I Never Really Understood The Left's Obsession With Saving The Planet

[justoffal]

Do you realize that by insulting the intelligence of roughly half of all Americans, you have revealed an unwarranted prejudicial bias that is the product of nothing but your own ignorance?

I don't think that's what he's doing. Instead what he is doing is pointing out the creeping mandates that absolutely do remove choice and freedom. Oddly both sides make that accusation when they don't have control of something they want to control or change; they see it as a loss of freedom. This is a dangerous misapplication of the real concept of freedom versus responsibility. It is absolutely true by the way that all that All the efforts to leave hydrocarbon combustion behind have proved to be somewhat more toxic than the original problem. I expect all of that will be worked out in time. In the meantime it's probably not going to work by appealing to the ...Henny Penny-sky is falling .... strategy. First of all it's impossible to prove beyond projection and conjecture and secondly it assumes that everyone has the same priorities which is a foolishness assumption.

 

[Crick]

I don't think that's what he's doing.

Then you need work on your reading comprehension

I will say this, their hearts are in the right place. It's just that their brains are too stupid to realize what they do, doesn't work or makes things worse. They can't comprehend that what sounds good in their hearts actually doesn't work.

Instead what he is doing is pointing out the creeping mandates that absolutely do remove choice and freedom.

The purpose of the mandates is to reduce our GHG emissions, hopefully to near zero. They are "creeping" because doing them instantly would be a horrible idea.

Oddly both sides make that accusation when they don't have control of something they want to control or change; they see it as a loss of freedom.

What accusation? That he's exhibiting a prejudicial bias? His statement I just quoted is de facto evidence. You'll have to explain your control and freedom arguments because I don't think there's any part of the Bill of Rights that says anything about internal combusion engines.

This is a dangerous misapplication of the real concept of freedom versus responsibility.

Explain

It is absolutely true by the way that all that All the efforts to leave hydrocarbon combustion behind have proved to be somewhat more toxic than the original problem. I expect all of that will be worked out in time. In the meantime it's probably not going to work by appealing to the ...Henny Penny-sky is falling .... strategy. First of all it's impossible to prove beyond projection and conjecture and secondly it assumes that everyone has the same priorities which is a foolishness assumption.

There are reasons we elect people to be our leaders.

 

[justoffal]

Then you need work on your reading comprehension




The purpose of the mandates is to reduce our GHG emissions, hopefully to near zero. They are "creeping" because doing them instantly would be a horrible idea.

What accusation? That he's exhibiting a prejudicial bias? His statement I just quoted is de facto evidence. You'll have to explain your control and freedom arguments because I don't think there's any part of the Bill of Rights that says anything about internal combusion engines.


Explain


There are reasons we elect people to be our leaders.

Mandates only have one purpose... to override choice.
I'm sorry but that issue simply cannot be ignored or mitigated. You really don't want to make this a war of choices because you will lose. It is not possible to demand or even to force everyone to conform in the short period of time that has been projected for success in this particular issue. It will certainly make matters worse.

As far as insults are concerned that seems to be the only path of communication that the GHG advocates know about if they're not talking with each other that is. Trust me it's a loser.... In any case I wouldn't bet the entire farm on one position regardless of its peer reviewed status. It wouldn't be the first time that 99% of the experts were wrong.

Finally I think the world will make its transition in plenty of time without being rushed into it and pushed into a financially difficult swap over. The new technologies are still untested and as of yet there is no clear path to complete independence from hydrocarbon combustion.

Jo

 

[Crick]

Mandates only have one purpose... to override choice.

Like laws and regulations and codes and morals and ethics and principles and social mores and tenets and wisdom.

I'm sorry but that issue simply cannot be ignored or mitigated.

Ignored or mitigated? What issue are you talking about? The phasing out of ICE vehicles? It is perfectly within the Constitutional powers of the government.

You really don't want to make this a war of choices because you will lose.

Do you actually think people will start shooting because they can't buy a big V8?

It is not possible to demand or even to force everyone to conform in the short period of time that has been projected for success in this particular issue. It will certainly make matters worse.

Of course it is possible to make the demand. Almost all businesses will comply because they all require licenses to do their stuff. So the supply will dry up rapidly which will drive the price of the remaining stock through the roof. And if it ever actually becomes illegal to drive one, the lawbreakers would stand out incredibly with the noise and exhaust. What are YOU imagining happening?

As far as insults are concerned that seems to be the only path of communication that the GHG advocates know about if they're not talking with each other that is.

I have thrown a lot of insults here - typically noting people's ignorance or bigotry. But I'm in a relatively quiet period at the moment. I can't say the same for Abu Afak or Dagosa but those are their choices.

Trust me it's a loser....

If we cannot come up with transportation and energy systems that produces no GHGs, we will all be the losers.

In any case I wouldn't bet the entire farm on one position regardless of its peer reviewed status.

