| Pages:
1
..
40
41
42
43
44
..
122 |
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  | You want 60% of all vehicle sales to be battery in 10 years but you have no solutions to the problems of today?
Cart before the horse
And again you didn't answer one question just like all the other folks promoting the idea of green.
How come NO ONE is willing to provide or propose answers?
NO ONE is willing to support their position with critical debate?
All we hear is - 'it will come!"
To paraphrase a movie-
"You don't want the truth because you can't handle the truth"
Bury your head in the sand with just hope and dreams.
[Edited on 4-13-2023 by Cliffy] |
Here is an article that answers many of your questions. You ask many, many basic questions that a little googling could answer…
How electrification became a major tool for fighting climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/14/climate/elect...
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
I'd read the article- too bad its behind a paywall- I won't go there
I don't want too subscribe and I don't want my email address flooded with more spam (which always happens with these)
And my point being in the section you quoted is that when ever these subjects come up no one on the opposing side is ever able to articulate their
position. "They" just shut the debate down.
If we look here again- you do the same thing by transferring the answers to another writer or article keeping you out of the debate.
WHY?
Its easy to make a derogatory comment and transfer the issue -anyone can do it. Its harder to stand on the soap box and espouse your position
Can you do it in an articulate and respectful manner?
Why don't you enlighten us as to what it says in your own words?
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Have no idea how to turn off Java
I can fly a Boeing around the world but I don't dig deep into computers.
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy | I'd read the article- too bad its behind a paywall- I won't go there
I don't want too subscribe and I don't want my email address flooded with more spam (which always happens with these)
|
cliffy:
Two suggestions for paywalls and registration requirements:
1. try opening the link in "incognito window" (chrome browser)
2. establish a "trash" email to use for registering on websites. Use the trash email address for everything you intend to never read, such as website
registrations, spam, etc. Then you wont care if you get spam, since you will never use that email address except for registering for services that
generate trash emails. let the trash email box fill up, take joy in never checking your email
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4920
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy |
If we look here again- you do the same thing by transferring the answers to another writer or article keeping you out of the debate.
WHY?
Why don't you enlighten us as to what it says in your own words?
|
Why do you think that some poster's interpretation of an issue or article is more valuable than reading source material written by experts in their
field?
|
|
|
tomieharder
Banned
Posts: 164
Registered: 10-21-2022
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666 |
Singer was a humbug, a merchant of doubt. He started out as a competent scientist, ended up being a crackpot. Naturally, trump relied on him. Birds
of a feather flock together. |
And what, precisely, is your technical background that makes you so wise? Yale University PhD in American Studies?
In a real debate, not the childish name-calling you do here, but in a real debate where speakers have to state cogent reasons to support their
arguments, you would fail miserably. Ever heard of the "Shoot the Messenger" Fallacy? You're its poster child.
|
|
|
Lobsterman
Super Nomad
Posts: 1696
Registered: 10-7-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
We all have opinions so let one state his without the name calling. IMO Teslas are lousy, impractical cars and I would never own one. That's an
opinion, not a mandate.
[Edited on 4-15-2023 by Lobsterman]
|
|
|
caj13
Super Nomad
Posts: 1002
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
actually - Lobsterman and all of you other climate deniers. A=Singer was not an expert on climate change, climate modeling etc. singer was a
bright guy who apparently decided he would seek fame and fortune by grabbing headlines being a denier.
He was famously against second hand smoke as dangerous, as well as several other claims he made.
His MO is always the same - he never did any primary research, never designed experiments, never collected data, instead he would cherry pick
information - misrepresent it, ignore all evidence contrary to his claims - etc - all very common charlatan denier tactics.
But I'm always very fascinated by the mental Gymnastics of lobsterman , David - etc - have to go through to continue to cling to their beliefs.
If tens of thousands of scientists doing gigantic amounts of research over the last 50 years all pretty much come to the same conclusion - and you
don't agree with that conclusion - you go find the single guy on the planet willing to say different - then you burnish their credentials - so they
are your expert. You ignore the credentials, education, experience, proven science, etc that they do, and cling to your demigod who is willing to
make false claims - usually for money or fame.
we get it - sprinkler repair men with a single photo of a palm tree know more that tens of thousands of scientists with hundreds of thousands of
years of experience, using petabytes of well collected & verified data.
Go ahead, next time you need heart surgery - why not have your mechanic do it - he says he knows all bout hearts and stuff.
