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

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.

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.