When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I've seen polluted rivers
I've seen smog fill an entire valley making distant hills a vague shadow
I've felt my throat burn while breathing in that smog
I've seen sea water which was once clear such that I can now barely see a few meters
And a lot more
I believe that common sense is pretty important when deciding what is the truth and what is rubbish information and when thousands of trained and educated scientists spend their entire lives working on the causes of climate change to come up with the collective theory that we as a species .....are causing many of the anomalies we see around the world currently ....it's not much of a leap for me to take my own observations, extrapolate them out and ........................believe them.
Climate change deniers have undoubtedly seen these things too, yet they somehow still believe that none of that matters when we are talking about the whole planet. To them the planet is infinite and a mere 8 billion humans spewing their waste into the environment can't make a dent on it. It's time to look out the window and take it all in ...... there is nothing surer, we will be the cause of our own demise.
I've seen polluted rivers
I've seen smog fill an entire valley making distant hills a vague shadow
I've felt my throat burn while breathing in that smog
I've seen sea water which was once clear such that I can now barely see a few meters
And a lot more
I believe that common sense is pretty important when deciding what is the truth and what is rubbish information and when thousands of trained and educated scientists spend their entire lives working on the causes of climate change to come up with the collective theory that we as a species .....are causing many of the anomalies we see around the world currently ....it's not much of a leap for me to take my own observations, extrapolate them out and ........................believe them.
Climate change deniers have undoubtedly seen these things too, yet they somehow still believe that none of that matters when we are talking about the whole planet. To them the planet is infinite and a mere 8 billion humans spewing their waste into the environment can't make a dent on it. It's time to look out the window and take it all in ...... there is nothing surer, we will be the cause of our own demise.
Brett,
There is a ton, and I mean a ton of dough at stake to keep those research dollars coming in. It has always been that way.
There is a huge interest in promoting the current conversation, and not deviating from it.
So therefore, it will not be deviated from. Like I said, honest people like yourself want to know that they are being told the truth, but any dissent is now "denial".
It takes a scientist with some Brass Brunswicks now to go against the grain if his/her research results do not in fact promote the prevailing view.
He will be outcast from his society, in almost medieval fashion. His research will be suppressed and forgotten.
Is that really science, then? Or has it become something else?
I say it has become something other than science. Therefore, it is not reliable anymore.
But they write policy with a surety of their position that is frightening, if you really consider it.
A couple of weeks ago after noting the Farmer's Almanac predicted a colder and snowier winter than normal for the U.S., the global warming discussions started.
I mentioned Nobel Prize winning Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius publishing an article about the effect of human created emission greenhouse gases on the atmosphere way back in 1896.
He was trying to establish causes of the Ice Ages when his scientific models revealed the effects of CO2 on climate change.
I think many people took his theories and mistakenly extrapolated them into the predictions of another Ice Age that were discussed in the middle of the 20th Century.
Joseph Fournier first hypothesized the greenhouse effect in 1824.
In 1859 John Tyndall discovered H20 and CO2 absorbed infrared confirming Fournier's theory.
Climate warming science involving human interaction became more than a theory when industrial CO2 isotopes were discovered in the 1950s.
Also in the 50s scientific calculations added the increasing imbalance of radiation and the oceans absorbing less CO2 increasing global warming more than predicted.
Between 1958-60, Charles Keeling proved CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere.
In the 70s and 80s the first models of human activity climate change were introduced.
At least 11 more major scientific studies over the years confirmed the models.
By 1977 the majority of the scientific community agreed warming rather than cooling was indeed occurring.
A couple of weeks ago after noting the Farmer's Almanac predicted a colder and snowier winter than normal for the U.S., the global warming discussions started.
I mentioned Nobel Prize winning Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius publishing an article about the effect of human created emission greenhouse gases on the atmosphere way back in 1896.
He was trying to establish causes of the Ice Ages when his scientific models revealed the effects of CO2 on climate change.
I think many people took his theories and mistakenly extrapolated them into the predictions of another Ice Age that were discussed in the middle of the 20th Century.
Joseph Fournier first hypothesized the greenhouse effect in 1824.