This isn't exotic science pushing the boundaries of human capability. The greenhouse effect which is the function behind global warming was discovered in 1859, 164 years ago. It's been looked at a great deal, particularly over the last 20-30 years. The idea that the whole thing is a charade just to keep scientists funded is absolute and utter nonsense. And the problem demanded that we take serious, committed action 20 years ago. We're late. And like almost all problems, the longer we have ignored it, the worse it has gotten and the more difficult and expensive has become the solution.

It wouldn't be the first time that 99% of the experts were wrong.

Can you name a problem that has gotten this much attention, that garnered 99% acceptance and then turned out to be wrong?

Finally I think the world will make its transition in plenty of time without being rushed into it and pushed into a financially difficult swap over.

And on what do you base that opinion?

The new technologies are still untested and as of yet there is no clear path to complete independence from hydrocarbon combustion.

That directly counters the contention you just made that we'd make the transition in plenty of time.

 

[justoffal]

Like laws and regulations and codes and morals and ethics and principles and social mores and tenets and wisdom.

Ignored or mitigated? What issue are you talking about? The phasing out of ICE vehicles? It is perfectly within the Constitutional powers of the government.

Do you actually think people will start shooting because they can't buy a big V8?

Of course it is possible to make the demand. Almost all businesses will comply because they all require licenses to do their stuff. So the supply will dry up rapidly which will drive the price of the remaining stock through the roof. And if it ever actually becomes illegal to drive one, the lawbreakers would stand out incredibly with the noise and exhaust. What are YOU imagining happening?

I have thrown a lot of insults here - typically noting people's ignorance or bigotry. But I'm in a relatively quiet period at the moment. I can't say the same for Abu Afak or Dagosa but those are their choices.

If we cannot come up with transportation and energy systems that produces no GHGs, we will all be the losers.

This isn't exotic science pushing the boundaries of human capability. The greenhouse effect which is the function behind global warming was discovered in 1859, 164 years ago. It's been looked at a great deal, particularly over the last 20-30 years. The idea that the whole thing is a charade just to keep scientists funded is absolute and utter nonsense. And the problem demanded that we take serious, committed action 20 years ago. We're late. And like almost all problems, the longer we have ignored it, the worse it has gotten and the more difficult and expensive has become the solution.


Can you name a problem that has gotten this much attention, that garnered 99% acceptance and then turned out to be wrong?

And on what do you base that opinion?

That directly counters the contention you just made that we'd make the transition in plenty of time.

There's always some fraud even in the most tested and respected science. It's human nature.

They probably isn't another issue that has garnered it this much attention on a global scale simply because I'm on societies more well connected now than it was in the past. It's not necessary to think of one that is equal in order to demonstrate the fact that a collection or even a majority of experts can be wrong as they often are.

You cannot either ignore or mitigate the human factor of choice. It's usually not based on reason...based more on the nature of humans to be independent. I really don't think you'll be able to make a case strong enough or a mandate thorough enough the force people to give up that choice. The effort will create chaos and the chaos will create violence Yes.

Saying that there's no clear path to complete independence from hydrocarbon combustion does not mean we will not make the transition it simply means the path is not yet clear. Nobody has demonstrated as of yet how we can rely solely on what people refer to oftentimes mistakenly as renewables. I'm sure progress will be made therein but certainly not according to the timetables that are already failing as they meet the realities of the physical world.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's because the left is more interested in science and listens to scientists more.

Voodoo Science

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Amish use horses and Oxen, they raise cows and sheep...they all fart out huge amounts of methane. Methane is 80 times more WARMISH than CO2....

Ee I, Ee I, Oh!

Statist solution: spend trillions of dollars to feed those animals Beano.

 

[luiza]

There's always some fraud even in the most tested and respected science. It's human nature.

Ask Crock our resident Climate Troll to tell us which planet he is referring to ?

Then for this planet , ask him to quantify energy differences between those emitted from human actions , energy from outside our solar system , energy from the centre of our galaxy and from our own star , the Sun .

He will never answer because he hasn't a clue .

 

[justoffal]

Ee I, Ee I, Oh!

Statist solution: spend trillions of dollars to feed those animals Beano.

Mandate it!

 

[justoffal]

Ask Crock our resident Climate Troll to tell us which planet he is referring to ?

Then for this planet , ask him to quantify energy differences between those emitted from human actions , energy from outside our solar system , energy from the centre of our galaxy and from our own star , the Sun .

He will never answer because he hasn't a clue .

You Bring up an interesting subject.... Energy from outside the solar system. I have often wondered as the sun travels along its Herculean path whether or not we go in and out of higher and lower energy fields that exist along that massive orbit. It seems we are doubly blessed. Not only does the Earth's magnetic field help shield us from loval solar radiation we are also inside a local bubble that shields us from radiation originating from our monster central star... Sagittarius A. Who is to know exactly what effect all of that has on our climate eh?

 

[Billo_Really]

All of them except for nuclear are far more costly to the planet than fossil fuels ever was. The solution is worse than the problem l.

