Contradictions of Climate Change

The radical politics of climate change have much the same tactic as the radical politics of biblical denial by inverse relationship. As the strength of bible denial by the argument of contradiction rises, the inverse is true of climate change proponents: a growing ignorance of its contradictions. To advance the contradiction, these are not tactics by opposing traditional politics within its own narrow realm; it is practiced by compatriots on the same side of the political progressive/conservative dichotomies: Progrssives.
 
We have been regaled by biblical contradiction. A list is adequately provided by Undefeatable’s current debate with logicae: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3007-utilitarianism-is-a-preferable-moral-foundation-compared-to-the-bible
in which Undefeatable presents this source: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/10/top-20-most-damning-bible-contradictions/
 
Let me introduce that to which Climate Change, in the guise of the IPPC, is apparently ignorant:
 
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=contradictions+of+climate+change&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
 To read, it must be downloaded, [about 16 pages] but there is no restriction to do so. 

I invite its review; and an explanation by climate change proponents. After all, I am repeatedly asked to explain biblical contradiction. The difference is, I do explain. This is often refuted; curiously, by general vilification rather than true debate. I've been called every slur from A to Z. Time for some reciprocation, yeah?

See https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/05/why-ed-berry-is-full-of-shit.html for a rebuttle of  Edwin Berry's work.

There is a lot of good information in the comments also.

I also have a few of my own, regardless of Edwin Berry.

"Climate Change" [by the quoted, I imply that it is a political agenda and not strictly an honest environment-saving effort. In fact, some of these contradicitns havce naught to do with the environment, but appear to be exclusively political motives. For brevity, C.C. is "Climate Change"]

1. In the original Green Party US proposal for the Green New Deal, and what became HR109 in the 116th Congress, there were 5 proposals for initiation of the GND. No 3 was    "Create a Commission for Economic Democracy to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory. We will strengthen democracy via participatory budgeting and institutions that encourage local initiative and democratic decision-making." Such a commission has nothing whatsoever to do with environmental protection or cleansing. Rather, it is an effort by government to control private industry budgeting. Socialism cocktail, anyone? Sorry, we ran out of liquor 6 months ago. [It used to be produced by natgas-heated vats, but... well, you know...]

2. The newly announced [for President Biden, but certainly not a new idea] to eliminate petroleum-based engines of all types in favor of electric-powered engines ignores that the electric engines still contain component parts made of plastic - a petroleum-based material. Worse, all electric engines have moving parts, all of which require lubrication, all of which is derived from petroleum. It seems AlGore has fallen down on producing AlGore Gooey Juice as a lubricant replacement, and, until that threshold is crossed by green technology, the aim to achieve net-zero is defeated.

2b. Let's not ignore that currently, electric power is currently sourced by a variety of fossil fuels. Fully 60% of electric power is sourced by fossil fuels. Is that source to be completely replaced by "green energy" within the deadline set by the Paris Accord, including the need to replace the necessities in item 2; plastic components and a green lubrication fluid? By the way, also currently, strict green energy provides 6% of all power to the energy grid. Some net-zero.

2c. Which current electric-powered engine supplies the necessary torque to power engines operating large equipment, including train engines and aircraft engines, with the same efficiency of petroleum-powered engines? Currently, which electric-powere engine company produces an engine capable of that torque? 

3. The most effective and proven efficient renewable-energy-source device in current production with very capable replacement of residential, and some commercial enterprise power source - solar panels, currently contain many plastic components, sharing that issue with engines. The need for AlGore Gooey Juice increases exponentially. Where is it?

4 The batteries that are to solve the current kick-back of energy to the power grid rather than retaining power at the power-use site [residential and commercial] for energy storage for use during half of a 24-hour period during which there is no "solar" are: a] inefficient, b] excessively expensive with a poor storage/efficiency curve, [ d] contain petroleum-based plastic components [AlGoreGooey Juice, where the hell are you?!].  The same issue applies to electric-powered vehicle and equipment engines.

5. All current energy-producing turbines, even those claimed to be green energy-sourced, use... guess what? fossil fuel-sourced lubricants and plastic components, so how green-sourced are they, really? We're talking hydro-, geothermal, wind, and, to some degree, industrial-use solar energies. Dammit, where is AlGore Gooey Juice????

