Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9028 total)
44 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 42 visitors)
Newest Member: Michael MD
Post Volume: Total: 884,158 Year: 1,804/14,102 Month: 172/624 Week: 56/95 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5726
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 751 of 824 (884716)
03-04-2021 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 746 by marc9000
03-04-2021 8:27 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
What do you think of the idea of studies and discussion to determine essential versus non-essential uses of fossil fuels?

Where have you been the last 50 years? That discussion has already taken place and is on-going. Do you live in a cave?

Essential is not good enough. The decision, since you were not paying attention, is to replace carbon sources as soon as possible, wherever possible, whenever possible.

You and your burn-it-down compatriots want to stop that movement for the sake of your fattened wallets.

Why aren't you sputtering with rage and calling Tangle every vulgar name you can think of?

Because he's one of the good guys.

Besides he's English and speaks a totally different language and probably knows a whole slew of vulgar names that I don't know.

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.

Texas ... untested ... failed.

The big lie.

Repeat it often enough even YOU will start to believe it.

You are a liar. A poisoner of the truth. You are a disinformation shill here to destroy honest productive discussion and shield your greedy evil right from reality.

Here's a repeat of a link I showed earlier;

What? A conservative radical capitalist yellow-rag site? Really?

We bring science and you bring elitist misinformation?

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.

Again the big lie.

We have been offering program suggestions and mitigation strategies for more than 100 years. Republicans, naysayers, the greedy elite, you all kept saying, "No. We're not going to do that. Kick that can down the road. My beer is cold. I'm good."

I'm not saying all is completely lost. We are fucked already and we are taking a considerable number of other species with us. But, maybe, we can make the disruptions come in slower spread-out increments. Let the kids live a little longer.

But, no. Turn your deaf ear and just burn, baby, burn.

First act. Make coal illegal. Yesterday.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 746 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2021 8:27 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 755 by Taq, posted 03-05-2021 3:17 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 757 by dwise1, posted 03-05-2021 6:32 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 763 by marc9000, posted 03-07-2021 2:41 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8089
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 752 of 824 (884719)
03-05-2021 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 747 by marc9000
03-04-2021 8:39 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
marc2000 writes:

DID YOU NOTICE THAT THE SAME 3 POSTERS GAVE YOU BOTH APPROVAL DOTS?

I suspect that's because we both think that our dependence on fossil fuels needs to change so that we are no longer dependent on fossils fuels. Whether we are able to do it without using fossil fuels in golf balls is perhaps not that important?

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.

I don't accept the premise of your question.

We need to reduce the use of fossil fuels as part of a global project to reduce CO2 emissions. We will do that anywhere we can whether the products are essential to our use or otherwise. It's not whether something is essential that matters, it's whether it's CO2 footprint can be successfully reduced or not. Some things will be easier than others.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 747 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2021 8:39 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by marc9000, posted 03-07-2021 2:51 PM Tangle has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 753 of 824 (884721)
03-05-2021 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 750 by marc9000
03-04-2021 9:12 PM


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

The significant increases in sales and size of the recreational boating industry.

Increases to small numbers is still small numbers.

One is essential, one is non essential. If that means nothing to you, okay, but it does to some people, and it's logical.

If you have a massive headwound and a hangnail, which one are you going to treat first?

Developing technology and policies that reduce carbon emissions from cars will have a much bigger impact than boats. When you have limited resources you look for the biggest bang for the buck.

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.

We all lost our ability to freely use leaded gasoline, and we survived. We also lost the freedom to use ozone depleting CFC's, and we survived once again.

Just imagine how you will suffer if you start getting electricity from hydropower . . . EGADS!!! You poor suffering soul. I can't imagine the pain you will go through.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2021 9:12 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 765 by marc9000, posted 03-07-2021 3:04 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8956
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(4)
Message 754 of 824 (884722)
03-05-2021 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 746 by marc9000
03-04-2021 8:27 PM


Texas
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.

Do you have the numbers for the loss of power from various sources in Texas?

I think you will find that some wind failed because, unlike other places where it is much colder for much longer, they didn't winterize the wind turbines either. But you may find that the loss from that source was much smaller than the loss from the fossil fuel sources.

You may also find that the largest loss of generating capacity was from the fossils fuel generating facilities (largest by a large multiple over the wind sources).

You might also note the presence of residential (and some commercial eg. SpaceX) solar that kept on supplying power when the grid was buggered.

Let's see your data and then we can discuss the actual source of the problem.

You might also explain El Paso while you are at it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 746 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2021 8:27 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 767 by marc9000, posted 03-07-2021 4:07 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(3)
Message 755 of 824 (884723)
03-05-2021 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 751 by AZPaul3
03-04-2021 11:17 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
AZPaul3 writes:

First act. Make coal illegal. Yesterday.

