cancel2 2022
Canceled
Poor Dick is Twittering yet again, so much bullshit!
The End For Electric Cars? VW Develops New Hydrogen Tech: 2,000 Km On A Single Tank
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
Poor Dick is Twittering yet again, so much bullshit!
Care to point out my errors? Or are your eyes to brown to see them?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yes I have pointed it out many times to many people and frankly I just can't be bothered to argue with a fool like you. I will direct you instead to the great atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen who stated the following back in a presentation to the House of Commons back in 2012.
Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
What about your prediction that Musk would get nowhere with his takeover bid, care to talk about that?
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I have hazel eyes and know how to spell 'too' correctly.
You keep saying "the U.S.". Why do lib crackas always assume the world ends at U.S. borders.Don't be myopic.
I already gave you the evidence that nearly 80% of batteries are produced in China where coal is the main energy source.
27% is transportation of which maybe 11% are cars. EV's are not 100% green as the left claims. So you might reduce that 11 to 5% if all the world's cars were EVs. That's not going to happen anytime soon.
Solar and wind are not reliable sources of energy. You can't run a factory based on unreliable energy. Cracka libs know nothing about business.
Anyway, I'll ask again, ... by how many degrees will EVs change the global temp?
Some countries are way ahead of America in electric vehicles. https://www.livemint.com/auto-news/...s-with-most-electric-cars-11628745051665.html The rightys and energy companies will drag us down.
A couple of things there.
1. It is no longer 2012 and much of Lindzen's work has been debunked since then.
2. Musk supposedly has an agreed upon offer but his final financing and the purchase have not yet occurred. We shall see if it happens in the six month time frame. He claimed he was going to take Tesla private and we all know where that went. Stockholders still have to vote on the sale and Musk has to secure the financing and cash he has committed to providing. Margin loans can only occur if he meets the margin requirements required under Federal law.
Somehow I think your eyes are brown. Have you checked lately?
Almost every climate scientist is on board with global warming and man being a huge contributor. Finding an outlier and claiming he is the expert. and the other thousands of scientists are wrong is ridiculous.
Into the Night
Verified User
No.
Into the Night
Verified User
You did.
Learn what 'fact' means. Buzzword fallacy.
Most EVs are available in white or black only. A lot more ICE cars are available in green.
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas', except as a religious artifact. NO gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Coal isn't electricity, though much electricity generated in China is by burning coal. China, being a dictatorship, does not burn coal cleanly. There is a lot of soot released into the air due to poorly built plants.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
Argument from randU fallacy. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
False authority fallacy. Making numbers is a fallacy, dude...even if the government does it. Argument from randU fallacy.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Yes they do.
Fallacy fallacy. Not a strawman.
RQAA. Most EVs are only available on black or white. A few in red. If you want a green car, you have a much better selection among ICE vehicles. If it's a tractor, there is only ONE color a lot of tractor owners swear by!
Argument from randU fallacy. Kettle logic.
You did.
Irrelevence fallacy. Cliche fallacy.
Generating electricity with coal or gas is efficient, cheap, and available 24 hours a day.
You want to go there? How about the solar plants that fail or the windmills that fail??
You are not making sense.
Nope. Wind is rather fickle. Only a narrow range of windspeeds are suitable for wind generators. Solar reliably doesn't work at night. Watt for watt, solar power is the most expensive method of producing electricity. Wind comes in at 2nd. Coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and even nuclear are far cheaper methods.
Won't work. Not everyone has that kind of real estate to dedicate to such expensive systems. Try a generator.
Fallacy fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
What increases in temperature? You cannot create energy out of nothing, dude. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Can't reduce a religious artifact.
Cliche fallacy.
You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has this capability.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
If you want an EV. Go buy one. Don't expect me or anyone else to support buying it for you through subsidies. Enjoy your long charge times and expensive car.
If you want an ICE. Go buy one. Enjoy your short refueling times and cheaper car.