In 1859 John Tyndall discovered H20 and CO2 absorbed infrared confirming Fournier's theory.
Climate warming science involving human interaction became more than a theory when industrial CO2 isotopes were discovered in the 1950s.
Also in the 50s scientific calculations added the increasing imbalance of radiation and the oceans absorbing less CO2 increasing global warming more than predicted.
Between 1958-60, Charles Keeling proved CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere.
In the 70s and 80s the first models of human activity climate change were introduced.
At least 11 more major scientific studies over the years confirmed the models.
By 1977 the majority of the scientific community agreed warming rather than cooling was indeed occurring.
Here's a scientist from this century: Michael Mann. Probably never heard of him. Check it out.
There's more about this, but the reality *again* is that when governments make bad policy based on garbage, it doesn't really hurt them. It hurts the people that they are supposed to serve.
Germany, for one example, under Merkel made huge green investments, but foolishly did away with conventional sources prematurely, and now they are in a world of hurt. Because of a very predictable conflict. (Europe has never gone 100 years without a major war)
Last edited by kevink0000; 08-26-2022 at 02:35 PM.
The upshot is that doing nothing is worse than ignoring the problem and expecting it to fix itself.
This thread is nothing if not political.
I don't care actually, the political bans in here seem selective at times, and we've had MANY political discussions over the years.
I'm not sweating an issue that won't happen for 12 years, if at all, and likely won't affect me, if I'm still alive.
Just trying to keep it real.
*Edit*
Upon review, first sentence is nonsensical,
Doing nothing is worse than trying to do something and failing is maybe what I was going for.
At least we agree on that. There appears to be an assumption that the government is always wrong (see your own, Ash's and 200's posts), all governments everywhere are wrong, therefore nothing the government says is true and anything that supports its actions must be a lie. It's conclusions before evidence.
Ash in particular is for some reason claiming that gasoline power is cheaper than EV which is demonstrably false with basic arithmetic. So I don't think any of yall are interested in the situation before you, you just want to bash the government (s). Or listen and repeat people that do.
Guess who works hard for a government, I guess.
HUH, where did I say that gasoline is cheaper, seriously cant be bothered reading back what I said, I said it was more convenient to fill up a tank in <3 minutes compared to charging a car say 8 hours to travel 500 miles...TIME is money.
Funny, Mazda did a study and said from oil well to road EVs are not cheaper to run long term and more expensive to make.
Remember a huge proportion of EVs are still made with oil inside and out, out of ground stuff, alloy, copper.
Want to bring in price, long term ask Prius owners who have to pay $1000's for new battery, you do know that they do not last forever.
With zero Battery standardisation what is the cost of huge batteries that cant be recycled or wont hold charge.
Here's a scientist from this century: Michael Mann. Probably never heard of him. Check it out.
There's more about this, but the reality *again* is that when governments make bad policy based on garbage, it doesn't really hurt them. It hurts the people that they are supposed to serve.
Germany, for one example, under Merkel made huge green investments, but foolishly did away with conventional sources prematurely, and now they are in a world of hurt. Because of a very predictable conflict. (Europe has never gone 100 years without a major war)
And remember when bad orange man (the only one with ***** to stand up to China) said Germany was selling out its energy policy to Russia, well winter is coming soon to you guys up there, what do you think Putin will do?, I guess we can guess but he has form, I recall a few decades ago he turned off gas supply to I think Hungry in the middle of winter over dispute.
Yeah, will be interesting come December.
This very thread is what I see is the main problem. Honest commoners like ourselves trying to objectively evaluate a situation that is in front of us.
But it is in front of us because those we think and trust are supposed to know better are writing policy based on garbage.
I think the world is in one of the most dangerous times in history, not because of climate problems, but leadership problems.
We are governed by idiots. All of us, regardless of nation represented here. The level of incompetence and corruption is astounding. Throw in a mighty dose of hubris, and you have a very explosive combination.
Totally agree, my god look at the guy in charge of free world now, anyone think he is pulling the strings in delusional.
Case in point this guy has been in politics all his life, never got his hands dirty, never has to make a pay check or employ,
just sucked off the taxpayer all his life like all of them that make final policy...term limits anyone.
