@Raiders22 900 million dollars can buy a sizable amount of BS ! > https://glennfay.medium.com/pseudo-science-group-launches-misinformation-campaign-to-oppose-climate-action-b7870e20f3c8 Guus Berkhout is the founder of Clintel org and before that the founder and scientific director of the Delphi Consortium, which does seismic research for a consortium of oil and gas companies.…I wonder how they split up the money for this publication? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout.
500 co-signers only 10 self-identified as climate scientists. Interesting I would never known this without your last post!
@joe pockets
2
Quote Originally Posted by joe pockets:
@Raiders22 900 million dollars can buy a sizable amount of BS ! > https://glennfay.medium.com/pseudo-science-group-launches-misinformation-campaign-to-oppose-climate-action-b7870e20f3c8 Guus Berkhout is the founder of Clintel org and before that the founder and scientific director of the Delphi Consortium, which does seismic research for a consortium of oil and gas companies.…I wonder how they split up the money for this publication? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout.
500 co-signers only 10 self-identified as climate scientists. Interesting I would never known this without your last post!
Yessir. But sadly, it is not near enough to offset the spending on the scam. But at least someone is trying to inform the folks.
For example:
I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn’t anyone in the media ever mention this?
0
@joe pockets
Yessir. But sadly, it is not near enough to offset the spending on the scam. But at least someone is trying to inform the folks.
For example:
I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn’t anyone in the media ever mention this?
This part emphasizes what I was mentioning before about where the bang-for-the-buck could be better used:
How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.
Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.
How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.
That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power —so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.
Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.
0
This part emphasizes what I was mentioning before about where the bang-for-the-buck could be better used:
How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.
Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.
How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.
That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power —so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.
Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.
All I know is we are the first generation to experience climate change and knowing that any remedy will be decades in any curve, It may make us the last generation that can do meaningful change of a correction with challenge. I’d prefer not wait and see till floods, droughts ,crop failure, air quality, oceans warming etc etc etc. In 2050 and increase of 2 or 3 degrees and todays problems will look small and in World with serious pollution which is running unchecked we will have a heated toilet for a world!
1
@Raiders22
All I know is we are the first generation to experience climate change and knowing that any remedy will be decades in any curve, It may make us the last generation that can do meaningful change of a correction with challenge. I’d prefer not wait and see till floods, droughts ,crop failure, air quality, oceans warming etc etc etc. In 2050 and increase of 2 or 3 degrees and todays problems will look small and in World with serious pollution which is running unchecked we will have a heated toilet for a world!
All I know is we are the first generation to experience climate change
I am concerned that you did not think this up on your own but read that somewhere.
This is as untrue a statement as can be made about the subject. Climate has been changing (back and forth) for a very long time.
I do not know your age or how much reading on this you have done -- but the '30s were extraordinarily hot. The '70s were exceptionally cold.
The presuppositions in that statement are what are at issue. It assumes MMGW and that it is large enough to matter and, therefore, can play the thermostat guy.
There is way too much evidence that dispels all of those notions.
I would highly encourage you to read some unbiased writings on this.
Even if you do not have the expertise to interpret the data, you can certainly read what these experts say about this and not just what the biased Leftwing Media print about it to promote their agenda.
It really is worth reading the opposing views sometimes. Then if you can critically think, you have to admit there are a lot of problems with the narrative they print every day.
0
@joe pockets
All I know is we are the first generation to experience climate change
I am concerned that you did not think this up on your own but read that somewhere.
This is as untrue a statement as can be made about the subject. Climate has been changing (back and forth) for a very long time.
I do not know your age or how much reading on this you have done -- but the '30s were extraordinarily hot. The '70s were exceptionally cold.
The presuppositions in that statement are what are at issue. It assumes MMGW and that it is large enough to matter and, therefore, can play the thermostat guy.
There is way too much evidence that dispels all of those notions.
I would highly encourage you to read some unbiased writings on this.
Even if you do not have the expertise to interpret the data, you can certainly read what these experts say about this and not just what the biased Leftwing Media print about it to promote their agenda.
It really is worth reading the opposing views sometimes. Then if you can critically think, you have to admit there are a lot of problems with the narrative they print every day.