This may be a bit controversial in some crowds, but . . .

Second Act. Start building nuclear power plants again. Invest in research into new nuclear technologies. We need baseline power, and nuclear can fill that role.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by AZPaul3, posted 03-04-2021 11:17 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4479
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


(5)
Message 756 of 824 (884726)
03-05-2021 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 746 by marc9000
03-04-2021 8:27 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
AZPaul3 writes:

Then you failed, Bunkie. The Texas situation had nothing to do with technology and everything to do with republican politics.


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.

AZPaul3 is right and you and yours are dead wrong (with some having ended up more dead than others solely because of Republican politics and having nothing whatsoever to do with renewable energy).

The figures I heard are that only about 10% of Texan energy comes from green sources (eg, wind and solar) and that the remaining 90% comes from fossil fuels. The immediate and principal cause of much of the failure was that it had gotten too cold for natural gas to flow and thus the fuel source for much of the electrical grid.

So what did Gov. Abbott do? He went straight to the FAKE News Network to go onto serial liar Sean Hannity's show to lie out of his ass that it was entirely AOC and her Green New Deal that had caused Texas' catastrophic collapse -- despite the Green New Deal never having been implemented, let alone being promoted as legislature, and despite 90% of Texan energy being based on fossil fuels.

marc, you undoubtedly saw Abbott lie out of his ass on FAKE News and you made the mistake of believing him. After all the times that the Republicans have lied to you, you no longer qualify for the Gomer Pyle Immunity Clause ("Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."). It is solidly your fault for continuing to believe their lies.

The actual cause of this disaster is deregulation under Republican mis-administration of the power grid. Around 2011 there was another cold snap which exposed the vulnerabilities of Texas' power grid to cold weather. After a comprehensive study outlined everything that Texas needed to do to winterize its power grid in order to prevent failures in the next cold snap to come, Texas Republicans decided to suggest to the privatized utilities that they voluntarily do what they needed to do and, of course, those privatized utilities, being far more interested in making as much of a profit as possible despite how much that might endanger the public that they are supposed to serve, did nothing to prepare for that catastrophic winter (refer to the story of the ant and the grasshopper if that is more on your level).

Not only did they do nothing to winterize the power grid, but they also (with the help of Republican state government, no doubt) decided to isolate Texas' power grid from all other power grids primarily to avoid the federal regulation that that would have brought with it. Thus the Texas power grid had isolated itself from any kind of contingency emergency help. El Paso and eastern-most Texas (¿including Beaumont?) were both not on that isolated Texas power grid and so were able to draw power from the power grids of neighboring states and were able to survive.

Now, wind turbines work very well in cold weather when properly designed and maintained -- a viral photo that was supposed to be from Texas during this freeze showing a helicopter spraying de-icing on a turbine was actually from Sweden a couple years ago. And as I understand it, photo-voltaic solar panels actually work much better when it's cold because of electical conductors' resistances' positive coefficient of temperature (ie, a conductor's resistance increases as the temperature increases, which is why super-conductor applications require extremely low temperatures -- this is something that everybody with any degree of electronics training would know, so it should qualify as common knowledge). In case I have to start to draw pictures in crayon, pushing current through a resistance results in some of that energy being lost as heat (which in turn increases resistance which increases the amount of energy lost as heat, rinse and repeat (though it's not as bad as the avalanche breakdown of semiconductors due to their negative coefficient of temperature -- hence the need to include current-limiting resistances in semiconductor circuits)).

Now, why did that only happen to Texas? Why does everything work just fine in the rest of the country where it customarily gets far colder than in Texas? For example, I was stationed in the cold part of North Dakota -- the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales meet at -40° which I personally witnessed at least once. Yet our power grid never failed at the first hint of a chill (though a massive winter storm could, but even that would affect small communities and not everybody) and our heating fuel never failed us. Why would that be? Maybe because we knew what we needed to do to keep those systems operating and so we took care of that?

But in the case of Texas in 2021, they had known for a decade what they needed to do, yet they refused to do that because it would have reduced their profit.

How much is a human life worth? Ask a Republican and the answer would be: not much.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 746 by marc9000, posted 03-04-2021 8:27 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 766 by marc9000, posted 03-07-2021 4:04 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4479
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 757 of 824 (884727)
03-05-2021 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 751 by AZPaul3
03-04-2021 11:17 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
First act. Make coal illegal. Yesterday.

Yes, I fully agree that the time to have switched away from coal was a long time ago.

But managing the transition away from coal and other fossil fuels is a different and much trickier matter.

I've long thought of offering this US Navy damage control situation analogy to similar arguments. We've all seen that scene in the 1965 John Wayne movie, In Harm's Way where Damage Control is working frantically with shoring timbers to keep a bulkhead from giving way, opening the rest of the ship to the sea.

