Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9102 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,721 Year: 1,602/14,231 Month: 526/1,076 Week: 259/376 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Winter: Baby, It's Cold Outside!
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 31 of 114 (904400)
12-28-2022 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taq
12-28-2022 10:46 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Here is the actual change in global temps:
The earth's population has risen significantly, which correlates pretty well with these charts that show rising temperatures. Why do we blame fossil fuels for what increased population is causing? Increased population uses more fossil fuels naturally. To eat and keep warm. Should we not permit today's population to do that?
Some people don't believe the Earth is round. Reality has this strange way of not caring what we believe.
Your dream that humans have the power to change back the temperature of the planet that you believe they caused to rise in the first place isn't reality.
The fact is that we are changing the climate due to our production of greenhouse gases.
Due to 8 billion people selfishly desiring to eat and keep warm. Who should be denied the ability to do this?
You don't have to be jealous or hateful to understand what the consequences are of burning fossil fuels. Again, you are dreaming up fantasies.
What are the consequences of NOT using fossil fuels, when there are, as of yet, no alternatives?
marc9000 writes:
More than when? Are new records being set? I haven't noticed the mainstream media trumpeting that. And it's certain they would if they could. A lot of records were set before fossil fuels were being used to anywhere near the extent they are today.

Proclaiming your ignorance does nothing to change reality.
You have a strange way of conceding points. So you can't name any new specific records being set? Not your copy/pasted charts, but actual temperature records.
marc9000 writes:
...ACTION on climate change (destroying / taking control of free markets, and/or the stripping of money and freedoms from the public to dispel their fears of WARMING) is what Democrats long to do.

Examples?
You provided one example.
quote:
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels?
Laws to prohibit some people, (people with no political influence) from buying a product that they want / need. Here's another;
Repairing Your Car in Your Own Garage Is Considered Illegal in Sacramento, California
Ever sit in an auto emissions testing line? The worst polluting car in the world, that its owner was denied the use of to feed his family, didn't put out a fraction of carbon emissions as does John Kerry's private jet.
Fission comes to mind. 80% of the electricity in France is produced by nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power? The power source that Democrats have fought tooth and nail against for decades?
They don't seem to believe in basic physics, either. Again, why do you think beliefs will change reality?
Again, it's not reality to believe that human tyrants can reverse rising temperatures of the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 12-28-2022 10:46 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 12-29-2022 11:07 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 32 of 114 (904401)
12-28-2022 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by nwr
12-28-2022 9:22 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Right wingers are the primary users of scare tactics.
What scare tactics are those? The threats that tyrants can impose, with history loaded with examples?
Nevertheless, refrigerators produce heat.
When does heat produce cold?
marc9000 writes:
That was part of the reason for the lack of preparedness for the cold wave.

Do you have any actual evidence to support this claim? Or are you just making it up as one of your own political scare tactics?
You would have to have watched the news, I can't recap it all for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 12-28-2022 9:22 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 12-28-2022 10:25 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 12-29-2022 7:26 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 12-29-2022 11:42 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6244
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(5)
Message 33 of 114 (904402)
12-28-2022 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by marc9000
12-28-2022 9:42 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
When does heat produce cold?
Refrigerators do that. It's all part of thermodynamics.
Do you have any actual evidence to support this claim? Or are you just making it up as one of your own political scare tactics?
You would have to have watched the news, I can't recap it all for you.
I'll take that as an admission that you do not have actual evidence.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 9:42 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by marc9000, posted 01-01-2023 4:25 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17111
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 34 of 114 (904406)
12-29-2022 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by marc9000
12-28-2022 9:42 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
nwr writes:
Right wingers are the primary users of scare tactics.
Thus far, *we* the people have no definite gauge as to who employs scare tactics and who (which ideology in power at the moment) actually *does* scary things. I have rightly been accused of listening to You Tube videos which themselves are often sensationalist. Without dragging this topic (another Climate Change/Global warming one?) off, I will redirect this rabbit trail here.
marc9000, I want your opinion, but lets discuss it over in Testing The Financial Apologists. Message 128

