Climate Change Denial

[DaveE]

In all of the recorded/observed history of the earth, the warming of the planet over today’s temps resulted in more/better plant and animal life. CO2 is plant food, and cold deaths exceed heat death 10 or 100 to 1. So why do you think warming is bad this time and only this time?

And if it is bad, why do you think we should exclude poor countries like China/India or South American ones from having to comply with CO2 treaties (when they are increasing use, and rich countries are often decreasing it)? Or for that matter, if the left cared in America, why shouldn’t richer people (more likely to buy solar/wind/evsbe excluded from subsidies that might get them to move faster? If Marxism trumps the environmentalism, it’s not about the environmentalism, right?)

In the U.S. the inflation creation act gives subsidies only to those making less than $150K, when richer urbanites are the ones most able/likely to move over and see benefits. The same with solar and wind subsidies. Since I make too much, I won’t move over to solar and pay 30% more than my neighbor for the same thing.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

In all of the recorded/observed history of the earth, the warming of the planet over today’s temps resulted in more/better plant and animal life. CO2 is plant food, and cold deaths exceed heat death 10 or 100 to 1. So why do you think warming is bad this time and only this time?

And if it is bad, why do you think we should exclude poor countries like China/India or South American ones from having to comply with CO2 treaties (when they are increasing use, and rich countries are often decreasing it)? Or for that matter, if the left cared in America, why shouldn’t richer people (more likely to buy solar/wind/evsbe excluded from subsidies that might get them to move faster? If Marxism trumps the environmentalism, it’s not about the environmentalism, right?)

In the U.S. the inflation creation act gives subsidies only to those making less than $150K, when richer urbanites are the ones most able/likely to move over and see benefits. The same with solar and wind subsidies. Since I make too much, I won’t move over to solar and pay 30% more than my neighbor for the same thing.

You can say whatever you want about science even though I disagree with you, but PLEASE don't mention political and/or ideological things in this thread.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING ISSUES HAVE NO POLITICAL COLOR!

 

[DaveE]

Notice: you didn’t answer that or any question I’ve posed.

In science, if you ask a question, the theory must answer it (if relevant to the theory), or it is incomplete.

In politics, if they can’t answer they change the topic, or respond to something else… because the question is in the way of their political goal.

I asked questions like how do you think CO2 is the only gas that can heat a liquid without absorbing more heat itself, or why do you think that warming the planet this time will be different than all the other times in history? And you dodged, distracted and changed the topic to things like “politics has no place in politician funded science used to rationalize political agendas/policies”… dumb, political, and missed the point.

I don’t personally think a greening of the planet would be a bad thing.

 

[DaveE]

Again, you dodge the questions asked because they are too hard. Now answer the questions.

And I don’t think the politics you are whining about is what they mean by no politics. I’m not saying vote Trump/Biden or go red/blue.. I just pointed out the truth that if you give politicians control of anything, they will taint it with their agendas. So of course politics infects politically sponsored scientific research… the scientists have complained about it. Read Judith Curry sometime.

But I’m not advocating for a party by asking whether you think it’s a problem that some policies (like the inflation re-introduction act) put politics over the environment by not subsidizing all conversion to solar or EVs. (The same with some treaties that exclude the highest polluting countries). It’s a fair question that deserves an answer, not a dodge. I would ask the same question if Trump or Biden passed it.

 

[DaveE]

BTW you started the thread with a profound misunderstanding, “CO2 produced by ICE cars is responsible of temperature increasing in the world.”… I didn’t see you answer or admit the mistake (or seen you admit any mistake on the thread), but you do realize the following:

(1) ICE vehicles are responsible for a minority of vehicular CO2 (commercial, shipping and air travel are bigger contributors), and that all that isn’t the majority of fossil fuel CO2… and that things like cement, deforeststion, etc is a bigger impact still. So your statement that ICE cars are responsible was ignorant overstatement? Did you ever admit that and apologize?

(2) if you had magic and wiped out all ICE vehicles tomorrow, it would drop the price of gas — but not the consumption. The falling gas prices would incentivize gas turbines, heating and industrial use… especially in the 3rd world. (They are not as dumb as elites in the west)

Oil is a fractured into all our lubricants, plastics and fuels. If you try to eliminate it in the other uses, society and the global economy collapses. (Industries like Modern medicine dies). So even if you stop using it for fuel in cars, you still use it for all the other things. And the reduced use in cars will drop the price of fuel and increase the reward of burning a waste product as free energy. (No change in usage).