Me. Id probably choose a board approved cardiologist with lots of experience and exceptional results.
But - then again - I make decisions based on facts and information - my opinions follow - and can change as the data and information accumulates.
|
|
|
JZ
Select Nomad
Posts: 10546
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by caj13 | actually - Lobsterman and all of you other climate deniers. A=Singer was not an expert on climate change, climate modeling etc. singer was a
bright guy who apparently decided he would seek fame and fortune by grabbing headlines being a denier.
He was famously against second hand smoke as dangerous, as well as several other claims he made.
His MO is always the same - he never did any primary research, never designed experiments, never collected data, instead he would cherry pick
information - misrepresent it, ignore all evidence contrary to his claims - etc - all very common charlatan denier tactics.
But I'm always very fascinated by the mental Gymnastics of lobsterman , David - etc - have to go through to continue to cling to their beliefs.
If tens of thousands of scientists doing gigantic amounts of research over the last 50 years all pretty much come to the same conclusion - and you
don't agree with that conclusion - you go find the single guy on the planet willing to say different - then you burnish their credentials - so they
are your expert. You ignore the credentials, education, experience, proven science, etc that they do, and cling to your demigod who is willing to
make false claims - usually for money or fame.
we get it - sprinkler repair men with a single photo of a palm tree know more that tens of thousands of scientists with hundreds of thousands of
years of experience, using petabytes of well collected & verified data.
Go ahead, next time you need heart surgery - why not have your mechanic do it - he says he knows all bout hearts and stuff.
Me. Id probably choose a board approved cardiologist with lots of experience and exceptional results.
But - then again - I make decisions based on facts and information - my opinions follow - and can change as the data and information accumulates.
|
I remember you parroting the establishment's narrative that Covid came from a bat. Telling any of us who thought it more likely came from a lab leak
that our ideas were conspiracy theories/misinformation.
Don't be so gullible. The scientists lie (or are wrong) all the time. They have motives to do so.
[Edited on 4-15-2023 by JZ]
|
|
|
tomieharder
Banned
Posts: 164
Registered: 10-21-2022
Member Is Offline
|
|
The last Ice Age peaked 22,000 years ago. The Earth has been continually warming for the last 22,000 years. 22,000 years ago, upstate New York was
under an ice sheet 1 mile thick.
So here is the question for the goat all the other geniuses here:
If the Earth has been warming for the past 22,000 years, what caused it to warm the first 21,780 years before the Industrial Revolution?
And what caused the reason for the warming to change only 220 years ago?
[Edited on 4-16-2023 by tomieharder]
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1593
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JZ | | Quote: Originally posted by caj13 | actually - Lobsterman and all of you other climate deniers. A=Singer was not an expert on climate change, climate modeling etc. singer was a
bright guy who apparently decided he would seek fame and fortune by grabbing headlines being a denier.
He was famously against second hand smoke as dangerous, as well as several other claims he made.
His MO is always the same - he never did any primary research, never designed experiments, never collected data, instead he would cherry pick
information - misrepresent it, ignore all evidence contrary to his claims - etc - all very common charlatan denier tactics.
But I'm always very fascinated by the mental Gymnastics of lobsterman , David - etc - have to go through to continue to cling to their beliefs.
If tens of thousands of scientists doing gigantic amounts of research over the last 50 years all pretty much come to the same conclusion - and you
don't agree with that conclusion - you go find the single guy on the planet willing to say different - then you burnish their credentials - so they
are your expert. You ignore the credentials, education, experience, proven science, etc that they do, and cling to your demigod who is willing to
make false claims - usually for money or fame.
we get it - sprinkler repair men with a single photo of a palm tree know more that tens of thousands of scientists with hundreds of thousands of
years of experience, using petabytes of well collected & verified data.
Go ahead, next time you need heart surgery - why not have your mechanic do it - he says he knows all bout hearts and stuff.
Me. Id probably choose a board approved cardiologist with lots of experience and exceptional results.
But - then again - I make decisions based on facts and information - my opinions follow - and can change as the data and information accumulates.
|
I remember you parroting the establishment's narrative that Covid came from a bat. Telling us who thought it more likely came from a lab leak was a
conspiracy theory.
Don't be so gullible. The scientists lie (or are wrong) all the time. They have motives to do so.
|
Absolutely correct. The original Covid narrative has been steadily falling apart daily and is supported by facts. The gullible will continue to be
gullible and prove it frequently on this forum.