OK, so in this evolution what do you, in command of the DC team, decide to do? That bulkhead is full of cracks and leaks and needs a complete overhaul. So do you replace it right then and there with a serviceable bulkhead? Makes sense, right? But first you need to tear it out before you can replace it.

And what will happen when you tear it out? The sea will rush in and sink your ship. Viable solution?

OK, the best solution would have been to have started solving the problem long ago. That's like that protest slogan: "What do we want?" "Time Travel!" "When do we want it?" "Doesn't matter!"

So when you're in middle of everything going to sh*t, what do you do? You try to hold everything together that you possibly can until everybody else can finally get their sh*t together. That's where we are now, only far too far behind the curve.

The really big question is transitioning: how we are supposed to transition from the one situation to the other. In this case, how are we supposed to transition from carbon-fuel technology to carbon-free tech (or at the very least carbon-minimal)? A rather complicated problem which opponents seem to refuse to address.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by AZPaul3, posted 03-04-2021 11:17 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 758 by jar, posted 03-05-2021 7:06 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 760 by AZPaul3, posted 03-05-2021 8:43 PM dwise1 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33256
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 758 of 824 (884728)
03-05-2021 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 757 by dwise1
03-05-2021 6:32 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
Fortunately many if not most businesses are aware that the transition is needed and so have begun the transition relatively on their own. Vehicle manufacturers are abandoning the gasoline internal combustion engine either totally or in the form of dual motive vehicles. Energy companies are transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Advancements in nuclear power are progressing and there is even the beginning of an education effort.

Reality has this nasty habit of happening even when the utter idiots like we see in the drive by Cult of ********* folk.

Business wants to have customers and if all the customers are dead it's generally not good for business.

The *********** are still out there but fortunately reality simply doesn't care what they think.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by dwise1, posted 03-05-2021 6:32 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 759 by dwise1, posted 03-05-2021 7:17 PM jar has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4479
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 759 of 824 (884729)
03-05-2021 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 758 by jar
03-05-2021 7:06 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
Good, some of the engineers are still awake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 758 by jar, posted 03-05-2021 7:06 PM jar has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5726
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 760 of 824 (884730)
03-05-2021 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 757 by dwise1
03-05-2021 6:32 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
how we are supposed to transition from the one situation to the other.

Unfortunately, we've diddledicked for so long and have so far to go the answer is ... suffer. A lot.

Pay it in installments now or in great big chunks next century.

Stop burning carbon. Period.

That is what needs to be done. We know this. The political question is who gets hurt how bad in the process.

I think we already know the answer to that one. The elite and their governments will pay great lip service to the memes but will do nothing of any real consequence until they have control over the alternatives. Much too late by then. Much too late already.

We will do little to nothing to stop either oil or coal and our children will bear the full brunt of the conflagration to come.

But, since you asked...

...if I were emperor, I would close all coal mines immediately and blast their entrances shut. The communities and (now ex-)miners can swing hammers like they did their pickaxes. We have a lot of infrastructure projects well overdue for maintenance and upgrade. Entire well-paid careers worth. With universal healthcare.

As for the mine owner’s? Gee, guess who got $$ hurt? We could always pull a guillotine up to the front door of their high rise office if it would help.

Ok maybe not. But you lost your coal mine so go flip burgers or sell used cars or something. And don't forget your universal healthcare card.

As for the customer, the coal burning generator. Well, no coal. Go buy an alternative or file for chapter 7.

And then on to killing oil as quickly as I can with my Imperial Powers. Tax the hell out of oil and give huge subsidies to alternatives.

There are dozens of mitigation strategies we need to start yesterday.

Just an overview of the efforts called for: Climate Change: Policy and Mitigation Factsheet | Center for Sustainable Systems

But it really isn't going to mitigate much of anything. The major fatal damage has been done and runaway greenhouse climate, think a good Venus equivalent in a few thousand years, is the legacy we leave our children.

The mitigation is really just a way to maybe eek out a few extra centuries of less suffering before we go extinct.

Of course we could all just follow Elon out to Mars.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by dwise1, posted 03-05-2021 6:32 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 761 by dwise1, posted 03-05-2021 11:57 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4479
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 761 of 824 (884734)
03-05-2021 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 760 by AZPaul3
03-05-2021 8:43 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
OK, just woke up. Believe it or not, I intend absolutely no innuendoes here about anybody's sexual orientation. Seriously! For what it's worth, I'm a conscientious objector myself.

One of the big "Venus-Mars" thangs is supposed to be that he is always trying to figure out a solution to resolve her problem, whereas all she wants is for somebody to sympathize with her about her problem.