That's bullshit! Sustainable energy sources are the only way forward.

 

[mamooth]

Ask Crock our resident Climate Troll to tell us which planet he is referring to ?

That's a novel deflection. If you want to describe the climate on the other planets -- which are not warming, which destroys the solar theory of climate -- feel free. The rest of us are talking about earth.

Then for this planet , ask him to quantify energy differences between those emitted from human actions , energy from outside our solar system , energy from the centre of our galaxy and from our own star , the Sun .

He will never answer because he hasn't a clue .

Why did you think that was a difficult challenge? Oh, that's right. You're laughably ignorant of the topic, knowing only what propaganda your masters chose to spoonfeed you, so you assume everyone else has to be just as intellectually challenged as you are yourself. That is not the case. Unlike you and your brainwashed cult pals, we know what the science says.

How is it that you're so ignorant of something so basic?

And why are you babbling about energy from outside our solar system and energy from the center of the galaxy? I'm guessing you're getting cosmic rays confused with energy. It's similar to how you're getting human-emitted energy confused with human-emitted greenhouse gases. You're really bad at this.

 

[justoffal]

That's bullshit! Sustainable energy sources are the only way forward.

They're actually is no such thing as a sustainable energy source It always consumes something.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But the things they do don't help,

Well that's a silly lie.

 

[Crick]

They're actually is no such thing as a sustainable energy source It always consumes something.

Some technologies consume more than others. A 500 MW coal plant will consume 1,500,000 metric tons of coal per year. The fuel it burns will outmass the equivalent wind turbines or solar panels many times over. And all the wind and solar material is still sitting there to be recycled. Your not going to recycle that fly ash back into coal.

I hope you don't think that no-real-renewables argument has any significance.

 

[justoffal]

Some technologies consume more than others. A 500 MW coal plant will consume 1,500,000 metric tons of coal per year. The fuel it burns will outmass the equivalent wind turbines or solar panels many times over. And all the wind and solar material is still sitting there to be recycled. Your not going to recycle that fly ash back into coal.

Sure....I get it ... Merely pointing out that all energy transactions have a cost. Using the most direct source has always been a good idea....plants have it down Pat! We....do not. When we build a wind Turbine that draws regenerative energy from the ground it's rooted in maybe we can make that boast. Until then the total cost of the end product is going to be damn hard to avoid....if we ever get there.

 

[Crick]

Sure....I get it ... Merely pointing out that all energy transactions have a cost.

No one ever said they didn't. But some are a whole lot cheaper in the long run. The fuel for wind and solar is FREE. You cannot say that for ANY fossil fuel powered system.

Using the most direct source has always been a good idea....plants have it down Pat!

What do you mean by "most direct source"? The video was talking about energy density.

We....do not. When we build a wind Turbine that draws regenerative energy from the ground it's rooted in maybe we can make that boast.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about there. What boast? What do you mean by "regenerative energy"?

Until then the total cost of the end product is going to be damn hard to avoid....if we ever get there.

What do you believe to be the "end product"? The cost of the electricity produced by wind, solar, coal and gas IS known and wind and solar are the cheapest per kWh.

 

[EMH]

It's because the left is more interested in science and listens to scientists more.

So they more understand the consequences of not taking care of the planet.

Also they are more empathetic than right wingers, so they care more about the consequences to humans.

I could have saved you a lot of time and a worthless thread.

Science is NOT

PARROTING
FUDGING DATA
FRAUD

You are a PARROT and "your opinion" is just plagiarized from taxpayer funded fudgebaking liars...

 

[Crick]

Science is NOT

PARROTING
FUDGING DATA
FRAUD

You are a PARROT and "your opinion" is just plagiarized from taxpayer funded fudgebaking liars...

No fudge. Get some help. See a doctor and tell him what you think. Follow his advice.

 

[justoffal]

No one ever said they didn't. But some are a whole lot cheaper in the long run. The fuel for wind and solar is FREE. You cannot say that for ANY fossil fuel powered system.

What do you mean by "most direct source"? The video was talking about energy density.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about there. What boast? What do you mean by "regenerative energy"?

What do you believe to be the "end product"? The cost of the electricity produced by wind, solar, coal and gas IS known and wind and solar are the cheapest per kWh.

Sorry if some of that was over your head I'm not going to rake back over it and break it down.
From production to end product to final generation you are absolutely incorrect. Wind and solar are absolutely not cheaper. With the possible exception of coal.

Also nothing is free. If you're using wind you're taking it away from something else there is a cost. If you're absorbing solar energy It is no longer available for other uses. Ultimately there is a minimum cost to pay and it cannot be avoided.

Would I prefer to see hydrocarbon go away completely? Yes I would .
Do we need to treat it as an emergency and break our asses to make it happen?
No I don't think so. I've said before the world is moving in the right direction and when the time is right we will have our energy source minus the hydrocarbon pollution. I can almost guarantee you it won't be wind and solar.

Jo