An obvious problem any intellegent person recognizes;
A California Scientist admitted that he "left out the full truth" about climate change, blaming it primarily on human causes, to get his study published in a prestigious science journal.
Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of earth and climate sciences, admitted he destorted his findings in order to get his story published in Nature and Science magazines.
And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society," Brown wrote.
He added such bias in climate science "misinforms the public" and "makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve."
0
An obvious problem any intellegent person recognizes;
A California Scientist admitted that he "left out the full truth" about climate change, blaming it primarily on human causes, to get his study published in a prestigious science journal.
Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of earth and climate sciences, admitted he destorted his findings in order to get his story published in Nature and Science magazines.
And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society," Brown wrote.
He added such bias in climate science "misinforms the public" and "makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve."
A California Scientist admitted that he "left out the full truth" about climate change, blaming it primarily on human causes, to get his study published in a prestigious science journal.
According to Carbon brief, lack of evidence supports Brown's claim that Nature journal rejects scientific papers that don't fit climate change narrative. Journal peer reviewers recommend additional factors that play a role in wildfires. But Brown chose to focus on global warming because other moving parts are too difficult to account for. So actually Brown censors his own paper with poor research practices. Other scientists criticize his claim of bias as unethical or less than honest.
1
Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN:
A California Scientist admitted that he "left out the full truth" about climate change, blaming it primarily on human causes, to get his study published in a prestigious science journal.
According to Carbon brief, lack of evidence supports Brown's claim that Nature journal rejects scientific papers that don't fit climate change narrative. Journal peer reviewers recommend additional factors that play a role in wildfires. But Brown chose to focus on global warming because other moving parts are too difficult to account for. So actually Brown censors his own paper with poor research practices. Other scientists criticize his claim of bias as unethical or less than honest.
Recently, world's leading authority on climate change has issued its first report card on international progress in fighting global warming. In summary, United nations IPCC says every country is doing something but more needs to be done to minimize the worst impacts in the future.
1
Recently, world's leading authority on climate change has issued its first report card on international progress in fighting global warming. In summary, United nations IPCC says every country is doing something but more needs to be done to minimize the worst impacts in the future.
lack of evidence supports Brown's claim that Nature journal rejects scientific papers that don't fit climate change narrative.
Journal peer reviewers recommend additional factors that play a role in wildfires. But Brown chose to focus on global warming because other moving parts are too difficult to account for. So actually Brown censors his own paper with poor research practices.
Other scientists criticize his claim of bias as unethical or less than honest.
@thirdperson
I seem to recall reading about this as well.
Thanks
1
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
According to Carbon brief,
lack of evidence supports Brown's claim that Nature journal rejects scientific papers that don't fit climate change narrative.
Journal peer reviewers recommend additional factors that play a role in wildfires. But Brown chose to focus on global warming because other moving parts are too difficult to account for. So actually Brown censors his own paper with poor research practices.
Other scientists criticize his claim of bias as unethical or less than honest.
Recently, world's leading authority on climate change has issued its first report card on international progress in fighting global warming. In summary, United nations IPCC says every country is doing something but more needs to be done to minimize the worst impacts in the future.
@thirdperson
How recent was this?
There's been plenty of corroborating evidence but I seem to have missed that specific report
0
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Recently, world's leading authority on climate change has issued its first report card on international progress in fighting global warming. In summary, United nations IPCC says every country is doing something but more needs to be done to minimize the worst impacts in the future.
@thirdperson
How recent was this?
There's been plenty of corroborating evidence but I seem to have missed that specific report
So I get a text from a friend near San Bernadino, CA. "Oh, it's been so hot, hot, hot here, so glad it's cooling off now. So I ask, "Was it a hotter than normal summer?" Answer; "Sure seemed like it, more 100+ degree days and my two month electric bill was $1200!"
So off I go to WeatherUnground and look at San Bernadino Airport temperature records. They only go back to 2009. But guess what, 2023 was the coolest June-July-August in those 15 years. THE COLDEST.
People are so conditioned/brainwashed that even the coolest of summers was ohhh so hot!