Case in point, there was a core of middle-aged, senior ballroom dance students (many of them couples) loyal to this one teacher about in his 30's/40's whom another teacher described as "a queen". He was very good as a dance teacher, though expressively he could go over the top a bit but everybody took that in stride. This may surprise those outside the dance community, but many "of that particular age" are engineers, physicians, or other highly technical professional types. Problem solvers.

So one night our teacher started expressing himself about a problem and I could see that every was getting ready to offer a solution while I wanted to tell all of them "he's not looking for a solution; he just wants to tell us how it makes him feel."

Try to understand the audience here. One night in particular, he tried an approach outside of standard dance angles (similar to Kendo's 8 directions: forward, forward wall, wall, backward wall, backward, backward center, center, forward center) and tried to describe an angular situation that must have made sense to him, but which was completely wrong in any engineering or reality based situation.

Lesson learned: don't even try to talk faulty tech with engineers.
 

Action that needs to be taken under emergency conditions. Always dire, or at least very inconvenient. Most people don't like inconvenient, especially non-veterans.

Funny thing about dire situations is that they pile up. The longer you take to deal with them, the worse they become and the harder it becomes to clean up after them. And the clean-up tab tends to grow exponentially.

 
There was a point in the past when we could have acted and averted disaster.

Later, we could still act and avert most of the disaster, but still incur some damage.

The longer we wait, the more damage we incur, needless to say. It can be so completely and utterly frustrating to observe the totally unnecessary delays.

 
But still, once we get to the actual implementation ... .

 
But then my inner Chief (or inner engineer) comes out. However late we finally respond and regardless of how much damage we're taking from our too-late actions, we do still need to try to keep everything working as much as possible while we switch over to sanity.

Edited by dwise1, : Minor editing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 760 by AZPaul3, posted 03-05-2021 8:43 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 762 by AZPaul3, posted 03-06-2021 4:37 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5726
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 762 of 824 (884756)
03-06-2021 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 761 by dwise1
03-05-2021 11:57 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
However late we finally respond and regardless of how much damage we're taking from our too-late actions, we do still need to try to keep everything working as much as possible while we switch over to sanity.

Absolutely agree.

We must always keep things working or the beer will get warm.

Mitigation efforts at the now draconian levels required will leave human hurt openly visible for all to see in economic dislocations and major price shocks, recession, depression requiring massive government stimulus schemes to forestall the riots.

Lord knows we can't have that. Not yet. It's too soon. There is still plenty of carbon yet to burn to soften that impact. Kick the can down the road. Let the kids handle it.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by dwise1, posted 03-05-2021 11:57 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 763 of 824 (884771)
03-07-2021 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 751 by AZPaul3
03-04-2021 11:17 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
Where have you been the last 50 years? That discussion has already taken place and is on-going. Do you live in a cave?

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.

Essential is not good enough.

It really is good enough for a lot of people, could be good enough to avoid another internal war.

marc9000 writes:

Why aren't you sputtering with rage and calling Tangle every vulgar name you can think of?

Because he's one of the good guys.

So it's politics, not an effort to find out what the truth is?

Besides he's English....

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.

marc9000 writes:

Here's a repeat of a link I showed earlier;

What? A conservative radical capitalist yellow-rag site? Really?

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?

We bring science and you bring elitist misinformation?

It's misinformation to show copies of past news columns?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by AZPaul3, posted 03-04-2021 11:17 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 770 by AZPaul3, posted 03-07-2021 4:20 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 764 of 824 (884772)
03-07-2021 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 752 by Tangle
03-05-2021 4:18 AM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
We need to reduce the use of fossil fuels as part of a global project to reduce CO2 emissions. We will do that anywhere we can whether the products are essential to our use or otherwise. It's not whether something is essential that matters, it's whether it's CO2 footprint can be successfully reduced or not. Some things will be easier than others.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by Tangle, posted 03-05-2021 4:18 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 773 by Tangle, posted 03-07-2021 5:11 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1178
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 765 of 824 (884773)
03-07-2021 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by Taq
03-05-2021 1:21 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
Increases to small numbers is still small numbers.

Haha, I agree, when it comes to increases in fossil fuel use over the past few decades.

If you have a massive headwound and a hangnail, which one are you going to treat first?

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.

Developing technology and policies that reduce carbon emissions from cars will have a much bigger impact than boats. When you have limited resources you look for the biggest bang for the buck.

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.

We all lost our ability to freely use leaded gasoline, and we survived. We also lost the freedom to use ozone depleting CFC's, and we survived once again.

Very minor things, compared to the threats that free people feel from the Democrats today.

Just imagine how you will suffer if you start getting electricity from hydropower . . . EGADS!!! You poor suffering soul. I can't imagine the pain you will go through.

I can't either, who knows how much more it will cost.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by Taq, posted 03-05-2021 1:21 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021