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 9:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Taq, posted 12-29-2022 11:09 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9323
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 35 of 114 (904424)
12-29-2022 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by marc9000
12-28-2022 9:31 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
The earth's population has risen significantly, which correlates pretty well with these charts that show rising temperatures. Why do we blame fossil fuels for what increased population is causing?
People aren't greenhouse gases, last I checked. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. People are burning fossil fuels, and guess what that produces? Carbon dioxide.
Here is a chart of historic atmospheric carbon dioxide levels:
Notice how carbon dioxide naturally bounces between 180 and 280 ppm? Those are the natural ups and downs caused by the Milankovitch cycles:
https://climate.nasa.gov/...and-their-role-in-earths-climate
Notice how we are now at above 400 ppm? Do you think it's just a coincidence that we are >40% above natural levels at the same time we are dumping gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
Most of all, how do we know that the increase is due to fossil fuels? Because of the carbon isotopes. Fossil fuels come from life, and life ultimate derives its carbon from photosynthesis. This process favors the lighter 12C isotope over 13C, and the carbon captured has higher 12C that abiotic carbon dioxide. What do we see in the increase in carbon dioxide? We see a dip in 13C, the same isotope signature seen in fossil fuels.
And if you are thinking that the carbon dioxide's impact on capturing heat is just some recent hippy trend, think again. Svante Arrhenius was the one of the first to calculate the impact on heat capture by atmospheric carbon dioxide clear back in 1896. Let me repeat. 1896. You can read the paper here:
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
His rough calculations predicted a 4C increase in global temps for each doubling of carbon dioxide concentration. We are almost at a 50% increase, and Arrhenius' calculations have been improved since the late 19th century.
Your dream that humans have the power to change back the temperature of the planet that you believe they caused to rise in the first place isn't reality.
It's a reality. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Humans are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere. That captures more heat. It's just a fact.
Due to 8 billion people selfishly desiring to eat and keep warm. Who should be denied the ability to do this?
I'm not saying they should be denied the ability to eat and keep warm. The obvious solution is to find alternate energy sources that are affordable and dependable.
What are the consequences of NOT using fossil fuels, when there are, as of yet, no alternatives?
There are alternatives. Fission for one.
You have a strange way of conceding points. So you can't name any new specific records being set?
Yes. We have new records for carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. New records for global temps. Do you deny these?
CO2 Records
quote:
Nineteen of the hottest years have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2020 tied with 2016 for the hottest year on record since recordkeeping began in 1880 (source: NASA/GISS).
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
You provided one example.
I am not the one claiming Democrats are trying to take control of all these things. That is your claim. Show me an example.
Laws to prohibit some people, (people with no political influence) from buying a product that they want / need. Here's another;

Repairing Your Car in Your Own Garage Is Considered Illegal in Sacramento, California
That has nothing to do with fossil fuels.
Ever sit in an auto emissions testing line? The worst polluting car in the world, that its owner was denied the use of to feed his family, didn't put out a fraction of carbon emissions as does John Kerry's private jet.
That's about air pollution, not fossil fuel use. I guess you weren't aware of how bad air quality was before these measures were put in place? This is what the air in LA looked like before these types of measures were put in place:
Nuclear power? The power source that Democrats have fought tooth and nail against for decades?
If Democrats are against it you should be all for it, right? How is fission power not an alternative?
Again, it's not reality to believe that human tyrants can reverse rising temperatures of the planet.
Sorry, but facts demonstrate otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 9:31 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by marc9000, posted 12-29-2022 9:49 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9323
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 36 of 114 (904425)
12-29-2022 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phat
12-29-2022 7:26 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Phat writes:
Thus far, *we* the people have no definite gauge as to who employs scare tactics and who (which ideology in power at the moment) actually *does* scary things.
Trying to stop the transfer of power and basic constitutional processes in an insurrection is pretty scary. Trying to claim that the Vice President can throw out a fair election and just appoint someone to be US President is pretty scary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 12-29-2022 7:26 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9323
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(3)
Message 37 of 114 (904426)
12-29-2022 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by marc9000
12-28-2022 9:42 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
When does heat produce cold?
Global warming interrupts the stratospheric polar vortex which allows storms to roll down from the arctic into the middle latittudes.
Just a moment...
The air was already cold because its the freaking arctic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 9:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1343
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(2)
Message 38 of 114 (904433)
12-29-2022 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Taq
12-29-2022 11:07 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
The earth's population has risen significantly, which correlates pretty well with these charts that show rising temperatures. Why do we blame fossil fuels for what increased population is causing?