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1593
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Lobsterman | We all have opinions so let one state his without the name calling. IMO Teslas are lousy, impractical cars and I would never own one. That's an
opinion, not a mandate.
[Edited on 4-15-2023 by Lobsterman] |
Owning a Tesla depends on your personnel driving requirements. I have owned a Tesla for almost three years now and have not had to do a thing for
maintenance. It costs me around $6.00 to travel about 250 miles. Way less than gas. I have almost 25,000 miles on it now. Having said this, I would
not have a Tesla to take a trip requiring a charger stop and not having a home charger in my garage. I don’t have the patience to sit at a public
charger. I have other gas vehicles to use when necessary. The Tesla model 3 has been beating the new mid engined Corvette in quarter mile races so
performance is excellent. I think converting to electric cars on a large scale will not be practical for the near future given what is known about the
electric grid and the fossil fuel energy and human exploitation cost of mining the rare earth materials needed for battery’s.
|
|
|
JZ
Select Nomad
Posts: 10546
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by LancairDriver | | Quote: Originally posted by Lobsterman | We all have opinions so let one state his without the name calling. IMO Teslas are lousy, impractical cars and I would never own one. That's an
opinion, not a mandate.
[Edited on 4-15-2023 by Lobsterman] |
Owning a Tesla depends on your personnel driving requirements. I have owned a Tesla for almost three years now and have not had to do a thing for
maintenance. It costs me around $6.00 to travel about 250 miles. Way less than gas. I have almost 25,000 miles on it now. Having said this, I would
not have a Tesla to take a trip requiring a charger stop and not having a home charger in my garage. I don’t have the patience to sit at a public
charger. I have other gas vehicles to use when necessary. The Tesla model 3 has been beating the new mid engined Corvette in quarter mile races so
performance is excellent. I think converting to electric cars on a large scale will not be practical for the near future given what is known about the
electric grid and the fossil fuel energy and human exploitation cost of mining the rare earth materials needed for battery’s.
|
I think Telsa's are good cars. And they are perfect for some people. Especially ppl living in bigger cities. Reducing emissions there does help the
air quality, etc.
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
#1 Follow the money!
#2 Just recently (a couple of weeks ) over 500 published scientific papers (Peer reviewed) were withdrawn as being falsely Peer reviewed.
Most of them dealt in the COVID arena and most pushed the CDC and Fauci narrative. Seems the Peer review was compromised to push a false agenda.
HMMMM. Scientists are fallible on a large scale to further a narrative or funding.
If they went against Fauchi they didn't get funded. Just recollect that idea for a moment.
#3 Citing "one" "scientist" as being biased on climate change is just more blowhard rhetoric. There have been hundreds of actual degreed scientists
who, have called into question the -"the earth is dying" narrative. Many have been cancelled from all social media because they didn't toe the line.
Many have lost all research funding because of their position.
Again those who have lost the argument just toss out name calling to try to silence the opposition.
Here's a link to an article about CO2 and climate since 66 million years ago IF you care to read it.
https://mashable.com/article/co2-earth-history-climate-chang...
What you will find is that back then CO2 was at 2000 to 4000 PPMs (today @ 420PPMs, roughly a 200PPM rise in 150 years, SO to reach the levels at the
dinosaur age we will need about 1500 years) and the temperature was 10-15 degrees higher than now. Was the earth dead back then because we had higher
CO2 and temperatures? NO!
You will notice a small uptick in CO2 recently (last 150 years) but nothing alarming considering the historical highs. What has changed is the man has
flourished on earth in that time (a NATURAL ELVOLUTIONARY EVENT- natural evolution on earth). Man is not a disparate object on earth but just a part
of natural evolution. Does that mean man has no influence on the atmosphere? Hell no - BUT the uptick we see has been over 150 years. NOT exactly a
dire emergency in the next decade.
So, to push the narrative "the earth is dying" is a false narrative. I suppose all the life on earth back then wasn't really here on earth when the
numbers we are so worried about were normal? The earth is NOT dying! Just naturally changing.
All the "climate chicken littles" have to go on is guesses and theories.
BTW there are about 15 different projections on climate change right now and only one actually has paralleled what has actually happened- its the
Russian climate projection theory.
We can't currently accurately predict the weather next winter but we CAN predict the end of the earth because of weather 10 to 100 years from now?