The big cash giveaway.
I am over 6 decades old, I used to think at 30 how does the world continue to borrow with Gov debt out of control, gold standard for currency no longer exists.
Then 1986 stock market crash, then they say that wont happen again as computers will now shut down trade if trade crashes too fast, etc, etc, but when is there a reckoning, how does Japan and US survive when their Debt to GDP is running at 259%, USA 127%, every year going backwards, Japan/USA can never trade its way out of it as it is basically impossible.
Totally agree, my god look at the guy in charge of free world now, anyone think he is pulling the strings in delusional.
Case in point this guy has been in politics all his life, never got his hands dirty, never has to make a pay check or employ,
just sucked off the taxpayer all his life like all of them that make final policy...term limits anyone.
The big cash giveaway.
I am over 6 decades old, I used to think at 30 how does the world continue to borrow with Gov debt out of control, gold standard for currency no longer exists.
Then 1986 stock market crash, then they say that wont happen again as computers will now shut down trade if trade crashes too fast, etc, etc, but when is there a reckoning, how does Japan and US survive when their Debt to GDP is running at 259%, USA 127%, every year going backwards, Japan/USA can never trade its way out of it as it is basically impossible.
I'm 6 decades old also.
The deficit and debt is a magic act imo.
An illusion.
It's been a big flashing red sign for decades, no matter who is in charge.
Both sides have their causes and crusades for those to whom they are obligated, but yet there is always billions and trillions available for whatever is needed.
No one was worried about it when gajillionaires got massive tax cuts adding trillions to the deficit.
The Ukrainian aid packages are another example. (I approve)
We need to send billions in aid and hardware, no problem.
The money is there.
Or is it?
They just keep juggling the numbers around until it fits the agenda.
If there's money to be made and loopholes to be exploited, the rich and powerful will be there feeding at the public trough, gorging themselves at the expense of the working class with no oversight or controls.
The big financial institutions fail because of their own irresponsible greed?
No problem, we gave them billions, if not trillions.
"Too big to fail"
There is no truth, no retribution, only data to be manipulated.
Totally agree, my god look at the guy in charge of free world now, anyone think he is pulling the strings in delusional.
Case in point this guy has been in politics all his life, never got his hands dirty, never has to make a pay check or employ,
just sucked off the taxpayer all his life like all of them that make final policy...term limits anyone.
The big cash giveaway.
I am over 6 decades old, I used to think at 30 how does the world continue to borrow with Gov debt out of control, gold standard for currency no longer exists.
Then 1986 stock market crash, then they say that wont happen again as computers will now shut down trade if trade crashes too fast, etc, etc, but when is there a reconning, how does Japan and US survive when their Debt to GDP is running at 259%, USA 127%, every year going backwards, Japan/USA can never trade its way out of it as it is basically impossible.
Debt for a country is not like debt for a person. First of all most debt is internal, the government borrows from it's own people (bonds, etc). Trading its way out is not a thing. Trade deficit is a thing, but it's an entirely different concept that has nothing to do with debt. 0 debt is also not the goal, the country isn't trying to stay solvent, it's trying to provide for its population. Populations can get expensive with all their infrastructure and social policy needs, even before you introduce defense or energy dependence.
Second when to government spends money the vast majority of that money goes to the citizens (in a big self-sufficient country like US, Australia, etc). Bridges are built by citizens. Weapons are built by citizens, gov't services are provided by salaried citizens. The money the govt spends comes back as taxes in the future. It's a big flywheel: the more the gov't spends internally, the more it makes the following year. So if the gov't needs to borrow money, or print new money, for something, part of the decision is how much of that expenditure comes back.
The student loan thing makes a lot of financial sense if you delve into it. The program costs enormous amounts of money (300 billion or so) that isn't actually productive, it's a balance sheet entry that you can't spend or sell. For the individuals who have those loans, especially if they're in default, it's the difference between getting a mortgage or not, paying higher private interest, etc. Real-world effects. So for a relatively low price on the scale of the program, more of the lower end of students can be more productive consumers and eventually have more disposable income and pay more taxes. The whole system is a little ridiculous, education should be accessible without incurring debt, but the US is not quite there yet.