People aren't greenhouse gases, last I checked. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. People are burning fossil fuels, and guess what that produces? Carbon dioxide.
People aren't greenhouse gases, correct, but the more people there are in existence, the more fossil fuels have be burnt to basically sustain their lives. Also, people exhale carbon dioxide.
His rough calculations predicted a 4C increase in global temps for each doubling of carbon dioxide concentration. We are almost at a 50% increase, and Arrhenius' calculations have been improved since the late 19th century.
I realize the existence of all these scientific talking points. But not once was the word "laws" mentioned. I don't have time to read your links, but if the word "laws" is in there anywhere, direct me to that specific content and we'll discuss it.
marc9000 writes:
Your dream that humans have the power to change back the temperature of the planet that you believe they caused to rise in the first place isn't reality.

It's a reality. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Humans are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere. That captures more heat. It's just a fact.
The words "carbon dioxide" or "greenhouse gas" weren't in my above statement. The phrase "power to change" were the key words. That's POLITICS, not reality.
I'm not saying they should be denied the ability to eat and keep warm. The obvious solution is to find alternate energy sources that are affordable and dependable.
Free markets can do that, laws cannot. Alternate energy sources are nowhere near ready yet. We can't discontinue fossil fuels until new sources are found, and proven. 2 years ago, Texas didn't have them proven well enough, and paid a big price.
There are alternatives. Fission for one.
Oil is a substance. It's a lubricant, it's needed in the manufacture of rubber and plastic products, and has many other uses, it's not only burned for energy. Nuclear and fission and all of that are just energy, not physical substances.
Yes. We have new records for carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. New records for global temps. Do you deny these?
I was thinking more of local records. Temps in the U.S. They're more realistic and verifiable by the public, than are global temperatures claimed by a special interest.
I am not the one claiming Democrats are trying to take control of all these things. That is your claim.
Sorry, it really is your claim. Here is your quote;
quote:
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels? Why won't this help?
I responded like this;
quote:
What kind of laws would you suggest?
and;
quote:
What is your suggestion for fossil fuel regulation laws that would keep them from becoming rampantly corrupt?
No response from you.
quote:
HEADLINE; Repairing Your Car in Your Own Garage Is Considered Illegal in Sacramento, California

​That has nothing to do with fossil fuels.
But it has something to do with LAWS.
marc9000 writes:
Ever sit in an auto emissions testing line? The worst polluting car in the world, that its owner was denied the use of to feed his family, didn't put out a fraction of carbon emissions as does John Kerry's private jet.

That's about air pollution, not fossil fuel use.
Cars burn fossil fuel, which emit carbon dioxide. Air pollution consists largely of carbon dioxide. Same with jets.
marc9000 writes:
Nuclear power? The power source that Democrats have fought tooth and nail against for decades?

If Democrats are against it you should be all for it, right? How is fission power not an alternative?
I am for it, always have been. Fission power isn't a complete alternative, because it's not a substance, it can't lubricate, plastics and rubber products can't be manufactured with it.
marc9000 writes:
Again, it's not reality to believe that human tyrants can reverse rising temperatures of the planet.

