Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
63 online now:
kjsimons, Tanypteryx (2 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,162 Year: 4,274/6,534 Month: 488/900 Week: 12/182 Day: 12/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 769 of 899 (884782)
03-07-2021 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 768 by DrJones*
03-07-2021 4:10 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
they were warned a decade ago that after two previous severe weather situations that they needed to prepare their plants for another.

Links? Warned by whom?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 768 by DrJones*, posted 03-07-2021 4:10 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 771 by DrJones*, posted 03-07-2021 4:48 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 772 by dwise1, posted 03-07-2021 5:01 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 775 of 899 (884814)
03-08-2021 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 774 by dwise1
03-08-2021 3:52 AM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
fossil fuel plants.

You're very angry now, and unable to read with comprehension. Yes, I said "fossil fuel plants". I said that part of the problem was that in some cases they had to be SHUT DOWN to protect themselves from damage due to wind and solar failures. Most of this entire rant of yours was due to the fact that you ignored this.

And it's not the physical properties of natural gas that's in question, but rather the ability of the machinery which moves it to function in the cold. Which that machinery failed to do in Texas because they were too cheap to winterize that system as they had been advised to do a decade ago! Because of Republican policies that placed profits over human lives and which eliminated necessary regulation.

10 years ago, if the "climate change" term had even been invented yet, it was still in its infancy. The main battle cry of Democrats / atheists was GLOBAL WARMING. Though you imply that ALL politicians in Texas 10 years ago were Republicans, there were at least some Democrats in political positions, and plenty of Texas Democrat voters. You're telling me that if Republican lawmakers had said "Hey, we need to spend more money on fossil fuel plants, to guard against future extreme cold spells", that fossil fuel hating Democrats who spout the global warming mantra, wouldn't have had something to say about that? They'd have screamed bloody murder "THE GLOBE IS WARMING!!!!! TEXAS WILL HAVE NO MORE COLD SPELLS!!!!!"

You see, every decade or two or three, the jet stream takes an unusual southern dive in the dead of winter, bringing arctic air to Texas. It always has, and always will, no matter how much money and freedom the government strips the people of, as it claims to be able to control it.

marc900 writes:

I didn't see Abbot on Hannity, I seldom catch Hannity. I'll have to circle back to you.

You can catch it on YouTube. You know how to STFW, so don't insist that we do that for you yet again.

I did find what I think you were referring to, the main thing I saw Abbot say, (other than the obvious things I've been saying) is that there's going to be an investigation. It will probably become clear then, just who politically blocked the needed work on fossil fuel plants over the past 10 years.

marc9000 writes:

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?

Yet again, you cannot respond to the issues under discussion, so you try desperately to change the subject. Like a typical lying piece-of-shite creationist.

So like everyone else here from the U.S. (Tangle excluded) you just can't admit that without fossil fuels, those products couldn't exist, in the volumes of today's requirements?

The attempts by atheists to downplay the reliance by people the world over on fossil fuels is a SERIOUS problem. That we don't need fossil fuels to make those products parallels the misinformation many in the Texas general public had concerning the importance of upgrading the fossil fuel plants there.

Except that is not what had happened. The failure was in fossil fuels failing to deliver because of destructive Republican policies.

Sorry, I don't believe that Texas politics is 100% Republican.

Texas Democratic Party

quote:
Out of the 36 seats Texas is apportioned in the U.S. House of Representatives, 13 are held by Democrats:

Which would have required Texas to properly winterize their systems as per that 2011 report (https://www.ferc.gov/...lt/files/2020-04/08-16-11-report.pdf , though I have absolutely no doubt that you still have refused to look at it, so precious is your ignorance to you). By keeping Texas separate and hence not subject to federal regulation, Texas Republicans ensured the failure of their power system and the deaths of Texans.

I didn't see the word "Republican" or "global warming" or "fossil fuel hater" anywhere in your 100 mile long link.

marc9000 writes:

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 do please remind us why that would have been a problem for the rest of the state.

Because the entire state was unusually, equally cold! The other two power grids are big enough that an unexpected, severe cold wave couldn't possibly happen to the entire grid!

Ever hear of batteries? Apparently not! Every single solar power system ever conceived of has included ideas for storing energy for times of darkness. There's also a hydro-electric system in which you pump water up into a reservoir during the day time and then at night time run it through a turbine and generator. Scientists and engineers are actually smart people, unlike you and yours (according to your personal witness).

So there weren't enough batteries for the green power? This doesn't have anything to do with fossil fuel plants, but I suppose Republicans are 100% to blame for this too? Couldn't possibly have been the greenies opposition to the building of batteries, since that takes fossil fuels like everything else?

