of the population so that no political damage is done. But the kind of damage that government meddling can do often can't be undone.

double postEdited by marc9000, : double post

No one seems interested today? What?How about Rivian (which might make it), Nicola (which won't), Lordstown (which probably won't), Aptera (which might), Lucid (not clear), Fisker (probably not), Arcimoto (good chance) and Bollinger(risky)?And then there is Tesla which makes the best $50,000 car you can buy, is making about 1,000,000 cars a year now, crushed the luxury market, and has the highest post purchase satisfaction of any maker. All that in less than 20 years.No new?