0
So I get a text from a friend near San Bernadino, CA. "Oh, it's been so hot, hot, hot here, so glad it's cooling off now. So I ask, "Was it a hotter than normal summer?" Answer; "Sure seemed like it, more 100+ degree days and my two month electric bill was $1200!"
So off I go to WeatherUnground and look at San Bernadino Airport temperature records. They only go back to 2009. But guess what, 2023 was the coolest June-July-August in those 15 years. THE COLDEST.
People are so conditioned/brainwashed that even the coolest of summers was ohhh so hot!
So I get a text from a friend near San Bernadino, CA. "Oh, it's been so hot, hot, hot here, so glad it's cooling off now. So I ask, "Was it a hotter than normal summer?" Answer; "Sure seemed like it, more 100+ degree days and my two month electric bill was $1200!" So off I go to WeatherUnground and look at San Bernadino Airport temperature records. They only go back to 2009. But guess what, 2023 was the coolest June-July-August in those 15 years. THE COLDEST. People are so conditioned/brainwashed that even the coolest of summers was ohhh so hot!
You could have it be the coldest summer in 15 years and still have some blistering hot days that would have you feeling as if it's the hottest you can remember. Your friend isn't brainwashed. He's just suffering from recency bias.
TIME TO BRING BACK THE OBAMA CAGES!
0
Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN:
So I get a text from a friend near San Bernadino, CA. "Oh, it's been so hot, hot, hot here, so glad it's cooling off now. So I ask, "Was it a hotter than normal summer?" Answer; "Sure seemed like it, more 100+ degree days and my two month electric bill was $1200!" So off I go to WeatherUnground and look at San Bernadino Airport temperature records. They only go back to 2009. But guess what, 2023 was the coolest June-July-August in those 15 years. THE COLDEST. People are so conditioned/brainwashed that even the coolest of summers was ohhh so hot!
You could have it be the coldest summer in 15 years and still have some blistering hot days that would have you feeling as if it's the hottest you can remember. Your friend isn't brainwashed. He's just suffering from recency bias.
Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: So I get a text from a friend near San Bernadino, CA. "Oh, it's been so hot, hot, hot here, so glad it's cooling off now. So I ask, "Was it a hotter than normal summer?" Answer; "Sure seemed like it, more 100+ degree days and my two month electric bill was $1200!" So off I go to WeatherUnground and look at San Bernadino Airport temperature records. They only go back to 2009. But guess what, 2023 was the coolest June-July-August in those 15 years. THE COLDEST. People are so conditioned/brainwashed that even the coolest of summers was ohhh so hot! You could have it be the coldest summer in 15 years and still have some blistering hot days that would have you feeling as if it's the hottest you can remember. Your friend isn't brainwashed. He's just suffering from recency bias.
Really it's highly unlikely. A few blistering hot days would have to be met with record cold days to make it the coldest summer. That didn't happen. Pointing to a $600 a month energy bill cannot be the fault of an extreme hot summer either, rather electrical rates are much higher. Wait and see what an average summer brings. And I polled a few mid Michigan friends and they all said above average hot summer. Wasn't so as I spreadsheet the data. Out of 53 years of data June was 23rd hottest June, July 20th, and August 30th. Overall average of 24th where 26.5 would be the middle.
0
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu:
Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: So I get a text from a friend near San Bernadino, CA. "Oh, it's been so hot, hot, hot here, so glad it's cooling off now. So I ask, "Was it a hotter than normal summer?" Answer; "Sure seemed like it, more 100+ degree days and my two month electric bill was $1200!" So off I go to WeatherUnground and look at San Bernadino Airport temperature records. They only go back to 2009. But guess what, 2023 was the coolest June-July-August in those 15 years. THE COLDEST. People are so conditioned/brainwashed that even the coolest of summers was ohhh so hot! You could have it be the coldest summer in 15 years and still have some blistering hot days that would have you feeling as if it's the hottest you can remember. Your friend isn't brainwashed. He's just suffering from recency bias.