Sorry, but facts demonstrate otherwise.
The term "fact" doesn't apply to future reversals, especially political projections.
Fossil fuels are used for a wide variety of purposes. If climate change alarmism was anything more than a power grab by one political party, the way to analyze it and deal with would have gone down a much different path decades ago. If fossil fuel use must be reduced, the common sense thing to have started on decades ago would have been to catagorize its different uses. Two main catagories, with probably dozens of sub-catagories. The main two; ESSENTIAL versus NON-ESSENTIAL, or RECREATIONAL. It should have been discussed and reported publicly, with local politics, news reports, and polls. It would have taken years, and there would never be a perfect consensus on it of course, but a lot could be learned. For all we know it could have happened or be happening behind closed doors, by politicians and high level business owners, many of whom would own private jets. The reason I say the public should be involved is because while executives could believe that private jets are very essential, the public might not have that same opinion. Isn't democracy important to Democrats? Here are a very few examples;
ESSENTIAL;
*Fuel for tractor trailers that haul food.
*Fuel for farm equipment
*Fuel to heat buildings
*Fuel to build and repair roads
*Oil that's required to make all kinds of plastic products, rubber products, building materials.
*Oil for mining machinery fuels
Barely scratching the surface, but you get the idea. Now for
NON-ESSENTIAL;
*Pleasure boats, from the biggest cruise ships to the tiniest fishing boats
*All forms of auto racing
*All forms of transportation to sporting events
*Oil that's required for the manufacture of non-essential items, toys, sporting goods, the making of movies and entertainment shows.
Again, the tiniest of starts, but when you talk about laws, wouldn't picking and choosing very carefully from the fossil fuel use varieties, and making laws against only what would be deemed non-essential for the most people make logical sense?
Non-essential fossil fuel use is probably at an all time high in this day and age, considering the ever increasing population, and ever increasing number of toys and gadgets that use it.
Why do you suppose studies like this have never been done, or at least never been made public? I suppose they never have because climate change alarmists like recreational use of fossil fuels as much as anyone, and don't plan to have laws made against what they like. Climate change is ALWAYS about finger pointing.
I'll have more to say following your next response. But if you don't address the "law" idea that YOU brought up, then we're about finished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 12-29-2022 11:07 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 12-29-2022 11:45 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 43 by Taq, posted 12-30-2022 11:04 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 46 by xongsmith, posted 12-30-2022 4:25 PM marc9000 has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 8140
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 39 of 114 (904434)
12-29-2022 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by marc9000
12-29-2022 9:49 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
You have just proven you are an idiot. What laws are you yammering about?

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by marc9000, posted 12-29-2022 9:49 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 12-30-2022 1:33 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17111
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