It's really easy to assume the government are idiots if you only read the headlines and don't understand how these things work. Just like you assume Mazda management are idiots. Or your local utility company. Your threads have a pattern
The same Michael Mann who claimed to share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for bringing attention to global warming?
🤔
Yes,
He is the same Michael Mann that was implicated in the hacked email scandal which was called "Climategate".
If you read some of his emails, it's clear science isn't the only thing on his mind, especially when the data do not deliver.
"A major source of data supporting the human CO2- induced warming proposition came from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.
Then on the morning of 17 November 2009 a Pandora’s box of embarrassing CRU information exploded onto the world scene. A computer hacker penetrated the university’s computer system and took 61 Megabytes of material that showed the CRU had been manipulating scientific information to make global warming appear to be the fault of mankind and industrial CO2. Among many other scandals, the shocking leaked emails showed then-CRU-director Prof. Phil Jones boasting of using statistical “tricks” to remove evidence of observed declines in global temperatures.
In another email, he advocated deleting data rather than providing it to scientists who did not share his view and might criticize his analyses. Non-alarmist scientists had to invoke British freedom of information laws to get the information. Jones was later suspended, and former British Chancellor Lord Lawson called for a Government enquiry into the embarrassing exposé.
The affair became known as “Climategate,” and a group of American University students even posted a YouTube song, "Hide the Decline", mocking the CRU and climate modeler Dr. Michael Mann, whose use of the phrase “hide the decline” in temperatures had been found in the hacked emails."
"Ten years before Climategate, Dr. Mann released a computer-generated graph purporting to show global temperatures over the previous 1500 years. His graph mysteriously made the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Maunder extreme cold years disappear – and planetary temperatures spike suddenly the last couple decades of twentieth century. The graph had the shape of a hockey stick, was published worldwide and became a centerpiece for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Many scientists were highly suspicious of the hockey stick claims. Two of them, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, completely discredited Mann’s computer program and revisionist history. Of course, that did not stop former US vice president Al Gore from using the discredited graph in his doom and gloom climate change movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
The hacked CRU emails also showed exchanges between Mann and Jones, in which they discussed how to intimidate editors who wanted to publish scientific views contrary to theirs, to suppress any contradictory studies. In one email, Jones expressed his desire to get rid of the “troublesome editor” of the Climate Research journal for daring to publish differing views. The editor got sacked.
When University of Colorado climate skeptic Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. asked the CRU for its original temperature readings, he was told the data had been (conveniently) lost. Lost!?! Do professionals lose something as valuable as original data? Many suspected they just didn’t want anyone to expose their clever manipulations and fabrications."
But, he was cleared of any wrongdoing by Penn State, which has been called a whitewash by many. He still brings in the research $$, so its all good apparently. Follow the money.
He coined the term "Serengeti Strategy" to discredit anyone questioning certain individual scientists, as if there is something wrong with that.
Here are some email from one batch. It just goes on and on:
From: Tim Barnett [[2]mailto:XXXXXXXXXXX@ucsd.edu]
Sent: 11 October 2004 16:42
To: Gabi Hegerl; Klaus Hasselmann
Cc: Prof.Dr. Hans von Storch; Myles Allen; francis; Reiner Schnur; Phil Jones; Tom Crowley; Nathan Gillett; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; christopher.d.miller@noaa.gov; Pennell, William T; Tett, Simon; Ben Santer; Karl Taylor; Stott, Peter; Bamzai, Anjuli
Subject: Re: spring meeting
not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. for instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. best, tim
NAS panel review of hockeysticks prompted by McIntyre and McKitrick.
#1104 -Heinz Wanner – on reporting his NAS panel critique of Mann to the media. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.
#1656 Douglas Maraun – on how to react to skeptics. How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.
#3234 Richard Alley
Taking the recent instrumental record and the tree-ring record and joining them yields a dramatic picture, with rather high confidence that recent times are anomalously warm. Taking strictly the tree-ring record and omitting the instrumental record yields a less-dramatic picture and a lower confidence that the recent temperatures are anomalous.