Really it's highly unlikely. A few blistering hot days would have to be met with record cold days to make it the coldest summer. That didn't happen. Pointing to a $600 a month energy bill cannot be the fault of an extreme hot summer either, rather electrical rates are much higher. Wait and see what an average summer brings. And I polled a few mid Michigan friends and they all said above average hot summer. Wasn't so as I spreadsheet the data. Out of 53 years of data June was 23rd hottest June, July 20th, and August 30th. Overall average of 24th where 26.5 would be the middle.
---The complete phasing-out of fossil fuels is not realistic, China's top climate official said, adding that these climate-warming fuels must continue to play a vital role in maintaining global energy security.
China is the world’s biggest consumer of coal and the largest importer of crude oil. Despite soaring renewable power capacity installations in recent years, China continues to consume growing volumes of coal, oil, and natural gas and continues to approve the construction of new coal-fired power capacity.
----Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the UK would push back deadlines for the planned phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, ending fossil-fuel heating in homes not connected to the natural-gas grid, and a proposed ban on the installation of natural-gas-powered boilers in new homes.
“We’ve stumbled into a consensus about the future of our country that nobody seems to be happy with,” Sunak said of policies introduced previously by his own party. It should be up to the individual, not the government, to decide when to make green transitions such as switching to electric vehicles, he added, citing the cost-of-living crisis as a motivation for rolling back the policies.
0
---The complete phasing-out of fossil fuels is not realistic, China's top climate official said, adding that these climate-warming fuels must continue to play a vital role in maintaining global energy security.
China is the world’s biggest consumer of coal and the largest importer of crude oil. Despite soaring renewable power capacity installations in recent years, China continues to consume growing volumes of coal, oil, and natural gas and continues to approve the construction of new coal-fired power capacity.
----Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the UK would push back deadlines for the planned phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, ending fossil-fuel heating in homes not connected to the natural-gas grid, and a proposed ban on the installation of natural-gas-powered boilers in new homes.
“We’ve stumbled into a consensus about the future of our country that nobody seems to be happy with,” Sunak said of policies introduced previously by his own party. It should be up to the individual, not the government, to decide when to make green transitions such as switching to electric vehicles, he added, citing the cost-of-living crisis as a motivation for rolling back the policies.
---The complete phasing-out of fossil fuels is not realistic, China's top climate official said, adding that these climate-warming fuels must continue to play a vital role in maintaining global energy security. China is the world’s biggest consumer of coal and the largest importer of crude oil. Despite soaring renewable power capacity installations in recent years, China continues to consume growing volumes of coal, oil, and natural gas and continues to approve the construction of new coal-fired power capacity. ----Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the UK would push back deadlines for the planned phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, ending fossil-fuel heating in homes not connected to the natural-gas grid, and a proposed ban on the installation of natural-gas-powered boilers in new homes. “We’ve stumbled into a consensus about the future of our country that nobody seems to be happy with,” Sunak said of policies introduced previously by his own party. It should be up to the individual, not the government, to decide when to make green transitions such as switching to electric vehicles, he added, citing the cost-of-living crisis as a motivation for rolling back the policies.
You mean the individual should have " freedom of choice " ? What a novel idea !
That's not meant to be a poke against you UNIMAN, but rather government officials around the world that ( up to this point)) are trying to make these decisions for us. Good to see the UK bucking this trend.
0
Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN:
---The complete phasing-out of fossil fuels is not realistic, China's top climate official said, adding that these climate-warming fuels must continue to play a vital role in maintaining global energy security. China is the world’s biggest consumer of coal and the largest importer of crude oil. Despite soaring renewable power capacity installations in recent years, China continues to consume growing volumes of coal, oil, and natural gas and continues to approve the construction of new coal-fired power capacity. ----Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the UK would push back deadlines for the planned phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, ending fossil-fuel heating in homes not connected to the natural-gas grid, and a proposed ban on the installation of natural-gas-powered boilers in new homes. “We’ve stumbled into a consensus about the future of our country that nobody seems to be happy with,” Sunak said of policies introduced previously by his own party. It should be up to the individual, not the government, to decide when to make green transitions such as switching to electric vehicles, he added, citing the cost-of-living crisis as a motivation for rolling back the policies.
You mean the individual should have " freedom of choice " ? What a novel idea !
That's not meant to be a poke against you UNIMAN, but rather government officials around the world that ( up to this point)) are trying to make these decisions for us. Good to see the UK bucking this trend.
