Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Climate Change Denial

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Please get info about the fact that in last 12 months we have overtaken the threshold of 1.5°C for the Global Temperature Deviation set by the Agreement of Paris.
I am not alarmist.
Why was it 1.5C and not 1.4C or 1.6C? Why was it originally 2C and then lowered? Are you alarmed about an arbitrary number set? I understand you don't believe you are an alarmist, but the signals strongly suggest yes. Let me ask you a question: what is good about increased CO2 or is it all bad?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Raffy.Roma
Why was it 1.5C and not 1.4C or 1.6C? Why was it originally 2C and then lowered? Are you alarmed about an arbitrary number set? I understand you don't believe you are an alarmist, but the signals strongly suggest yes. Let me ask you a question: what is good about increased CO2 or is it all bad?
What are you saying? It was originally 2°C? NOT TRUE!
You are spreading MISINFORMATION here in this Forum where we do our best to inform TMC Members about the dangers connected with the Climate Change issue!
How you dare to do this!?
PLEASE check your statements before to write them down here in this Forum!!
 
Why was it 1.5C and not 1.4C or 1.6C? Why was it originally 2C and then lowered? Are you alarmed about an arbitrary number set? I understand you don't believe you are an alarmist, but the signals strongly suggest yes. Let me ask you a question: what is good about increased CO2 or is it all bad?

The relevant point that needs to be said is that 1.5c was not expected for decades and that the excuse to do nothing. Well looks like 1.5 is here. Negative alarmism is worse.

Oh, and those same folks are saying renewables cost more while competitive TX producers are all in on renewables. So weird!
 
what is good about increased CO2 or is it all bad?
We'll finally have an Atlantis close to everyone?

In all seriousness, of course there would be some areas that would benefit by becoming more habitable for humans, at least for a short time. Russia will likely benefit quite a bit. But if a runaway effect occurs, none of that would matter. Rising sea levels and mass displacement of humans kind of makes it a moot point anyway.

And no, there is no real crop or plant benefit to the "fertilization" CO2 effect.
 
Why was it 1.5C and not 1.4C or 1.6C? Why was it originally 2C and then lowered? Are you alarmed about an arbitrary number set? I understand you don't believe you are an alarmist, but the signals strongly suggest yes. Let me ask you a question: what is good about increased CO2 or is it all bad?
Please read this article about the threshold of 1.5°C for the Global Temperature Deviation set by the Agreement of Paris and be sure that the threshold ia 1.5°C not 2°C.

 
Last edited:
Screenshot 2024-03-10 7.20.25 PM.png


Denialism at its finest. Your whole country are on islands and you want to help the ocean level rise? LOL
 

"Texas is unique in largely having its own power grid with limited connections to the other large U.S. systems. That leaves the state with little ability to import power in times of scarcity on the grid. During the 2021 freeze, each additional gigawatt of transmission ties between ERCOT and the Southeastern U.S. could’ve saved nearly $1 billion while keeping the heat on for hundreds of thousands for Texans, according to a 2021 study by Grid Strategies, a consulting firm.
...
Vegas, for his part, seemed skeptical. Building more DC ties, already costly on its own, would also require building significant additional transmission infrastructure, he said. By opening up the ERCOT electricity market to other states, Texans could benefit when the price of electricity imports is low, but prices within ERCOT might rise when the price of imports is high, he said. "

... see, it's really that "we don't like competition from out of state"... We lost a few lives in 2021 but oh well.
East coast grid had nothing to spare. And three of the six regulating authorities were implementing rolling blackouts as well.
Quit being a troll!
 
East coast grid had nothing to spare. And three of the six regulating authorities were implementing rolling blackouts as well.
Quit being a troll!

Money talks, when the market price was $1000+/kWh, do you think they would not have sent power to TX? ERCOT does not want the grid tied because they don't want out of state competition (forgetting that if they are the low cost producer, they can actually make more money on exports). Very silly thing to do for a state that claims to be about freedom and capitalism. Stop being a troll. LOL
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RSpanner

As environmental, social and humanitarian crises escalate, the world can no longer afford two things: first, the costs of economic inequality; and second, the rich. Between 2020 and 2022, the world’s most affluent 1% of people captured nearly twice as much of the new global wealth created as did the other 99% of individuals put together, and in 2019 they emitted as much carbon dioxide as the poorest two-thirds of humanity.
 
“I don’t see a problem until it directly affects me.”

- most people

So true but sometimes they're not even that smart. Neighbor widow with 2 daughters gets Social Security for Survivors for her kids and is on Medicaid for health insurance. She thanks God that they qualified because our state had raised the max income allowable as one kid has diabetes. She is able to get by because of the 2 government programs. Her party wants to cut Medicaid and Social Security. If her party gets their way, she would've had to sell the house and maybe move to a studio apartment or live in her cars with her 2 daughters and 1 small dog. BTW, our state capped insulin at $35... guess which party made that happen... hint, it's not her party.
 
While the Medicaid part of that is true, nobody is touching SS for a while. Yes, republicans have floated some things but nothing serious has been out for a long time.

SS is a problem and will need new revenue or cuts. I would imagine that R's would favor cuts rather then new revenues, but it isn't like D's have some grand proposal for new revenue. So you really have a hard time assessing blame here or even for someone to vote in their own self interest.

The whole thing is somewhat fascinating of course - people voting against their economic interests. They are somehow led to believe that immigration is the reason for their lot in life or that D's made housing more expensive. Mix in a little racism, religion, guns and gays and you keep the wealthy happy.
 
While the Medicaid part of that is true, nobody is touching SS for a while. Yes, republicans have floated some things but nothing serious has been out for a long time.

SS is a problem and will need new revenue or cuts. I would imagine that R's would favor cuts rather then new revenues, but it isn't like D's have some grand proposal for new revenue. So you really have a hard time assessing blame here or even for someone to vote in their own self interest.

The whole thing is somewhat fascinating of course - people voting against their economic interests. They are somehow led to believe that immigration is the reason for their lot in life or that D's made housing more expensive. Mix in a little racism, religion, guns and gays and you keep the wealthy happy.

There are few who would actively vote against their personal interest because of their belief but most in the party are unknowingly voting against their own self interest. This is even more true after the Dem's 'deplorables' switched parties. The combined forces of the ' and R's 'deplorables' are actually changing the R party as we speak. Maybe it is a good thing as it keeps the monied interest in check within the party.