Money is fungible. But a multi use toxic sludge like oil is fungible too. If you stop using one thing it’s used for, you only decrease the price of that one aspect of it. And that incentives burning it in another (probably less clean) way.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

BTW you started the thread with a profound misunderstanding, “CO2 produced by ICE cars is responsible of temperature increasing in the world.”… I didn’t see you answer or admit the mistake (or seen you admit any mistake on the thread), but you do realize the following:

(1) ICE vehicles are responsible for a minority of vehicular CO2 (commercial, shipping and air travel are bigger contributors), and that all that isn’t the majority of fossil fuel CO2… and that things like cement, deforeststion, etc is a bigger impact still. So your statement that ICE cars are responsible was ignorant overstatement? Did you ever admit that and apologize?

(2) if you had magic and wiped out all ICE vehicles tomorrow, it would drop the price of gas — but not the consumption. The falling gas prices would incentivize gas turbines, heating and industrial use… especially in the 3rd world. (They are not as dumb as elites in the west)

Oil is a fractured into all our lubricants, plastics and fuels. If you try to eliminate it in the other uses, society and the global economy collapses. (Industries like Modern medicine dies). So even if you stop using it for fuel in cars, you still use it for all the other things. And the reduced use in cars will drop the price of fuel and increase the reward of burning a waste product as free energy. (No change in usage).

Money is fungible. But a multi use toxic sludge like oil is fungible too. If you stop using one thing it’s used for, you only decrease the price of that one aspect of it. And that incentives burning it in another (probably less clean) way.

Maybe that you don't know that in the USA 60% of the oil is used for TRANSPORTATION.
Then I will never reply to you again because you are being offensive.

 

[DaveE]

Maybe that you don't know that in the USA 60% of the oil is used for TRANSPORTATION.
Then I will never reply to you again because you are being offensive.

You didn’t say transportation, you said ICE cars. A mature person just says, “oops, my bad” and apologizes/corrects the mistake, instead of playing ego games to save face.

And you not responding is no punishment. You actually have been unable or unwilling to answer any direct questions posed. But not answering is an answer.

So far: you don’t know that surface temps going up are disproving AGW/CO2 theory and you don’t understand why, you don’t get the basics of oil economics and that EVs don’t fundamentally impact total oil consumption unless you can address all the other uses, and you haven’t been able to respond why warming is bad, or dodged when I asked if you have a problem with politicians putting Marxism (redistribution) above the environment by using variable rewards, and you think politicians controlling research money doesn’t politicize research. And me asking those questions that you can’t answer (the point of science) is rude. Best of all, every time I make a simple scientifically factual statement, or ask a question you can’t answer, you give it a thumbs down. Boo science/questions are bad…

 

[DaveE]

What's NEXT?

 

[winfield100]

if the left cared in America, why shouldn’t richer people (more likely to buy solar/wind/evsbe excluded from subsidies that might get them to move faster? If Marxism trumps the environmentalism, it’s not about the environmentalism, right?)

In the U.S. the inflation creation act gives subsidies only to those making less than $150K, when richer urbanites are the ones most able/likely to move over and see benefits. The same with solar and wind subsidies. Since I make too much, I won’t move over to solar and pay 30% more than my neighbor for the same thing.

@DaveE
thank you for subsidizing 30% of my 11,655 watt solar PV system so I can _manufacture_ from free fuel, _fusion_ produced photons so my electric bill reduced from $1,300 - $1,600/yr to under $300/yr (min charge) plus export electrons to grid. plus wear your "all hat no cattle" hat as the texas sun will fry your brain
you are very refreshing with your alt interpreted fax
cheers

 

[winfield100]

Again, you dodge the questions asked because they are too hard. Now answer the questions.

