The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[freebeard]

Are you sure that you want to take the position that this isn't an environmental website?

So you are going to take the weak position that this isn't an environmental website.

Is it the hill you wasnt to die on? My 'position' would be that this is an environmetal thread in a productive hobby website.

I'd like you guys to commit to an argument. Is that the consensus of the four of so climate contrarians?

Okey-dokey, Yogi.

My argument is that the Electric Universe proposition explains things better than Anthropogenic Global Warming.

"for of so"?

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Is it the hill you wasnt to die on? My 'position' would be that this is an environmetal thread in a productive hobby website.

Are you afraid to take a position? Of course this is an environmental website. And you guys post a lot of anti-environmental stuff on this environmental website.

* environmental

Originally Posted by freebeard

My argument is that the Electric Universe proposition explains things better than Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Then clearly state your argument and reasoning for the "Electric Universe" ...
Stating that you have an argument isn't an argument.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

So you are going to take the weak position that this isn't an environmental website. I'd like you guys to commit to an argument.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my impression is that this site's primary focus is fuel economy. The evidence is the forum titles are all related to traveling further on less petrol. Also, the megathread where The Environment was being discussed was shut down. Where are you going with this line of questioning?

Instead of asking endless questions that go nowhere, how about you assert something and then back that assertion with evidence?

Is that the consensus of the four of so climate contrarians?

Again, you'll need to be more specific in defining who the contrarians are, and what they are contrary to.

[freebeard]

* environmental

I miss the vBulletin spell checker too.

Then clearly state your argument and reasoning for the "Electric Universe" ...

In twenty words or less? Please review the 1000+ thread in it's entirety.

Stating that you have an argument isn't an argument.

You're talking in circles. I suggest you follow Suspiccious 0bservers daily, for a while, it might help your understanding. Start here

X Class Flare, BepiColombo, Extreme Electrons | S0 News June.21.2023

If you want to go deeper: The Thunderbolts Project™ - a Voice for the Electric Universe

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I can't speak for anyone else, but my impression is that this site's primary focus is fuel economy. The evidence is the forum titles are all related to traveling further on less petrol. Also, the megathread where The Environment was being discussed was shut down. Where are you going with this line of questioning?

Instead of asking endless questions that go nowhere, how about you assert something and then back that assertion with evidence?

Again, you'll need to be more specific in defining who the contrarians are, and what they are contrary to.

See #1196.

I'll point the obvious out: oil pan 4, redpoint5, freebeard, redneck, and Piotrsko are climate catastrophe contrarians on an environmental website. The 'eco' in 'ecomodder' stands for 'ecological' much more than anything else, based on the evidence of the forum names: Fossil Fuel Free, Alternative Transportation, Aerodynamics, Hypermiling / EcoDriver's Ed, General Efficiency Discussion, among other reasons. Pretty much all of it is geared toward reducing consumption of fossil fuels. Why? Because burning fossil fuels has altered the climate and humans depend on the climate. It's not wise to drastically alter that which we all depend on.

It's in the introduction:

Welcome to EcoModder.com, an automotive community where performance is judged by efficiency and economy rather than power and speed. EcoModders employ a combination of vehicle mods, driving techniques, and common sense to go as far as possible as inexpensively as possible. Reasons for becoming a member range from the economical to the ecological. More info about where EcoModding came from.

It's in the explanation:

See attachment.

Note how it kindly allows for people "on the full spectrum." This website allows climate catastrophe contrarians to take up residence here.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I miss the vBulletin spell checker too.

In twenty words or less? Please review the 1000+ thread in it's entirety.

You're talking in circles. I suggest you follow ... daily, for a while, it might help your understanding. Start here
...
If you want to go deeper: ...

Why do you guys do all of this useless dancing around? I clearly stated two issues when I posted in this thread yesterday. See #1165 and #1166.

#1165: Did you even look at the "tweet" you linked? How did "five years" turn into "seventeen days"?

#1166: I'd like the group to answer why they believe that industrialism, especially the burning of fossil fuels, isn't an environmental problem.

[freebeard]

The 'eco' in 'ecomodder' stands for 'ecological' much more than anything else, based on the evidence of the forum names:

Else 'economical', as you yourself acknowledge.

Why do you guys do all of this useless dancing around?

Lulz

I clearly stated two issues when I posted in this thread, yesterday.

Thanks for highlighting them, it got lost in the name-calling.

#1165: Did you even look at the "tweet" you linked? How did "five years" turn into "seventeen days"?

Time files like an arrow, fruit flies like bananas.

#1166: I'd like the group to answer why they believe that industrialism, especially the burning of fossil fuels, isn't an environmental problem.

The group is mute, individual opinions vary -- to include yours.

I'll point the obvious out: oil pan 4, redpoint5, freebeard, redneck, and Piotrsko are climate catastrophe contrarians on an environmental website. The 'eco' in 'ecomodder' stands for 'ecological' much more than anything else, based on the evidence of the forum names

You left out The Lounge, which is where we are now. "For the way off-topic topics (lighter stuff). No political/religious discussion."

I don't think you get it. Settled science is mockable.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Settled science is mockable.

So you think that it's a good idea to "crash test" the climate we all depend on because "settled science is mockable."

Are you also gravity contrarians?

[freebeard]

Weak.

You guys talk amongst yourselves. I need to go to the credit union.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

See #1196.

I didn't respond to 1165 out of respect; to give you the required time to observe that the Tweet was made in 2018, leaving mere days for the prophecy to occur, or not. Figured you might want to delete that comment once you noticed the error, but you persisted to ask what was obvious to all who gave proper attention to detail.

In 1166, I kindly took the time to explain why the question was poorly constructed, and therefore not really answerable. Clearly, industrial pollution is an environmental consideration, which is why there are regulations and mitigation strategies. I do not deny that pollution requires consideration.

I'll point the obvious out: oil pan 4, redpoint5, freebeard, redneck, and Piotrsko are climate catastrophe contrarians on an environmental website. The 'eco' in 'ecomodder' stands for 'ecological' much more than anything else...

Sayz you.

The site is inclusive of the interpretations of eco, not exclusive. Elsewhere I rank ordered reasons for my interest in "economy".

Save money
Reduce reliance on foreign oil
Innate interest in efficiency
Reduce pollution

I appreciate that you have finally made a sufficiently specific claim that I can respond to. I accept your broad label as a "climate catastrophe contrarian", as most people are. Hardly anyone believes humanity will suffer "catastrophe" within the next few generations due to climate change.

To be clear, I'm not proud to be in the majority opinion or hold that as evidence of the very low probability of catastrophe, it's just that I already have a religion and don't have an interest in any of the contemporary fads.

It's not wise to drastically alter that which we all depend on.

Complete agreement. We rely most heavily on fossil fuels, which is why it would be unwise to drastically alter consumption. Making humanity poorer now would cause death and and suffering immediately, and set back technological progress for the future.

Reasons for becoming a member range from the economical to the ecological.

You bolded that part, not the site. I don't begrudge your personal favorite reason for wanting to spend resources economically.

Note how it kindly allows for people "on the full spectrum." This website allows climate catastrophe contrarians to take up residence here.

Right, and it also allows Gaianists, Christians, Buddhists, Doomsday Profits, Gays, Males, Females, and folks named Bob. Very inclusive.

If there's a point in here, it's lost on me.