I read and react to your schemes and your tactics , then stack the box cuz you can only lob and can’t throw deep on my defensive backs blink , twice , three times , maybe even a fourth , but before you finish counting score you’ll be absorbed by a swarm , of unsettling thoughts and mood altering feelings , consuming you , and whatchu choose , and your altruistic being , you’re not “ all in “ and are you just really , caring about anything besides “ being right “ ? , as I rhyme through the serpentine crimes of this mired in gripes life……
BACK PATTING and KISSING threads are like passing HAM SANDWICHES around over and over-wall
0
I read and react to your schemes and your tactics , then stack the box cuz you can only lob and can’t throw deep on my defensive backs blink , twice , three times , maybe even a fourth , but before you finish counting score you’ll be absorbed by a swarm , of unsettling thoughts and mood altering feelings , consuming you , and whatchu choose , and your altruistic being , you’re not “ all in “ and are you just really , caring about anything besides “ being right “ ? , as I rhyme through the serpentine crimes of this mired in gripes life……
China isn't an excuse for climate inaction. After decades of denying man-made climate change, fossil fuel industry now tries to obstruct climate action. By 2025, China is expected to deliver nearly 70% of all new wind projects and 50% of new solar projects worldwide. As a result, China's carbon emissions are almost certain to peak sooner than forecasted according to Carbon action tracker. This trend is unmistakable and irreversible. The boom in China's renewable energy combined with slower economic growth and shift away from heavy industry to service economy suggest the turning point is in sight. Also China already sells over half of all electric vehicles worldwide. In the future, it's only a matter of time before oil demand in China start to decline. Now climate policy is about capturing the biggest economic opportunity.
1
China isn't an excuse for climate inaction. After decades of denying man-made climate change, fossil fuel industry now tries to obstruct climate action. By 2025, China is expected to deliver nearly 70% of all new wind projects and 50% of new solar projects worldwide. As a result, China's carbon emissions are almost certain to peak sooner than forecasted according to Carbon action tracker. This trend is unmistakable and irreversible. The boom in China's renewable energy combined with slower economic growth and shift away from heavy industry to service economy suggest the turning point is in sight. Also China already sells over half of all electric vehicles worldwide. In the future, it's only a matter of time before oil demand in China start to decline. Now climate policy is about capturing the biggest economic opportunity.
It is not so much a freedom of individual choice, as much as these bureaucrats and politicians are realizing they are wrong. So, now they are trying to 'blame' the individual. When they see their policies are not feasible or are unachievable they have to look somewhere besides themselves as to why they will not work.
They realize a lot of this has been feel-good talk. Some of these plans are too unrealistic and always have been.
You cannot take folks off of gas-powered cars and 'force' them onto something that is not workable and costs more and is more inconvenient. Same with heating, etc.
So, now when you see pushback from the folks about having to, for example, buy a more expensive car that is not as convenient and easy to repair, etc. -- they try to claim individual freedom. That is not it at all.
You can be rest assured if they could figure out a way to 'force' it on folks and make it work -- gas-powered cars would not be a 'choice' any longer.
You can see this with the Wuhan shot. That was something they could make easily available and 'force' everyone to get.
Just because that is recent I use it as an example. Take normal vaccines that work that kids have to have to enter school -- these are almost universally 'forced' because there was a legitimate problem AND these vaccines fixed the problem. Now when the Wuhan shot is shown to not work any longer, etc. What happened -- they get pushback from the folks. There is really no pushback from the folks on a polio vaccine. That is a huge difference between 'personal freedom of choice' and a narrative.
Whether you agree with the idea or not is not my point. My point is that if it really were some huge, great and dire emergency -- they would take that 'choice' away for 'the greater good'. Let us say if it were absolutely proven gas-powered cars were destroying the Earth and would make it unlivable soon -- It WOULD make sense to take them away. The problem is they are not and even reasonable folks see all of the 'unclean' process there is to use electric cars.
So, if it were proven that they are worse for the environment, would they take away electric cars as a 'choice'. Of course not -- because that is the cause-of-the-day narrative.