Into the Night
Verified User
1. You are afraid of CO2 (for whatever reason).
2. Your belief in 'greenhouse gas' ignores the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't create energy out of nothing.
3. Your belief that petroleum products are somehow 'evil' is just a religious position.
4. You are a Luddite, rejecting the internal combustion engine for religious reasons.
5. You are arguing for mandated purchase of EVs, which is government manipulation of markets. In a word, fascism.
6. You deny your own arguments and start insulting people when you are caught.
Into the Night
Verified User
Climate has no value associated with it. There is nothing that can 'change'. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Into the Night
Verified User
Luddite. Why do you reject internal combustion engines? An EV is not an energy company.
Into the Night
Verified User
The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are still theories of science. So is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are ignoring them. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Into the Night
Verified User
Climate isn't a branch of science. Science is not a scientist or any group of scientists. A 'climate scientist' is nothing more than a high priest in the Church of Global Warming.
You don't get to speak for all scientists. Omniscience fallacy. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It has no politics, no religion, no credentials, no licenses, no consensus. It is not any government agency, university, scientist or any group of scientists. It is not people at all. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves. Nothing more.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot just set aside the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I doubt you can even name any climate scientists apart from charlatans like Michael Mann.
Why do you bother?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Good question!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Is that the best you can do? Truly piss poor if so!
The Imaginary Climate Crisis: How can we Change the Message? A talk by Richard Lindzen
The Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) in cooperation with CLINTEL hosted a lecture by the world-renowned climate scientist Richard Lindzen. The online lecture was attended by around 200 people from around the world (including a group of climate activists who disturbed the talk. The recorded talk can be viewed here.
Professor Lindzen kindly agreed that his written speech could be posted here at CLINTEL. It follows below.
Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
For about 33 years, many of us have been battling against climate hysteria. We have correctly noted
The exaggerated sensitivity,
The role of other processes and natural internal variability,
The inconsistency with the paleoclimate record,
The absence of evidence for increased extremes, hurricanes, etc. and so on.
We have also pointed out the very real benefits of CO2 and even of modest warming. And, as concerns government policies, we have been pretty ineffective. Indeed our efforts have done little other than to show (incorrectly) that we take the threat scenario seriously. In this talk, I want to make a tentative analysis of our failure.
In punching away at the clear shortcomings of the narrative of climate alarm, we have, perhaps, missed the most serious shortcoming: namely, that the whole narrative is pretty absurd. Of course, many people (though by no means all) have great difficulty entertaining this possibility. They can’t believe that something so absurd could gain such universal acceptance. Consider the following situation. Your physician declares that your complete physical will consist in simply taking your temperature. This would immediately suggest something wrong with your physician. He further claims that if your temperature is 37.3C rather than between 36.1C and 37.2C you must be put on life support. Now you know he is certifiably insane. The same situation for climate (a comparably complex system with a much more poorly defined index, globally averaged temperature anomaly) is considered ‘settled science.’
In case you are wondering why this index is remarkably poor. I suspect that many people believe that there is an instrument that measures the Earth’s temperature. As most of you know, that is not how the record was obtained.
Obviously, the concept of an average surface temperature is meaningless. One can’t very well average the Dead Sea with Mt. Everest. Instead, one takes 30 year annual or seasonal means at each station and averages the deviations from these averages. The results are referred to as annual or seasonal mean anomalies. In the following figures, we see the station data in black and the mean anomalies in orange. The spread of anomalies is much larger than the rather small range of change seen in the average. While the average does show a trend, most of the time there are almost as many stations cooling as there are stations warming. The figure you are familiar with omits the data points, expands the scale by about an order of magnitude (and usually smooths the curve as well). The total change in the mean is much smaller than what we experience over a day, a week or over any longer period. This is illustrated in the fourth figure. The residue we refer to as the index is pretty negligible. It may not even be a good measure of climate at all. Instead of emphasizing this, we look for problems at individual stations. This, I would suggest, is somewhat myopic.