Texas was advised a decade ago that it needed to winterize its equipment. And it chose not to! That was not any kind of equipment failure, but rather a policy failure. A Republican policy failure which placed quick profit over the lives of the state's citizens.

Your next task would be to show me how Beto O'Rourke loving Texas is, and has been, 100% controlled by Republicans.

marc9000 writes:

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?

What the fuck are you babbling on about there?

The fact that RESISTANCE to fossil fuel use by Democrats, could be the major contributing factor to Texas' recent failures, not only in improving fossil fuel facilities, but in providing batteries and other support that green energy needs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 774 by dwise1, posted 03-08-2021 3:52 AM dwise1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 776 by AZPaul3, posted 03-08-2021 8:53 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 777 by Taq, posted 03-09-2021 11:35 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 793 of 899 (884864)
03-10-2021 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 777 by Taq
03-09-2021 11:35 AM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
marc9000 writes:

I said that part of the problem was that in some cases they had to be SHUT DOWN to protect themselves from damage due to wind and solar failures.

That's false.

quote:
During this week’s crisis, natural gas plants tripped offline as equipment froze, both at power facilities themselves and at wellheads, leading to a drop-off in supplies, experts said. Tripping is the sudden and often unexpected cutting off of a power facility's connection to the grid, similar to a circuit breaker.

I guess it depends on where the information comes from.

quote:
It appears that ERCOT, Texas’s grid operator, was caught off guard by how soon demand began to exceed supply. Failure to institute a managed rolling blackout before the grid frequency fell to dangerously low levels meant some plants had to shut off to protect their equipment. This is likely why so many power plants went offline, not because they had failed to maintain operations in the cold weather.

Yes, Green Energy Failures Helped Cause Texas Blackout Disaster

and;

quote:
Ercot turned off power for millions of customers after several power plants shut down due to the below-freezing temperatures the state is experiencing. Officials at Ercot said the equipment at the plants could not handle the extreme, low temperatures. The choice was either shutting down power for customers or risking a collapse of the grid altogether.

Why is Texas suffering power blackouts during the winter freeze?

The second link said "several" (NOT ALL) power plants failed due to the cold. The rest were shut down to avoid a complete collapse.

Your link said "natural gas plants tripped offline" - it didn't distinguish between "some", and "all". I suspect it tiptoed around that fact that it was only some, not all. You'd have to show more links to defend your claim that my statement was false. I suspect you could outlink me, the biggest search engines are owned by Democrats.

We are all well aware of the current dependence on fossil fuels.

Not according to the false Message 658, and the reaction it got from most everyone here.

Show us a single Democrat that prevented the winterization of the Texas power grid. Just one. If you can't, then admit you are wrong.

No one has yet shown me any proof that Republicans were 100% responsible for a lack of upgrades to fossil fuel plants. Republicans are not nearly as hostile to fossil fuel use as are Democrats. Yet we're supposed to believe the party that's more hostile to fossil fuels was more in favor of upgrading fossil fuel plants?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 777 by Taq, posted 03-09-2021 11:35 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 800 by AZPaul3, posted 03-11-2021 7:14 AM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 808 by Taq, posted 03-11-2021 6:18 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 794 of 899 (884865)
03-10-2021 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 786 by glowby
03-10-2021 1:12 PM


Re: A denier denies
The denier talking points you've regurgitated here have infested our government and are delaying our response to the problem.

Do you have any specifics as to what our response should be? Shouldn't there have been a lot of discussion in the media, prompting discussion in the general public over the past 10 to 20 years concerning essential versus non-essential fossil fuel use? It hasn't happened, because "our government" wouldn't like that discussion. Rich government people, and their rich lobbyists, only want to point fingers, they don't want to look at themselves. It's common sense that the more financially well off people in the U.S. use more fossil fuels in non essential ways than do lower middle class people. The ones who are targeted with useless big government programs, like auto emission testing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 1:12 PM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 795 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 11:06 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 814 of 899 (884924)
03-14-2021 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 795 by glowby
03-10-2021 11:06 PM


Re: Essential vs. non-essential fuel use
Our responses should be to cut greenhouse gas emissions wherever possible and practical, even if it means inconvenience and higher prices. An overview is here... https://www.nap.edu/...2784/Informing_Report_Brief_final.pdf

This one paragraph in your link seems to sum it up;

quote:
The federal government should
establish a national task force that
includes formal and informal educators, government agencies,
policymakers, business leaders, and
scientists, among others, to set
national goals and objectives, and to
develop a coordinated strategy to
improve climate change education and
communication.

Meaning "GROW THE GOVERNMENT", and see what happens. The very rich, the upper middle class, the bottom class of idleness, none of them has a thing to worry about. Everyone else, look out!