The earth has ALWAY had climate change, THE question is what causes it and what is detrimental about it? Obviously the earth won't die and just how
many eons will it take to have a noticeable affect? Why the hysteria over 1 degree when we were 10 or 15 degrees higher 66 million years ago and life
flourished on earth?
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy | Why the hysteria over 1 degree when we were 10 or 15 degrees higher 66 million years ago and life flourished on earth?
|
Cliffy, life flourishing in the end of the Cretaceous? Those Dino’s were huge predators. You wouldn’t have lasted a day in the Cretaceous.
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
I said 'LIFE" I didn't say "homo sapiens"!
The world is not in jeopardy of imminent death by any means.
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18377
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy | I said 'LIFE" I didn't say "homo sapiens"!
The world is not in jeopardy of imminent death by any means. |
The science shows that warmer climate has more extreme weather due to more heat (energy) in atmosphere,… more extreme weather = more deaths in
natural disasters.
Perhaps increased death rate due to weather.
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Or better response to large storms to preclude injuries, say in 1,000 years
The world has always been under atmospheric change.
Animals have always had to adapt or die out.
Species have always been dying out even today with all our interventions.
Natural selection and evolution in process Man is not an interloper but part of the evolutionary process.
To say that IF the USA and EU went green tomorrow we would "save" the world is myopic. That impact would be small on the atmosphere (China India and
the rest of the developing world staying the course with coal and wood).
The atmosphere did recover after the big meteor that cooled the entire world with its "cloud" that killed off the dinosaurs without any human
influence.
The world has an affinity to heal itself
Man has made good strides in cleaning up the atmosphere in the USA and Europe but its affect on the rest of the world is minimal. China has the worst
air in the world and NO intension of changing its habits.
Only the USA and the EU is willing to spent their hundreds of billions of dollars in a futile attempt to "save the world".
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
surfhat
Senior Nomad
Posts: 545
Registered: 6-4-2012
Member Is Offline
|
|
Denial is so much more than the river in Egypt.
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 986
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Why don't we stop the name calling and go back to a reasonable debate OK? BOTH sides of the argument please!
Left it a better place? Hmmmm-
Twice we beat back the Bosch bent on world domination
AT the same time we beat back Japan bent on the same thing at the same time, on the other side of the world bent on our destruction.
It was politicians that dropped the ball since then with the exception if Iraq.
We beat back the Soviet Union, now a shell of its former self bent on domination of peoples of the world. (remember Khrushchev "we will bury you" or
are you not that old?)
Maybe you didn't have "drop and cover " drills in grammar school in anticipation of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union as WE did! WE had to live
with that at a young age.
We went from horse and buggy to landing on celestial bodies in less than 100 years
We have dominated numerous plagues that wiped out untold millions of humans with medicines developed here.
We 66+ beat polio (maybe you didn't worry as a kid about catching it and living the rest of your life in an Iron Lung!) We did!
We moved from horse delivery of mail to the internet where the entire world is but a click away
In my time I've seen the Los Angeles basin go from less than a mile visibility most every day to most every day you can see 30 miles, yes we've made
progress environmentally here in the USA. So much so that the amount of pollution (from mostly cars) was so low compared to what it was in the 50s and
60s that Calif found that lawn mowers were now a larger portion of the over all contributors (cars had cleaned up that much) that they had to be
regulated- a point of diminishing returns!
We in the USA can clean up our act (and we have done so ) but if the rest of the world gets a pass (as they do ) the overall affect worldwide will be
minimal while we here pay the huge price economically.
The "cry" is "save the world" but the rest of the world gets a pass!
What will be the affect on world pollution (percentage) if only we (USA and EU) go total green and the rest don't? Do your research and come back here
and tell us. I suspect you won't do it.
Why do we mandate a 10 year horizon on "guesses" that have proven to be wrong?
Why did we go from "the coming Ice Age in the 50s to "Climate Warming " in the 80s to now 'Climate Change"? Seems we have conveniently changed the
narrative to further a political end game.
Could it be that the narrative was proven wrong and a new title was needed to keep something in the forefront for political means?
Tell me why the name was changed from "Global Warming" to Climate Change"
Yes I think I have proven the hypothesis that the 66+ people have left the country and world in a better place than we got it.
Maybe (its quite possible) the younger generations have never gone through any adversity in their life and have no real reference to life threating
times.
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
40
41
42
43
44
..
122 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