MMGW is a scam and always has been.
1
@UNIMAN
It is not so much a freedom of individual choice, as much as these bureaucrats and politicians are realizing they are wrong. So, now they are trying to 'blame' the individual. When they see their policies are not feasible or are unachievable they have to look somewhere besides themselves as to why they will not work.
They realize a lot of this has been feel-good talk. Some of these plans are too unrealistic and always have been.
You cannot take folks off of gas-powered cars and 'force' them onto something that is not workable and costs more and is more inconvenient. Same with heating, etc.
So, now when you see pushback from the folks about having to, for example, buy a more expensive car that is not as convenient and easy to repair, etc. -- they try to claim individual freedom. That is not it at all.
You can be rest assured if they could figure out a way to 'force' it on folks and make it work -- gas-powered cars would not be a 'choice' any longer.
You can see this with the Wuhan shot. That was something they could make easily available and 'force' everyone to get.
Just because that is recent I use it as an example. Take normal vaccines that work that kids have to have to enter school -- these are almost universally 'forced' because there was a legitimate problem AND these vaccines fixed the problem. Now when the Wuhan shot is shown to not work any longer, etc. What happened -- they get pushback from the folks. There is really no pushback from the folks on a polio vaccine. That is a huge difference between 'personal freedom of choice' and a narrative.
Whether you agree with the idea or not is not my point. My point is that if it really were some huge, great and dire emergency -- they would take that 'choice' away for 'the greater good'. Let us say if it were absolutely proven gas-powered cars were destroying the Earth and would make it unlivable soon -- It WOULD make sense to take them away. The problem is they are not and even reasonable folks see all of the 'unclean' process there is to use electric cars.
So, if it were proven that they are worse for the environment, would they take away electric cars as a 'choice'. Of course not -- because that is the cause-of-the-day narrative.
China isn't an excuse for climate inaction. After decades of denying man-made climate change, fossil fuel industry now tries to obstruct climate action. By 2025, China is expected to deliver nearly 70% of all new wind projects and 50% of new solar projects worldwide. As a result, China's carbon emissions are almost certain to peak sooner than forecasted according to Carbon action tracker. This trend is unmistakable and irreversible. The boom in China's renewable energy combined with slower economic growth and shift away from heavy industry to service economy suggest the turning point is in sight. Also China already sells over half of all electric vehicles worldwide. In the future, it's only a matter of time before oil demand in China start to decline. Now climate policy is about capturing the biggest economic opportunity.
What does carbon have to do with climate? I thought you were going to research this to see where you have been wrong on this all along.
0
@thirdperson
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
China isn't an excuse for climate inaction. After decades of denying man-made climate change, fossil fuel industry now tries to obstruct climate action. By 2025, China is expected to deliver nearly 70% of all new wind projects and 50% of new solar projects worldwide. As a result, China's carbon emissions are almost certain to peak sooner than forecasted according to Carbon action tracker. This trend is unmistakable and irreversible. The boom in China's renewable energy combined with slower economic growth and shift away from heavy industry to service economy suggest the turning point is in sight. Also China already sells over half of all electric vehicles worldwide. In the future, it's only a matter of time before oil demand in China start to decline. Now climate policy is about capturing the biggest economic opportunity.
What does carbon have to do with climate? I thought you were going to research this to see where you have been wrong on this all along.
China isn't an excuse for climate inaction. After decades of denying man-made climate change, fossil fuel industry now tries to obstruct climate action. By 2025, China is expected to deliver nearly 70% of all new wind projects and 50% of new solar projects worldwide. As a result, China's carbon emissions are almost certain to peak sooner than forecasted according to Carbon action tracker. This trend is unmistakable and irreversible. The boom in China's renewable energy combined with slower economic growth and shift away from heavy industry to service economy suggest the turning point is in sight. Also China already sells over half of all electric vehicles worldwide. In the future, it's only a matter of time before oil demand in China start to decline. Now climate policy is about capturing the biggest economic opportunity.
That's why the UAW is getting hosed by the Biden admin.