Paleoclimate and hide the decline
#0300
Bo Christiansen – On Hockey stick reconstructions All methods strongly underestimates the amplitude of low-frequency variability and trends. This means that it is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.
Ed Cook #3253 the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know ****-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know ****-all).
#4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review. what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.
[and later]
Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work.
Last edited by kevink0000; 08-27-2022 at 01:02 PM.
Again, as I have said in the past, you are being lied to.
One thing that was super interesting that I didn't expect, is when I was searching G////l?e for climate change info, and surprisingly page after page came up with topics like "How to talk to climate deniers" "How to rebut climate change myths". I mean pages and pages. Very very difficult to find any opposing views. But lots and lots of talking points for the general public to consume.
It's a full-court press, gents. Once you see the puppet strings you can't un-see them. And then the show isn't that good anymore.
Last edited by kevink0000; 08-27-2022 at 05:27 PM.
And, it looks like Washington State and Massachusetts are following California's IC car ban also. I am sure many other state's politicians will signal their virtue with similar plans.
Why didn't they start with a detailed plan for grid enhancements first, at least? Too messy to explain. You get more ink by announcing a car ban. What a clown show.
But, that disparages clowns unfairly.
Last edited by kevink0000; 08-27-2022 at 05:28 PM.
Debt for a country is not like debt for a person. First of all most debt is internal, the government borrows from it's own people (bonds, etc). Trading its way out is not a thing. Trade deficit is a thing, but it's an entirely different concept that has nothing to do with debt. 0 debt is also not the goal, the country isn't trying to stay solvent, it's trying to provide for its population. Populations can get expensive with all their infrastructure and social policy needs, even before you introduce defense or energy dependence.
Second when to government spends money the vast majority of that money goes to the citizens (in a big self-sufficient country like US, Australia, etc). Bridges are built by citizens. Weapons are built by citizens, gov't services are provided by salaried citizens. The money the govt spends comes back as taxes in the future. It's a big flywheel: the more the gov't spends internally, the more it makes the following year. So if the gov't needs to borrow money, or print new money, for something, part of the decision is how much of that expenditure comes back.
The student loan thing makes a lot of financial sense if you delve into it. The program costs enormous amounts of money (300 billion or so) that isn't actually productive, it's a balance sheet entry that you can't spend or sell. For the individuals who have those loans, especially if they're in default, it's the difference between getting a mortgage or not, paying higher private interest, etc. Real-world effects. So for a relatively low price on the scale of the program, more of the lower end of students can be more productive consumers and eventually have more disposable income and pay more taxes. The whole system is a little ridiculous, education should be accessible without incurring debt, but the US is not quite there yet.
It's really easy to assume the government are idiots if you only read the headlines and don't understand how these things work. Just like you assume Mazda management are idiots. Or your local utility company. Your threads have a pattern
Again, as I have said in the past, you are being lied to.
One thing that was super interesting that I didn't expect, is when I was searching G////l?e for climate change info, and surprisingly page after page came up with topics like "How to talk to climate deniers" "How to rebut climate change myths". I mean pages and pages. Very very difficult to find any opposing views.
It's a full-court press, gents. Once you see the puppet strings you can't un-see them. And then the show isn't that good anymore.
In the first year of available C02 concentrations from the Mauna Loa observatory in 1959, they were measured at 316 ppm.
By 2019 that was 411 ppm.
Antarctic core analysis of trapped air showed a rapid increase in C02 in the mid 19th century after being between 260 and 280 ppm for the past 10,000 years.
Concentrations from 800,000 years varied from 170 to 300 ppm through varied ice ages, but never rose above 300 ppm until the last 200 years.
Plenty more where that came from, along with the many accreditations in the NASA link.
There isn't a whole lot of cherry picking that has to be done when it comes to the scientific studies.
They are everywhere, and there are reams of it.
If you read the actual science behind it, I mean really READ it, from all the various accredited sources and still denied it, then you'd have to buy in to the fact that thousands of scientists and researchers from all over the world for at least the last 50 years all went through a huge amount of trouble to falsify hundreds of studies.
To what end?
So in the second decade of the 21st century a bunch of politicians will decide to conspire in a global fraud to force people to buy EVs and invest in renewable energy?
