Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
67 online now:
(67 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 841 of 899 (886534)
05-23-2021 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 838 by marc9000
05-22-2021 8:49 PM


Re: Worldwide Fossil Fuel Use Must Cease Quickly
marc9000 writes:

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,...

You're leaving a lot of loose ends there in terms of things you said that weren't true.

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,...

It may seem perfectly logical to you, but it's your view, not the Democrats. Quit claiming that Democrats want to implement your ideas.

...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.

And so it goes. Before responding adequately to your previous untruth that Democrats would try to regulate fuels by dividing them into essential and non-essential categories, you march onwards to make yet another untrue claim. There are no Democrat proposals for curtailing recreational vehicle use.

You might try looking stuff up instead of going with your gut, else you'll just continue making more false claims, like that no one's trying to create new car companies in the US.

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?

Your suspicion meter is pegged. I have no special knowledge about lobbying by automakers, but neither do you. Your speculations are unlikely to be true.

This is what me and my fellow Republicans are concerned about.

Like most of the things you and your fellow Republicans are concerned about, they're made up.

A country that's 28 trillion in debt can't logically afford to throw away useful products,...

US GDP is about $21 trillion, so our debt is only about a third greater than our income. Many people have mortgages and total debt that are far greater than that, like 2, 3 or even 4 times income. Why do you think the US debt is at a difficult point?

I remember the circus of emissions testing in my area 17 years ago, it wasn't fun.

You remember lots of things that never happened. What are you imagining happened with emissions testing 17 years ago?

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.

Here's some Tesla info. The Tesla Model 3 base model is $37,000, and the Model 3 Extended Range Dual Motor is $50,000. It can go around 300 miles on a single change, and it takes around a half hour to charge at a Tesla Supercharging station. The Tesla home charger takes about five hours for a full charge. It costs about half as much per mile to drive as a gas-powered car. It requires very little maintenance, allowing Tesla to use a different model where most of their income comes from vehicle sales, while only part of the income from gas-powered vehicles comes from sales, the rest coming from service. A Tesla has no radiator, no radiator fluid, no thermostat, no water pump, no spark plugs, no ignition system, no fuel injectors, no fuel pump, no fuel filter, no crankcase oil, no oil filter, no oil pump, no transmission, no exhaust pipe, no muffler, no crankshaft, no pistons, no valves, no pushrods. The drivetrain has 17 moving parts, 34 for the dual motor, and there's a battery along the bottom of the car that runs from front to rear. Tesla has no recommended maintenance period but suggests coming in for a checkover once every couple years. It has excellent power (0-60 in 4.2 seconds for the Extended Range) and handling (the position of the batteries gives it a very low center of gravity).

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.

There are federal subsidies for electric cars, but only so much for each manufacturer. The Tesla subsidy used to be $7500 but the funds ran out and it is now $0.

I worry about government involvement in private property.

You mean like the way the federal government become involved in automotive safety and cut the automobile fatality rate to a miniscule level? Deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled used to be 250 a century ago and now its about 10. Thank God there's no amendment sayng, "Transportation being essential to the economy of a free State, the right of the people to own and drive transport shall not be infringed."

Older vehicles are seldom used near as much as newer ones, obviously restricting them will have little or no impact on the climate.

Marc, you are making things up again. No one has proposed restricting older vehicles. Older vehicles are always grandfathered in by whatever the standards were at the time. To get older vehicles off the road the government has in the past provided incentives for people to purchase new cars.

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.

What's a feel good measure? Restricting older vehicles? That's just something you made up.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by marc9000, posted 05-22-2021 8:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 844 by NosyNed, posted 05-23-2021 12:35 PM Percy has seen this message
 Message 845 by marc9000, posted 05-23-2021 2:21 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 842 of 899 (886535)
05-23-2021 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 840 by NosyNed
05-22-2021 10:57 PM


Re: New Car Companies
NosyNed writes:

...Fisker (probably not)...

They ceased operations in 2014.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 840 by NosyNed, posted 05-22-2021 10:57 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 843 by NosyNed, posted 05-23-2021 12:29 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 847 of 899 (886565)
05-24-2021 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 845 by marc9000
05-23-2021 2:21 PM


Re: Worldwide Fossil Fuel Use Must Cease Quickly
If you have evidence that anything you said was true, this is the time and place to present them.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 845 by marc9000, posted 05-23-2021 2:21 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 859 of 899 (887567)
08-10-2021 11:58 AM


My Reaction to Dire Predictions
The effects of climate change will continue on for decades and decades because not enough of the world will rein in their production of green house gases, but I don't see a collapse of world civilization nor even of the world economy. Some regions will suffer, some will thrive, and along the way we'll adapt. We will eventually gain control of our green house gases, but by no means by 2050.

Ironically the world's land area is increasing right now, but not for good reasons, e.g., Lake Mead, the Aral Sea, etc.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 861 by AZPaul3, posted 08-12-2021 6:57 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 876 of 899 (887661)
08-18-2021 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 862 by Phat
08-12-2021 7:04 PM


Re: My Reaction to Dire Predictions
People should start ignoring your posts, and you're off-topic anyway. Preach somewhere else.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 862 by Phat, posted 08-12-2021 7:04 PM Phat has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(4)
Message 882 of 899 (889097)
11-02-2021 12:20 PM


Improving a Headline
Nearly 90 countries join pact to slash planet-warming methane emissions, says one headline. Over 100 countries vow to end deforestation, says another. A better headline: "Scores of Countries Hypocritically Pledge to Slash Methane Emissions and End Deforestation."

Almost all countries have already demonstrated they're unable to follow such pledges, and even if that weren't true we're already screwed. Many analyses say the tipping point (the point of no return) is 2050 or 2060, but it's not. It's sooner. I don't have science behind me, but so far all the pie-in-the-sky scientific predictions are trailing the reality on the ground.

The effects of climate change do not lie in the future but are now. Low-lying island nations are already beginning to disappear. Coastal regions around the world are losing land to the sea. Extreme heat is causing forest fires in the US, China and Australia. The western US is being hit by droughts that have brought reservoirs like Lake Mead to record lows.

In the future the Gulf Stream will eventually be interrupted (because of melting glacial ice in Greenland) depriving Europe of its warm currents and sending it into a mini-ice age. Aridness and droughts will afflict some regions, high humidity and frequent rains others.

The world will be overwhelmed by the consequences of climate change. Famine, floods and extreme weather events will kill billions by the end of the century. In the end we'll find that climate change is self-correcting as the contributors to that change are gradually eliminated by it.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 883 by AZPaul3, posted 11-02-2021 12:42 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022