Essential vs. non-essential use isn't really the issue.

Of course not, it's all political. The upper class, and very rich, are obviously the ones using the most fossil fuels strictly for recreational, non essential purposes. They have more political clout than the 70% or so of the rest of Americans.

It's about reducing use where we can, developing technologies to make it non-essential where possible, and encouraging the use of those technologies. Electric air travel isn't possible yet. But there have been public discussions in many cities, for example, over whether their fleets should move from gas to electric. The public has also been kept in the loop on regional wind and solar projects. I see discussions in the media I follow. Don't know about your media.

Some of my media questions things, like whether switching from gas to electric really makes as much sense as it seems to, since fossil fuels are often used to make electricity. The public is often kept in the loop concerning only positive things about wind and solar, and the negatives about it are often covered up. I monitor one liberal news source, it seems to be a pretty good gauge for what the rest of the mainstream media is doing.

Let the rich folks have their gas guzzling limos, yachts, and private jets. As long as the other 99% of us have cleaner energy alternatives, their selfishness won't matter much.

I know that's your honest opinion - I've seen similar sentiments on these forums before. It's really appalling to freedom loving people, it's easy to see how past tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, many others, rose to power with that type of thinking anywhere near the mainstream in the societies they took over.

Rich folks' cars must be tested too. It's free for all here in Illinois, so no one is "targeted". Emission testing is more about preventing toxic pollution than making sure you're getting good fuel efficiency. But I agree that the program's time and usefulness may have passed. I haven't had a car fail since the '90s, thanks in part to stricter regulations on the auto industry.

Stricter regulations resulting in price increases, making it harder and harder for people who want or need a new car to be able to buy one.

In the 1950's, 60's, and 70's, it was practically unheard of for a car or truck that was 25 years old or older to be used in any meaningful way, they were simply worn out by that time. Anything over 10 years / 100,000 miles was considered a pretty good bonus in the 60's, I remember it well. Today, there are a LOT of 25, and 35 year old cars and small trucks that are still heavily relied on, there are even a significant percentage of 35 year old heavy trucks that still perform useful work. (in construction, etc.) It could be debatable just what the reasons for that is, I think the main one is simply technological increases in metallurgy. 200,000 or 300,000 miles can be expected of most new cars today, over a million for OTR trucks.

As cars and trucks last longer and longer, and fewer and fewer people need new ones, the new car and truck makers marketing has gotten more and more challenging. 15 years ago, a GM employee told me that $2000 in the price of every new GM car went for nothing else but past employee's retirement. It's probably 3 or 4 thousand by now, not only for GM, but for Ford and Chrysler as well. Could one new marketing strategy be to lobby politicians to somehow increase the restrictions on the use of old ones, so they can then sell more new ones? That would increase their profits, but throwing away old, but very useful vehicles wouldn't be very good for a society that is approaching $30 trillion in debt, an additional $10 trillion in only one decade. Yes, "climate change" is useful for some, but it has very little to do with the climate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 795 by glowby, posted 03-10-2021 11:06 PM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 817 by DrJones*, posted 03-14-2021 10:01 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 818 by glowby, posted 03-15-2021 3:05 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 815 of 899 (884925)
03-14-2021 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 808 by Taq
03-11-2021 6:18 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
marc9000 writes:

Not according to the false Message 658, and the reaction it got from most everyone here.

Then you need to reread those posts. Simply saying that all fossil fuel power plants could be replaced by other types of fuel is the truth.

Someone needs to reread those posts, but it's not me. Those messages had nothing to do with power plants, they were about PRODUCTS. The public's ignorance about the significance of fossil fuels in things other than only power plants is because today's climate change alarmism covers up that information and discussion.

It was a mixture of Republicans and plant owners. Republicans threw away regulations that would have required plant operators to winterize. Those same policies also resulted in the loss of connections with surrounding states. The plant owners decided they wanted more profit, so they didn't make the changes they needed to.

You are claiming that it is the Democrats fault, somehow. Care to explain?

Don't mind if I do. You might remember this famous statement of Obama's;

quote:
“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Uttered in 2008, still haunting Obama

Coal plants, over the past several years, have closed in Texas. The reason was they were no longer profitable. They were increasingly regulated by the government, while wind and solar were increasingly subsidized by the government. After increasing amounts of those two things, of course they were no longer profitable. It's a Democrat thing, not just Obama's, to get coal plants shut down. If Texas would have had more coal plants, the recent disaster would have been much less, if not non existent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 808 by Taq, posted 03-11-2021 6:18 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 816 by DrJones*, posted 03-14-2021 9:59 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 819 by Taq, posted 03-15-2021 5:19 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 822 of 899 (884978)
03-17-2021 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 819 by Taq
03-15-2021 5:19 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
marc9000 writes:

Don't mind if I do. You might remember this famous statement of Obama's;

How did Obama prevent those power plants in Texas from winterizing? Please be specific.