"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."
Last edited by kevink0000; 08-27-2022 at 07:03 PM.
The Climategate emails also show Mann as one of the most aggressive warriors in the battle to publicly disparage and ruin the careers of scientists who disagree with his views on global warming.
"In the Climategate 2 emails, scientists openly acknowledge other contradictions between alarming theories and real-world conditions. These include temperatures in the lower troposphere behaving in stark contrast to how they should behave if greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for recent warming, hurricanes not behaving as scientist-activists said they should behave, ocean temperatures not complying with alarming computer models, etc. Again, as in the first batch of Climategate emails, the scientist-activists are concerned about the scientific evidence not matching their models, but work together to paint an alarming picture of global warming anyway.
The Climategate emails reveal that when the scientist-activists saw skeptical scientists successfully calling public attention to such evidence, they went on a vicious attack, pulling strings to pressure universities and science journals to fire or blackball the skeptical scientists for presenting their competing theories and evidence. The Climategate emails also show Mann as one of the most aggressive warriors in the battle to publicly disparage and ruin the careers of scientists who disagree with his views on global warming.
For example, upset that Harvard University researchers were successfully arguing that solar variance rather than carbon dioxide emissions are the most likely primary cause of recent global temperature fluctuations, Mann sent out an email seeking to coordinate action to pressure Harvard to rebuke or discipline the researchers. “If someone has close ties w/ any individuals there [at Harvard] who might be in a position to actually get some action taken on this, I’d highly encourage pursuing this,” writes Mann to fellow scientist-activists.
The Climategate emails also reveal Mann recruiting investigative journalists to dig up dirt on scientist Steve McIntyre, who had called into question Mann’s scientific theories."
And again I am all for progress, and clean air and water etc. I live in a semi-rural area for those reasons.
I know fossil fuel cannot continue as a power source forever. If electric is the answer, so be it.
But where I go bat____ is when dummies like our current crop of leaders follow stupid policies and drag entire nations into peril.
The policies are the issue, and the source of those policies is the issue.
There is no way that CA is able to stiffen their grid enough in 13 years to have IC engine car sales be abolished. Not everyone will have rooftop solar and battery backup. The grid will still be the major % of power transmission.
That is a state built on the auto and the highway if ever there was one. It's going to take a huge, organized undertaking to pull that off, with serious people working on that problem day and night. Of all states, California is one of the most dysfunctional. No way it happens. But they will play with taxpayer's dollars like monopoly money on the way to failure. The time they spent in a half-baked pursuit, could have been used for something of value.
Last edited by kevink0000; 08-27-2022 at 08:03 PM.
And again I am all for progress, and clean air and water etc. I live in a semi-rural area for those reasons.
I know fossil fuel cannot continue as a power source forever. If electric is the answer, so be it.
But where I go bat____ is when dummies like our current crop of leaders follow stupid policies and drag entire nations into peril.
The policies are the issue, and the source of those policies is the issue.
There is no way that CA is able to stiffen their grid enough in 13 years to have IC engine car sales be abolished. Not everyone will have rooftop solar and battery backup. The grid will still be the major % of power transmission.
That is a state built on the auto and the highway if ever there was one. It's going to take a huge, organized undertaking to pull that off, with serious people working on that problem day and night. Of all states, California is one of the most dysfunctional. No way it happens. But they will play with taxpayer's dollars like monopoly money on the way to failure. The time they spent in a half-baked pursuit, could have been used for something of value.
That is your opinion.
A lot can happen in 13 years.
In 1961 President Kennedy ordered NASA to put a man on the moon by 1970.
It happened in 1969.
When money meets technology a lot can happen.
Where is the money to come from?
Obviously as in the case of Musk and Bezos, they're not investing their hundreds of billions into anything from which they won't profit.
2 examples are Starlink, which has been a good thing, but space tourism?
As soon as the billionaires turn their attention to, and figure out how to make more billions from EVs and renewable energy, it'll happen.
Until then the government is trying to do something using the cumbersome, inefficient method of public works, because to do nothing is whistling past the graveyard.
If we choose to wait for private businesses to do something, then we can see from past experience with power supplies and petrol refining we'll be waiting until it's a real crisis and they start actually losing money.