(1)
Message 40 of 114 (904435)
12-30-2022 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Theodoric
12-29-2022 11:45 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Theo,addressing marc9000 writes:
You have just proven you are an idiot. What laws are you yammering about?
It seems to me that he is calling out a Democratic government for passing laws for the all-inclusive "good of the people." In short, an authoritarian government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 12-29-2022 11:45 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 12-30-2022 3:14 AM Phat has replied
 Message 42 by Taq, posted 12-30-2022 10:50 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 01-01-2023 4:37 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5563
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(4)
Message 41 of 114 (904436)
12-30-2022 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
12-30-2022 1:33 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
In short, an authoritarian government.
WHAT??? YOU STILL HAVE NOT YET READ The Authoritarians??????????????
You still have no fucking clue what authoritarianism even is?
DO YOUR FUCKING HOMEWORK, YOU IDIOT!!
It really is an easy and interesting read. So read it already! (Uh! Sorry! Too Jewish for your right-wing-assholetarian taste?)
Bob Altemeyer constructed a Right-Wing Authoritarian (RWA) spectrum with sets of survey questions to place an individual on that scale. Also, "right wing" has nothing to do with politics, since even an extreme left-wing mentality could score high on the RWA scale.
High-RWAs react to strong negative emotions of fear and hatred. They fall immediately into lock-step with any cause that identifies itself as theirs. Their mentality is very strongly them-versus-us, which plays very heavily on casting "the others" as threats (eg, the endless "culture wars" that the Right keeps fabricating). If a leader presents himself as believing in the same things that high-RWAs believe, then they immediately accept that leader.
Low-RWAs actually think about things, which makes them harder to organize -- for imagery, just think of trying to herd cats as opposed to the high-RWA sheeple. If you tell low-RWAs that you believe the same things they do, then they will not believe you and will invariably question you.
Read the fucking book, you idiot!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 12-30-2022 1:33 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by marc9000, posted 01-01-2023 4:32 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 01-02-2023 8:16 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9323
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 42 of 114 (904464)
12-30-2022 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
12-30-2022 1:33 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Phat writes:
It seems to me that he is calling out a Democratic government for passing laws for the all-inclusive "good of the people." In short, an authoritarian government.
That's not what an authoritarian government is. The fact we have free and fair elections means it isn't an authoritarian government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 12-30-2022 1:33 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9323
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 43 of 114 (904467)
12-30-2022 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by marc9000
12-29-2022 9:49 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
People aren't greenhouse gases, correct, but the more people there are in existence, the more fossil fuels have be burnt to basically sustain their lives.
There is no physical law that says we have to get our energy from fossil fuels.
Also, people exhale carbon dioxide.
People eat food, not fossil fuels. This means carbon is captured to produce our people fuel, making people carbon neutral.
I realize the existence of all these scientific talking points. But not once was the word "laws" mentioned. I don't have time to read your links, but if the word "laws" is in there anywhere, direct me to that specific content and we'll discuss it.
Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the science go away.
The words "carbon dioxide" or "greenhouse gas" weren't in my above statement. The phrase "power to change" were the key words. That's POLITICS, not reality.
The first step is realizing the facts, which you refuse to do.
Free markets can do that, laws cannot. Alternate energy sources are nowhere near ready yet.
80% of France's electricity is made with fission power. It's here and ready.
Oil is a substance. It's a lubricant, it's needed in the manufacture of rubber and plastic products, and has many other uses, it's not only burned for energy. Nuclear and fission and all of that are just energy, not physical substances.
You hit all of the branches on the stupid tree when you fell out of it.
BURNING FOSSIL FUELS IS THE PROBLEM? Understand?
The fission of uranium is a very real thing. It releases high energy photons and particles which can heat water. That hot water can turn into steam and drive turbines. Spinning turbines produce electricity. This really exists, and it works. Do you really think denying the existence of nuclear power plants makes you look good?
I was thinking more of local records. Temps in the U.S. They're more realistic and verifiable by the public, than are global temperatures claimed by a special interest.
I was thinking more of reality.
No response from you.
The incentives for buying electric cars is a great example. Subsidies for nuclear power plants would be a great idea. Subsidies for solar and wind would also be great.
Cars burn fossil fuel, which emit carbon dioxide. Air pollution consists largely of carbon dioxide. Same with jets.
Air pollution consists largely of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and various hydrocarbons. That's why cars have catalytic converters, to try and get rid of these pollutants. This is also why emission testing exists, to make sure vehicles aren't releasing too much of these pollutants.
The term "fact" doesn't apply to future reversals, especially political projections.
Yes, it does. If we stop burning fossil fuels then the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will go down and global warming will be reduced. Those are facts.
If climate change alarmism was anything more than a power grab by one political party, the way to analyze it and deal with would have gone down a much different path decades ago.
So says the person who refuses to look at the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by marc9000, posted 12-29-2022 9:49 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 01-02-2023 8:41 AM Taq has not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 44 of 114 (904470)
12-30-2022 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by marc9000
12-28-2022 8:56 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
Fossil fuels are voluntarily purchased by people who desire to have them.
So are drugs.
So are explosives.
So are poison gases.
marc9000 writes:
What kind of laws would you suggest?
Legislators have already suggested them, already debated them and already passed them.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 8:56 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 01-01-2023 4:39 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 45 of 114 (904471)
12-30-2022 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by marc9000
12-28-2022 8:41 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
A lot of people don't immediately understand how warming can mean cooling. That was part of the reason for the lack of preparedness for the cold wave.
We have a running joke in Canada: Whenever there's a flake of snow, Americans die like flies.
It's been going on for years, long before global warming was thought of. The United States should be called the Unprepared States.
marc9000 writes:
That was the reason for my entering this thread and getting called names.
Pointing out that a fat man is fat is not name-calling. Pointing out that an idiot is an idiot is not name-calling.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 8:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023