"China isn't an excuse for climate inaction" No one said inaction, yet to many if your not on board 100% your a denier and want inaction. Nothing wrong with say, tax breaks if you improve insulation in your home, buy an efficent furnance, etc. How about those who maintain mature carbon sucking forests? I own many acres of mature timber, maybe I should have it logged for profit, nothing for me to keep it.
China shifting to service economy?
China speaks wise words! ---------Not realistic.
0
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
China isn't an excuse for climate inaction. After decades of denying man-made climate change, fossil fuel industry now tries to obstruct climate action. By 2025, China is expected to deliver nearly 70% of all new wind projects and 50% of new solar projects worldwide. As a result, China's carbon emissions are almost certain to peak sooner than forecasted according to Carbon action tracker. This trend is unmistakable and irreversible. The boom in China's renewable energy combined with slower economic growth and shift away from heavy industry to service economy suggest the turning point is in sight. Also China already sells over half of all electric vehicles worldwide. In the future, it's only a matter of time before oil demand in China start to decline. Now climate policy is about capturing the biggest economic opportunity.
That's why the UAW is getting hosed by the Biden admin.
"China isn't an excuse for climate inaction" No one said inaction, yet to many if your not on board 100% your a denier and want inaction. Nothing wrong with say, tax breaks if you improve insulation in your home, buy an efficent furnance, etc. How about those who maintain mature carbon sucking forests? I own many acres of mature timber, maybe I should have it logged for profit, nothing for me to keep it.
That carbon emissions are causing global warming is settled science. United nations IPCC concludes over 90% certainty. Scientists know burning of fossil fuels is the main driver because carbon from fossil fuel has a distinct isotopic signature than carbon from other sources. Unlike some gases, carbon dioxide can accumulate in upper atmosphere for centuries to enhance greenhouse effect trapping heat. Spectoscopy measuring wavelength of radiation reaching the ground reveals that carbon dioxide has the highest radiation forcing. Today carbon dioxide levels are higher than they have been in at least 3 million years. Average global temperature has increased at a rate far faster than can be explained by natural causes. Current warming can't be explained by sun, volcano, orbit or natural cycle.
1
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
What does carbon have to do with climate?
That carbon emissions are causing global warming is settled science. United nations IPCC concludes over 90% certainty. Scientists know burning of fossil fuels is the main driver because carbon from fossil fuel has a distinct isotopic signature than carbon from other sources. Unlike some gases, carbon dioxide can accumulate in upper atmosphere for centuries to enhance greenhouse effect trapping heat. Spectoscopy measuring wavelength of radiation reaching the ground reveals that carbon dioxide has the highest radiation forcing. Today carbon dioxide levels are higher than they have been in at least 3 million years. Average global temperature has increased at a rate far faster than can be explained by natural causes. Current warming can't be explained by sun, volcano, orbit or natural cycle.
That carbon emissions are causing global warming is settled science
No, it is not. Many, many scientist absolutely do not believe this.
Scientists know burning of fossil fuels is the main driver because carbon from fossil fuel has a distinct isotopic signature than carbon from other sources
This is also incorrect.
Average global temperature has increased at a rate far faster than can be explained by natural causes
No, it has not.
Current warming can't be explained by sun, volcano, orbit or natural cycle
Yes, it can.
Again, you have to stop listening to the media and listen to the real scientists that interpret this data if you cannot do it yourself. There are many more scientists that these media folks do not quote because it does not promote what they want. All you have to do is search. You will find many well-respected and published scientists that are on the opposite side of you while using your same data. This is absolutely not settled.
0
@thirdperson
That carbon emissions are causing global warming is settled science
No, it is not. Many, many scientist absolutely do not believe this.
Scientists know burning of fossil fuels is the main driver because carbon from fossil fuel has a distinct isotopic signature than carbon from other sources
This is also incorrect.
Average global temperature has increased at a rate far faster than can be explained by natural causes
No, it has not.
Current warming can't be explained by sun, volcano, orbit or natural cycle
Yes, it can.
Again, you have to stop listening to the media and listen to the real scientists that interpret this data if you cannot do it yourself. There are many more scientists that these media folks do not quote because it does not promote what they want. All you have to do is search. You will find many well-respected and published scientists that are on the opposite side of you while using your same data. This is absolutely not settled.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