I never said nor implied that Obama "prevented those power plants in Texas from "winterizing". Let's look at the quote about coal plants that you chopped off;

marc9000 writes:

Don't mind if I do. You might remember this famous statement of Obama's;

quote:
“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Why did you dishonestly imply that I said something I didn't?

There have been lots of accusations in this thread about Texas Republicans being responsible for the lack of "winterization" of the Texas power plants. I'd like to see some specifics on that - just who those Republicans were, and what they did to prevent the plants being ready for unusually cold weather.

Actually the plants were winterized, for normal Texas winters. They weren't fully prepared for once-in-a-decade-or-two arctic blasts. Possibly because of the ever increasing "global warming" alarmism among the population and Democrats in Texas. For global warming alarmists to point fingers at Republicans for the lack of readiness in extra cold weather is pretty laughable, considering the lack of specifics shown for that so far in this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by Taq, posted 03-15-2021 5:19 PM Taq has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 823 of 899 (884979)
03-17-2021 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 818 by glowby
03-15-2021 3:05 AM


Re: Essential vs. non-essential fuel use
I don't get it. I'm just talking about tolerating rich people, not fascist tyrants.

When tolerating them means letting them set rules for the unwashed masses, then exempting themselves from those same rules , that's when they have their foot in the door to become fascist tyrants.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 818 by glowby, posted 03-15-2021 3:05 AM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 824 by glowby, posted 03-17-2021 9:36 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 825 of 899 (886191)
05-09-2021 6:12 PM


PaulK, you didn't participate in this thread much, your participation was pretty much in the middle of the thread only. Did you notice Message 747? You might want to check the other messages that led up to it, if you need to. But I can sum it up pretty easily; One of my opponents grudgingly acknowledged that I proved an earlier message completely wrong, and another opponent called me "a liar worse than Trump" when I claimed it was wrong. And they both got approval dots from the same 3 posters.

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.

Other ways I'm responded to all over the place here indicates the same thing.


Replies to this message:
 Message 826 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2021 9:50 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 827 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2021 12:24 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 828 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-10-2021 11:27 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 829 of 899 (886319)
05-15-2021 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 827 by PaulK
05-10-2021 12:24 AM


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.

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?

You’ve claimed that four posters are. Over an assertion that is questionable at best.

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.

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!).

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 827 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2021 12:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 831 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2021 2:55 AM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 832 by Tangle, posted 05-16-2021 3:41 AM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 830 of 899 (886322)
05-15-2021 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 828 by Tanypteryx
05-10-2021 11:27 AM


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.

The proof is above, that no interest was shown in finding out the truth between Tangle and AZPaul.

So far, all we see is you, sputtering with rage, how typical.

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.

AZPaul3 writes:

Shouting you down is just sport.

Truer words were never spoken. (by AZPaul3)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-10-2021 11:27 AM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 836 of 899 (886436)
05-19-2021 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 835 by Percy
05-18-2021 9:16 AM


Re: Worldwide Fossil Fuel Use Must Cease Quickly
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).

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?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 835 by Percy, posted 05-18-2021 9:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 837 by Percy, posted 05-20-2021 10:44 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 838 of 899 (886507)
05-22-2021 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 837 by Percy
05-20-2021 10:44 AM


Re: Worldwide Fossil Fuel Use Must Cease Quickly
Is there any point to replying to this, or are you gone for six months?

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.

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.

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 - Wikipedia

Why 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.

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?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 837 by Percy, posted 05-20-2021 10:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 840 by NosyNed, posted 05-22-2021 10:57 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 841 by Percy, posted 05-23-2021 11:16 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 839 of 899 (886508)
05-22-2021 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 837 by Percy
05-20-2021 10:44 AM


Re: Worldwide Fossil Fuel Use Must Cease Quickly
double post

Edited by marc9000, : double post


This message is a reply to:
 Message 837 by Percy, posted 05-20-2021 10:44 AM Percy has seen this message

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 845 of 899 (886549)
05-23-2021 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 841 by Percy
05-23-2021 11:16 AM


Re: Worldwide Fossil Fuel Use Must Cease Quickly
Quit claiming that Democrats want to implement your ideas.

You're pretty clever at getting rid of people without banning them. Didn't work with Faith, but it works for me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Percy, posted 05-23-2021 11:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 846 by nwr, posted 05-23-2021 3:16 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 847 by Percy, posted 05-24-2021 1:27 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022