We are bombarded with claims that the impacts of this climate change include such things as obesity and the Syrian civil war. The claims of impacts are then circularly claimed to be overwhelming evidence of dangerous climate change. It doesn’t matter that most of these claims are wrong and/or irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that none of these claims can be related to CO2 except via model projections. In almost all cases, even the model projections are non-existent. Somehow, the sheer volume of misinformation seems to overwhelm us. In case, you retain any skepticism, there is John Kerry’s claim that climate (unlike physics and chemistry) is simple enough for any child to understand. Presumably, if you can’t see the existential danger of CO2, you’re a stupid denier.
And, in case this situation isn’t sufficiently bizarre, there is the governmental response. It is entirely analogous to a situation that a colleague, Bruce Everett, described. After your physical, your physician tells you that you may have a fatal disease. He’s not really sure, but he proposes a treatment that will be expensive and painful while offering no prospect of preventing the disease. When you ask why you would ever agree to such a thing, he says he just feels obligated to “do something”. That is precisely what the Paris Accord amounts to. However, the ‘something’ also gives governments the power to control the energy sector and this is something many governments cannot resist. Information is unlikely to change this despite the fact that even the UN’s IPCC acknowledges that their warming claims would only reduce the immensely expanded GDP by about 2-3% by the end of the century – something that is trivially manageable and hardly ‘existential.’
Feeblemindedness
In trying to understand the success of this claim that climate change due to CO2 is an existential threat, I propose to look at an analogous scare: the widespread fear in the US in the early 20th Century of an epidemic of feeblemindedness. I will also return to C.P. Snow’s two-culture description in order to see why the alarmist scenario appeals primarily to the so-called educated elite rather than to the common people.
Over twenty five years ago, I wrote a paper comparing the panic in the US in the early 1920’s over an alleged epidemic of feeblemindedness with the current fear of cataclysmic climate change. ((1996) Science and politics: global warming and eugenics. in Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved, R. Hahn, editor, Oxford University Press, New York, 267pp (Chapter 5, 85-103))
During this early period, the counterpart of Environmentalism was Eugenics. Instead of climate physics as the underlying science, we had genetics. And instead of overturning the energy economy, we had immigration restriction. Both advocacy movements were characteristically concerned with purity: environmentalism with the purity of the environment, eugenics with the purity of the gene pool. Interestingly, Eugenics did not start with a focus on genes. It was started around 1880 by biometricians who used statistical analysis to study human evolution. Among them were some of the founders of modern statistics like Pearson and Fisher. Given the mathematically sophisticated origin of the movement, it should come as no surprise that it didn’t really catch on. It only became popular and fashionable when Mendelian genetics was rediscovered around 1900, and things like feeble mindedness were suggested to be associated with a single recessive gene. It is pretty clear that such movements need an easily understood, allegedly scientific but actually pretty absurd narrative. The people needing such narratives are not the ordinary citizen, but rather our educated elites. Prominent supporters of eugenics included Theodore Roosevelt, Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood, the Bishop of Ripon, George Bernard Shaw, Havelock Ellis, and many others. The supporters also included technically adept individuals who were not expert in genetics. Alexander Graham Bell for example. They also need a policy goal. In the early 1920’s, Americans became concerned with immigration, and it was argued that America was threatened with an epidemic of feeblemindedness due allegedly to immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.
Details of this situation are in my paper which you can request by email. The major takeaway points are the following:
Elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue and assert the authority they believe they are entitled to. They view science as source of authority rather than a process, and they try to appropriate science, suitably and incorrectly simplified, as the
Movements need goals, and these goals are generally embedded in legislation.
The effect of legislation long outlasts the alleged science. The Immigration Reduction Act of 1924 remained until 1964. As long as scientists are rewarded for doing so, they are unlikely to oppose the exploitation of science.
Read much more:
https://clintel.org/the-imaginary-c...change-the-message-a-talk-by-richard-lindzen/
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Total bullshit as to be expected from you, have you been reading Skeptical Science or Hot Whopper , Rana's personal favourite bullshit blog?