And I don’t think the politics you are whining about is what they mean by no politics. I’m not saying vote Trump/Biden or go red/blue.. I just pointed out the truth that if you give politicians control of anything, they will taint it with their agendas. So of course politics infects politically sponsored scientific research… the scientists u think it’s a problem that some policies (like the inflation re-introduction act) put politics over the environment by not subsidizing all conversion to solar or EVs. (The same with some treaties that exclude the highest polluting countries). It’s a fair question that deserves an answer, not a dodge. I would ask the same question if Trump or Biden passed it.

are you still in high school or just being obtusely tendentious

 

[DaveE]

@DaveE
thank you for subsidizing 30% of my 11,655 watt solar PV system so I can _manufacture_ from free fuel, _fusion_ produced photons so my electric bill reduced from $1,300 - $1,600/yr to under $300/yr (min charge) plus export electrons to grid. plus wear your "all hat no cattle" hat as the texas sun will fry your brain
you are very refreshing with your alt interpreted fax
cheers

I don’t get your point. And it seems to have no relevance to mine.

My point was if they cared about the environment, they would subsidize solar/EV regardless of income, that they don’t, shows they care more about the environment as an excuse for Marxism (wealth redistribution), or the incentives would apply to everyone.

I’m glad you got solar. I might, even if it is a loser economically. (Spending $20-30K to drop your yearly spending by $1K is a net loss if you understand economics / opportunity costs of capital in most all cases. You are losing money on every KWh, but making it up in volume?).

However, in rare applications (off grid locations, assuming energy costs will continue to rise because of green policies (and prices on solar won’t continue to fall), distrust of the grid and wanting distribute power, etc, can all mean it might pay off in other ways. Just not economically in the short term.

The same… an EV running on 50%+ fossil fuel generated electricity, with today’s battery tech? Loser for the environment… but I like it for the torque and tech. In a few generations it’ll make more sense, and it would have made sense if granola munchers in the u.s. hadn’t blocked nuclear power. But for now? A Prius is probably better than a Tesla, and certainly a HummerEV or F150 Lightening. The same way as a 3 driver is better than a X driver. The more of this generations dirty/inefficient EVs you sell, the more harm you are doing to the planet. But that won’t be the case forever. But every sale pulled forward with an incentive, is a little more proof they don’t really care about the planet.

 

[winfield100]

I don’t get your point. And it seems to have no relevance to mine.

My point was if they cared about the environment, they would subsidize solar/EV regardless of income, that they don’t, shows they care more about the environment as an excuse for Marxism (wealth redistribution), or the incentives would apply to everyone.

I’m glad you got solar. I might, even if it is a loser economically. (Spending $20-30K to drop your yearly spending by $1K is a net loss if you understand economics / opportunity costs of capital in most all cases. You are losing money on every KWh, but making it up in volume?).

However, in rare applications (off grid locations, assuming energy costs will continue to rise because of green policies (and prices on solar won’t continue to fall), distrust of the grid and wanting distribute power, etc, can all mean it might pay off in other ways. Just not economically in the short term.

The same… an EV running on 50%+ fossil fuel generated electricity, with today’s battery tech? Loser for the environment… but I like it for the torque and tech. In a few generations it’ll make more sense, and it would have made sense if granola munchers in the u.s. hadn’t blocked nuclear power. But for now? A Prius is probably better than a Tesla, and certainly a HummerEV or F150 Lightening. The same way as a 3 driver is better than a X driver. The more of this generations dirty/inefficient EVs you sell, the more harm you are doing to the planet. But that won’t be the case forever. But every sale pulled forward with an incentive, is a little more proof they don’t really care about the planet.

re-read for comprehension then

 

[SDRick]

are you still in high school or just being obtusely tendentious

Not very helpful and intellectually weak.

 

[eevee-fan]

View attachment 1008779

And in what part of that chart do humans exist/flourish? You must be a single celled organism lamenting the good old primordial ooze.

 

[DaveE]

And in what part of that chart do humans exist/flourish? You must be a single celled organism lamenting the good old primordial ooze.

I don't get your point? You think that promordial oooze was 500M years ago? It was 3,500M. Over half the timeline we had dinosaurs and higher level life. But geologically, the earth is near an all time low in both temp and CO2. Dinosaurs thrived with 5x the CO2 of today.

The chart just shows that CO2 was never a prime climate forcing factor in earths history, with no real long term correlation to temp -- so unlikely that there's any "tipping point"... it is a forcing factor (that responds to changes in temp), but a tertiary one.