As long as they're making billions in profits every quarter, they ain't doing jacksh!t.
California right now has 80,000 charging stations, they have targeted 250,000 by 2025.
I'm sure it'll happen, and the improvements to the grid will also.
I also get tired of the "but my taxes are paying for it!" laments.
Your taxes are paying for a lot of things.
Are you paying extra taxes to pay for it?
Do you want an itemized list?
I'd imagine there is one available somewhere that can approximate it.
The politicians in favor of clean renewable energy call it the Green New Deal based on FDR's New Deal, which put an extraordinary amount of tax dollars into Federal infrastructure, which during the incredibly difficult times of the Great Depression, (Ooh, gas is so expensive for my big azz SUV!! WAH! )
helped put people back to work, giving them income, allowing them to put money back into the economy and yes, PAY MORE TAXES.
In order to do all the things required to make improvements to the grids and other methods to implement cleaner, renewable energy possible, it will require manpower, meaning JOBS, many high paying, skilled jobs that will put money back into the economy and pay more taxes back into the monolithic public works.
FWIW and in the vein of full disclosure. the company I work for makes millions off the gubment, ensuring everyone has access to clean water, putting out actual fires, cooling nuclear reactors, both public power supply and USN vessels, etc., etc...
MOAR TAXES, ARGHH!!
Competition from renewable energy efforts may make the ginormous multinational petroleum companies invest in greener alternatives. (Which some are actually researching atm, cause $$$$)
You skipped the scientific Royal Society article, which mentions, and has many other links to scientific climatology studies.
I assume you couldn't find any emails discrediting that.
The 50 astronauts and scientists are likely part of the red hat crowd imo, and as was stated before, those beliefs have become part of their tribal identity.
You can cherry pick email responses and articles that question studies, some of which may have merit exposing questionable results.
I'm sure there are plenty in the echo chambers you must frequent that have cemented your confirmation biases.
Rejecting the science, seeking out examples which are in the vast minority, being convinced everyone is being lied to for nefarious reasons, (DEEP STATE!! blah blah)
and if reading all the sources I linked and the scientific rabbit hole it leads to, considering other rationale for the investment in cleaner, renewable energy, (which thanks to huge amounts of Big Oil lobbyist money thrown at politicians for 40+ years to not do so, another topic not discussed) doesn't sway you, then this whole discussion is a waste of time.
As I said before, especially given your inane mass hysteria analogy at the beginning, this is nothing if not a political thread.
"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."
Then on the morning of 17 November 2009 a Pandora’s box of embarrassing CRU information exploded onto the world scene. A computer hacker penetrated the university’s computer system and took 61 Megabytes of material that showed the CRU had been manipulating scientific information to make global warming appear to be the fault of mankind and industrial CO2. Among many other scandals, the shocking leaked emails showed then-CRU-director Prof. Phil Jones boasting of using statistical “tricks” to remove evidence of observed declines in global temperatures.....
....But, he was cleared of any wrongdoing by Penn State, which has been called a whitewash by many. He still brings in the research $$, so its all good apparently. Follow the money.
Taking a pragmatic view to this climategate scandal;
61 Meg of info stolen, that included thousands of emails and documents
Of all that data that was stolen, including thousands of emails, they identified just a handful of emails that were suspect
Unsurprisingly, most of the email content that was identified as suspicious, was taken out of context
Eight official committities investigated the scandal, and none found any evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted their own investigation and found "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact"
The Science Assessment Panel conducted a report and had the conclusions were that "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
The Pennsylvania State University conducted an enquiry and the committee determined there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed emails, information and/or data
An independent British investigation commissioned by the UEA cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data
The United States EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues."
The National Science Foundation closed an investigation on 15 August 2011. It found no evidence of research misconduct, and confirmed the results of earlier inquiries.
On top of the above investigations and enquiries, there have been numerous independent investigations, all of which have concluded there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Unless all of the committies, organisations and industry bodies involved in the investigations were all corrupt also, and in on the climategate scam, I'd hardly call it a 'whitewash'.....
08-25-2022, 04:26 PM
