"When they show coal burning, you treat them as gospel. When they show clean-energy expansion, you dismiss them as propaganda."

You're becoming increasing deranged here JD. I only mentioned coal as being part of the reason for their high emission. But I didn't treat those numbers as gospel. I specifically said they were probably wrong and understated. So not gospel. And I made no comment on the accuracy of their claims about renewables.

Try again.

Laughingly I point out that you offered no sources for your history claims and you assert that your assertions are the source. Sorry but that doesn't work.

That’s exactly the dodge I called out, mhaze.

//I only mentioned coal as being part of the reason for their high emission. But I didn't treat those numbers as gospel. I specifically said they were probably wrong and understated. So not gospel.//

“Probably wrong" and "understated” means you’ll only ever accept coal numbers as too low, never too high. That’s treating them as directionally reliable, which is the same thing as taking them as gospel when they suit you.

//And I made no comment on the accuracy of their claims about renewables.//

You didn’t nitpick decimals, but you dismissed the whole picture as a “fable.” That’s not silence, that’s rejection. Coal can only be “real or worse,” renewables can only be “illusory.” That’s the selective trust I pointed out.

//Laughingly I point out that you offered no sources for your history claims and you assert that your assertions are the source. Sorry but that doesn't work.//

This is pure hand-waving.

Unless you’re seriously saying Athens didn’t have slaves, Rome didn’t have emperors, or the West didn’t live under monarchs and fascists, then those aren’t “assertions.” They’re facts.

Your “no source” line is just another shell game to avoid engaging with them.

It's not looking like strategic detachment is a winner.

"you’ll only ever accept coal numbers as too low, never too high. "

But I never mentioned coal numbers. I was talking about emissions - CO2e. Yet as we've seen in the past, now that you've made this error, you'll defend it to the end and then sadly think you've prevailed. What a dill.

"Your “no source” line is just another shell game to avoid engaging with them."

You wanted me to show counter-sources, IMPLYING (/smile) that you'd provided sources. I'm just having fun pointing out that you have not provided such sources.

Athens etc....
I've had this argument so many times over the years with dills who think that pointing out Athens had slaves is a killer blow. So I really don't want to get too far down that rabbit hole again.

Still. Yes Athens had slaves. Lots in fact. Maybe as many as one-third of the population around 431BC were slaves. So yes, slaves. As did every other nation, city, polity and group on the planet at the time. And not just at that time but throughout all recorded history and probably before then, right up to the recent age of western dominance. Athens showed the world a society where every citizen was sacrosanct and had rights, even though not all inhabitants were citizens. And Rome and the west inherited that and built on it.

And yes, Rome had emperors and slaves. And yes, Middle Ages Europe had feudalism and born to rule kings. All true...and all utterly irrelevant as regards the point I and CM made. Being that the west is the fount of human freedom that the east doesn't understand.

Because while Athens and Rome and the Holy Roman Empire were flawed (and I look forward to you telling which society wasn't flawed) they were also the protectors of the gifts of western thought.

Ask why democracy is a western concept that only ever occurred organically in the west. Why human rights arose in the west. Why women's rights arose in the west. The Magna Carta. The Declaration of the Rights of Man. Why the notion of anti-slavery came from the west. These all came as gifts to the west from Athens and Rome and Christianity and while they were suppressed for large periods of time, they were still at the essence of the west.

We've had the discussion in these pages before, that the victory of the Athenians on the plains of Marathon, 2514 years ago both started and saved western culture.

Many people don't like western culture and think they are very sophisticated to deride it, while still living off its fruits. I'm not one of those.

You did lean on coal as the reason for those emissions, mhaze.

//But I never mentioned coal numbers. I was talking about emissions - CO2e.//

Pretending now that it was “only CO2e” is just a rebrand so you can call me a dill. It’s hair-splitting to avoid the point: coal stats were your evidence until they weren’t.

//You wanted me to show counter-sources, IMPLYING (/smile) that you'd provided sources. I'm just having fun pointing out that you have not provided such sources.//

And now you’ve conceded Athens had slaves, Rome had emperors, medieval Europe had kings. So the “no source” routine wasn’t about evidence at all - it was a stall until you could retreat into narrative.

//Still. Yes Athens had slaves. Lots in fact... And yes ... All true...and all utterly irrelevant as regards the point I and CM made. Being that the west is the fount of human freedom that the east doesn't understand.//

You admit every fact and then declare them irrelevant. Every contradiction becomes destiny. Slavery, emperors, feudalism, fascism - they don’t count, because in your telling they were just “temporary setbacks” on the road to freedom?

//Ask why democracy is a western concept... Why the notion of anti-slavery came from the west... These all came as gifts to the west from Athens and Rome and Christianity...//

This is mere canonisation. You’re not asking questions, you’re writing scripture: Marathon “saved Western culture,” slavery somehow proves the “gift of freedom,” every dark chapter is recast as evidence of virtue.

This is the shell game again: never wrong, because you can always rewrite the evidence as part of the myth - which is why your arguments collapse into mythology instead of history.

//Yet as we've seen in the past, now that you've made this error, you'll defend it to the end and then sadly think you've prevailed.//

Well, that prediction didn’t age well. Probably because there's no precedent.

But it's certainly a good example of textbook projection.

"coal stats were your evidence "

I didn't mention coal stats. Just making it up.
As I said..."now that you've made this error, you'll defend it to the end".

Your becoming toooo predictable.