Home | About | Donate

Despite Poll Showing Aggressive Climate Action a Winning Issue, Biden Boasts 'I Am Not Banning Fracking'

Again what science are the actions of climate mobilization based on? Please produce your scientific evidence…

I’ve only been asking for a year and you’ve yet to provide anything resembling scientific material.

You disregard the IPCC, yet fail to provide any data or scientific material which supports your claims.

YOU responded to my comment and thus revamped this conversation. I didn’t go after you. Now in the last 5 comments I’ve made I’ve asked you in nearly every single one to provide evidence - again you refuse to do so.

I didn’t start the old discussion again; I responded to your new falsehood about geothermal. You then started up with the things you always do–straw people distortions, distractions, irrelevancies, impossible expectations, etc. so you could distract from the spuriousness of your arguments. You want proof that we can build what we need in 10 years or you claim (or imply) we shouldn’t try. That’s insane. You asked for Plan B, implying that any plan would be invalid or wouldn’t be worth doing without one. Plan B is obviously that we do it in 10 years and 1 month, Plan C is 10 years and 2 months… It’s a literally incredibly stupid question about something we HAVE TO DO. (I’ve linked repeatedly to evidence for that.)

And it’s obvious we can do it based on numerous estimations of the percent of global GDP it would take (all under 3%) for decades-long efforts.[1] Even using 10% of GDP wouldn’t be any more than WWII took, and might mean at the most a small sacrifice by the very rich. (Or a big sacrifice by the very poor if we don’t change our economic system.) You want the equivalence of pre-WWII proof that England and the US would win. That’s not just ridiculous, it’s despicably dishonest. The fallacy of impossible expectations is a common technique used by climate denying delayalist trolls and anti-renewable fanatics.

In the end I had no intention to come back to the conversation about whether we could do it or not because we obviously can, we obviously have to, and because you’re nothing but a denying delayalist troll whose opinions don’t matter and whose tactics make a real conversation impossible.

In the end you’re using a meta-Gish gallop to try to create doubt–Type 2 Whataboutery, or endless false questions that fail to land but are just meant to create doubt. The infinite regression deception is meant to keep anyone from realizing the questions are bogus. T2W is like climate-denying delayalists’ belief in climate science as a house of cards they could bring down by creating the appearance of doubt in some aspect(s) of the evidence. I’ve run across it in hundreds of ARFs.

Your arguments have from the start been garbage dressed up in citations that mean nothing applied to this discussion. (Italicized so I wouldn’t have to put up with your inevitable distortion of that bit.) I stopped caring long ago whether you believed any of it or would be honest or sane enough to give up the attacks, and then I stopped arguing because I’m sure there was no one left reading–and I had better things to do. Then you made new false claims on a new discussion with new people who might be misled by your ARFism.

You may or may not be doing all this deception consciously; it doesn’t matter. You’re either lying to yourself or to all of us. You should find a way to stop.

[1] and more than a decade of my research into false claims by Anti-Renewable Fanatics about supply chains, technology, etc.

Now we are at 6 consecutive comments where you have AGAIN failed to provide any evidence of scientific sources that support your arguments…

I’ve provided that any number of times. You ignored it.
And we’re at even more than that where you’ve refused to argue honestly. Your tactics make reasonable discussion impossible. I’ve repeatedly pointed them out and once you were trapped and couldn’t deny it any more, you’ve just moved on to other arguments and ignored being caught in your lies. Until you agree to do that, while I’ll continue to correct your deceptions, I won’t discuss anything with you but your need to stop all the deceptive tactics.

And now we’re at 7 consecutive comments where you have AGAIN failed to provide any evidence of scientific sources that support your arguments…

No, we’re at 0. I provided all the evidence a reasonable human would need a long time ago, including a bunch of studies I linked to repeatedly that you’ve completely ignored—because it interfered with your rantasy, I guess. And it’s far more than 7 that you’ve used dishonest and manipulative tactics. You can and no doubt will keep pulling your petty nonsense, unconsciously hoping you’re not wrong; it’s about all you’ve ever done. I do hope you come around to reality before too long; it will ease your mind.

And now we’re at 8 consecutive comments where you have AGAIN failed to provide any evidence of scientific sources that support your arguments…

Have you seen discussions like ~https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2013/07/16/is-fracking-for-enhanced-geothermal-systems-the-same-as-fracking-for-natural-gas/ before? When I looked at geothermal before I didn’t see this 2013 article. I imagine there are more recent developments. That article seemed to highlight some differences in the process which could reduce the chemical contamination and earthquake incidence.

Forgetting about your debate, what is your general assessment of the main components of low to zero carbon energy besides nuclear (or comment there if you want but I’ve read enough of your posts to get a feel on that one). So among geothermal, hydro (including Jacobson’s idea of massively increasing peak power capacity at existing dams along with big changes in hourly flow rates), normal wind, off shore wind, PV, solar thermal, tidal, biomass (am I missing anything?), give as a quick take if you aren’t too busy. Or perhaps you are very bullish on carbon capture at the point of electrical production for fossil fuels (which will run out eventually but maybe we figure out other solutions before that happens). I have to admit I’ve been successfully propagandized to be very skeptical on those efforts but I can change my mind as I have with fission which I used to be like @Trog used to be - completely opposed. Now I’m pretty open to Gen IV designs for possible rollout.

1 Like

PSwanee is lying.

S/he also wants scientific proof of future events. Which of course is impossible.

See my previous comment.

No I’ve been asking for scientific analysis, which amazingly all of these sources are able to provide:





Yet you’re not willing to… Now we are at 9 consecutive comments where you have AGAIN failed to provide any evidence of scientific sources that support your arguments…

So I have seen articles like this in the past and it is accurate that EGS does not present the same environmental risk conditions as all cases of hydraulic fracturing. However, while some companies do implement stringent safety measures these are not legally binding for the industry, and thus the procedures and materials used to induce slipping can vary from widely.

Additionally the claim that the pressure used to induce slippling does not exceed 2,000 PSI is disingenuous in my opinion as the pressure would be dependent on the strata that the EGS well is being used in and there are definitely areas of rock in areas of known geothermal wells in the USA that from personal experience have exceeded strengths of 10,000 PSI (granted the drilling applications I’ve been involved with are very different from EGS as well as the depths of penetration).

1 Like