3 ms·

There's an extremely large body of literature and multiple fields of study that have voluminously documented this. Books, podcasts, journals, news articles, con

There's an extremely large body of literature and multiple fields of study that have voluminously documented this. Books, podcasts, journals, news articles, congressional records, caselaw, websites, documentaries, museums, conferences spanning decades, hundreds of billions in investments, countless hours of lectures, multiple fortune 500 companies, entire university departments... Your personal enrichment isn't my responsibility and I feel as much obligation to defend this body of work as I have to defend Maxwell's equations or the Pythagorean theorem - that's kinda on you at this point. You're free to be a crank and I'm free to decline to engage. I do however, wish you success in your pursuit.

nradov 4y ago
Now you're just making things up. None of that body of literature proposes an economically viable approach for replacing fossil fuels used as chemical feedstock. Hydrocarbon synthesis is technically possible and has been done on a small scale, but no one has ever proposed a realistic plan for doing it the level needed.
- kristopolous 4y ago
  I literally copied and pasted your objection into Google and got thousands of results from places like the world economic forum, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, IEA, and that's just page 1. Your objection is equivalent to saying in 1998, "LCD panels don't currently constitute 75% of the market so it's unfeasible that it will ever occupy that position" or in 2005, "nobody has demonstrated large scale rollout of 3G networks so landlines aren't going away" This style of argument is the same creationists use when they point to something like blood clotting and say "aha, there isn't yet evolutionary evidence for this so therefore Jesus!" And then evolutionary evidence came forth and they gish galloped onward to the next goalpost. So, #1, golf clap for that rhetorical gambit and #2, please excuse me for ending this here.

nradov 4y ago

Now you're just making things up. None of that body of literature proposes an economically viable approach for replacing fossil fuels used as chemical feedstock. Hydrocarbon synthesis is technically possible and has been done on a small scale, but no one has ever proposed a realistic plan for doing it the level needed.

kristopolous 4y ago
I literally copied and pasted your objection into Google and got thousands of results from places like the world economic forum, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, IEA, and that's just page 1. Your objection is equivalent to saying in 1998, "LCD panels don't currently constitute 75% of the market so it's unfeasible that it will ever occupy that position" or in 2005, "nobody has demonstrated large scale rollout of 3G networks so landlines aren't going away" This style of argument is the same creationists use when they point to something like blood clotting and say "aha, there isn't yet evolutionary evidence for this so therefore Jesus!" And then evolutionary evidence came forth and they gish galloped onward to the next goalpost. So, #1, golf clap for that rhetorical gambit and #2, please excuse me for ending this here.