6. Shall we talk about the use of petroleum-based-plastics in virtually every human endeavor from agriculture to zoology? Net-zero? Don't make me https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&sxsrf=ALeKk00tgmu4_03yHbKWD5BCJf7vYgiB8Q:1619319907703&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=image+cartoon+of+laughing+man&client=safari&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZ_IDftJjwAhUDNH0KHQzJB8AQjJkEegQIBRAB&biw=1665&bih=897

Have an AlGore Gooey Juice cocktail, on the house? Sorry, fresh out.

These issues are swept under the rug to avoid discussion of the contradictions they present to the GND, and its salivating proponents seeking the end of petroleum use.

I failed to decipher most of what you said in the OP but nevertheless, I would strongly discourage anybody from starting up side commentary/debate/discussion in reference to active debates.  Lets let debaters have their contests with as little outside bias as possible.  I'm not saying that there ought to be a law or anything, I just think everybody deserves a clean shot.

It was not my purpose to enter a side-debate; otherwise, I would have challenged a debate. Debate and forum serve entirely different purposes in my book. I am not arguing against biblical contradictions; I acknowledge they exist, and, in the debate to which I refer, they are presented as a perfectly salient argument. but having such a specific list triggered the thought that many of the same types who not only acknowledge, but argue the legitimacy of such a list seem to ignore that there is a common type of listing that exists with climate change. That dichotomy is my interest, whareas that debate has naught to do with climate change.

Climate change, does.

And trends do.

And causes are.

And concerns are relative.

And contradictions abound

And statistics always fit the bill.

To be clear, "net-zero" does not mean that no carbon emissions should be produced at all. It means that the ratio of carbon emissions to carbon absorption should be 1:1. It is acknowledged that petroleum-based products play an important role in our society, so the goal is to reduce the use where it can be while mitigating the impacts of where it cannot.

All that is understood. I know net zero is a ratio. So, why the demand that all petroleum uses be eliminated? Because, like the rest of the GND, net-zero is, as well, an agenda, and not hard science.

Who is demanding that *all* petroleum uses be eliminated? I'm aware of the push towards "green" energy sources and phasing out other forms of energy sources. However that is not of course equivalent to eliminating all petroleum uses.

Sorry, but words mean things, and you cannot gerrymander words to mean whatever the hell you want then to say. 

According to the OED: Phase-out, n,  "A gradual removal; a phased elimination."

Joe Biden: "We are going to get rid of fossil fuels."  [2/28/2020] https://www.atr.org/joe-biden-we-are-going-get-rid-fossil-fuels

Joe Biden: [10/23/2020] “I would transition away from the oil industry, yes,” Biden said in the presidential debate’s closing minutes under peppering from Trump. “The oil industry pollutes, significantly. ... It has to be replaced by renewable energy over time.”  [Actually, petroleum is a renewable energy source because the Earth keeps making the stuff and it will continue to make until life on Earth ends. But, your ilk does not want to acknowledge that, so strike it if that is your preferred word-gerrymander.

The context seems to be in reference to fossil fuels as direct sources of energy rather than the indirect use cases referenced in post 3

So, even if we excuse the plastics issue, all of it still employs lubrication of machinery parts, whether engines, or not, and the only lubrication agent available for industry or residentially is fossil fuel-based, and will continue to be sourced as such until you have AlGore Gooey Juice. But I have cited just Biden [you want more?] that fossil fuels are to be eliminated, not just reduced. Yes, the idiot said, and repeated it, so one should admit that he has not denied it [although he's done that,  too.] So, in the end, you have a proponent that does not have his own mind. I think that's a more serious problem we face than the potential that we are on a path of near-future extinction.

I feel like we're retreading old ground. This has no bearing on what the green new deal proposes.

Personally I don't take much stock into hyperbolic statements said in the moment, even if I were to believe they were to apply to all fossil fuel products. I believe since then his position has been refined into something that is more agreeable to you so this point seems to be moot.

You asked. Regretting that, now? Yes, I agree; the point is moot. Give it up. I have; in fact, I never had it.

The context must include lubrication, at least in engines of every sort, even electric, because combustion [not being 100% efficient] in each cylinder burns oil which gaseous remains go out the tailpipe and.. well, you know where it goes. So the context is inclusive, isn't it? See, you don't even realize what your enemy is, and the scope it entails? How2 you ever gonna win, man? While you're reading, read The Art of War.

Personally, I prefer to assure just what is hyperbolic, what is hypershyte, and just what gets us into trouble by confusing what we don't know with what we know for sure that just ain't so - a favorite quotation from Mark Twain that AlGore loved to offer, and didn't understand, himself..