If we were balanced on a razorblade, then we already would have fallen over in the 5B years when we had 15x as much CO2 as today.

And I repeatedly ask why do you think heating the planet is bad, if every time in the past warmer temps correlated with more plants and thriving civilization? Cool kills 10x as many that hot ever will.

 

[winfield100]

I don't get your point? You think that promordial oooze was 500M years ago? It was 3,500M. Over half the timeline we had dinosaurs and higher level life. But geologically, the earth is near an all time low in both temp and CO2. Dinosaurs thrived with 5x the CO2 of today.

The chart just shows that CO2 was never a prime climate forcing factor in earths history, with no real long term correlation to temp -- so unlikely that there's any "tipping point"... it is a forcing factor (that responds to changes in temp), but a tertiary one.

If we were balanced on a razorblade, then we already would have fallen over in the 5B years when we had 15x as much CO2 as today.

And I repeatedly ask why do you think heating the planet is bad, if every time in the past warmer temps correlated with more plants and thriving civilization? Cool kills 10x as many that hot ever will.

I remember flying into Houston Texas around 40 years ago and seeing this gigantic bubble of brown air pollution covering the city.
Humble, Texas is a few miles NE of Houston, where Humble Oil (which became Esso which became Exxon) is HQ.

Your POV seems to be based as an oilman refuting "inconvenient facts" that have been proven numerous times

 

[DaveE]

I remember flying into Houston Texas around 40 years ago and seeing this gigantic bubble of brown air pollution covering the city.
Humble, Texas is a few miles NE of Houston, where Humble Oil (which became Esso which became Exxon) is HQ.

Your POV seems to be based as an oilman refuting "inconvenient facts" that have been proven numerous times

So you think that's a compelling explanation for why Surface temps are exceeding upper atmosphere temperature rise (where the CO2 is)? And that doesn't show that since you have no actual scientific data to support your point, you're resorting to ignorance based ad hominems?

(a) I moved to phoenix recently, and only lived in Humble for 3 years.
(b) I knew the history, and don't know what your point is.... if it was as bad as you say, then I'd be an advocate for ending fossil fuels, wouldn't I?
(c) if the facts are inconvenient and proven wrong numberous times -- then just point me to something that proves it wrong instead of trying to change the topic or thinking that calling me a poopie breathed oilman (never worked in the Oil industry) is going to somehow persuade anyone with a triple digit IQ.

 

[mspohr]

So you think that's a compelling explanation for why Surface temps are exceeding upper atmosphere temperature rise (where the CO2 is)? And that doesn't show that since you have no actual scientific data to support your point, you're resorting to ignorance based ad hominems?

(a) I moved to phoenix recently, and only lived in Humble for 3 years.
(b) I knew the history, and don't know what your point is.... if it was as bad as you say, then I'd be an advocate for ending fossil fuels, wouldn't I?
(c) if the facts are inconvenient and proven wrong numberous times -- then just point me to something that proves it wrong instead of trying to change the topic or thinking that calling me a poopie breathed oilman (never worked in the Oil industry) is going to somehow persuade anyone with a triple digit IQ.

Dave, please move this discussion to the climate denial thread.
We've covered all of your points ad nauseum there.

 

[winfield100]

So you think that's a compelling explanation for why Surface temps are exceeding upper atmosphere temperature rise (where the CO2 is)? And that doesn't show that since you have no actual scientific data to support your point, you're resorting to ignorance based ad hominems?

(a) I moved to phoenix recently, and only lived in Humble for 3 years.
(b) I knew the history, and don't know what your point is.... if it was as bad as you say, then I'd be an advocate for ending fossil fuels, wouldn't I?
(c) if the facts are inconvenient and proven wrong numberous times -- then just point me to something that proves it wrong instead of trying to change the topic or thinking that calling me a poopie breathed oilman (never worked in the Oil industry) is going to somehow persuade anyone with a triple digit IQ.

we shall have to agree, or not, that we disagree, plus _you_ named yourself as nowhere did i give you such a spot-on appellation so that's on you not me, but this useless convo with the troll is done

 

[SDRick]

Dave, please move this discussion to the climate denial thread.
We've covered all of your points ad nauseum there.

This is such an important topic even if covered here ad nauseam,

I was hoping someone can point to the posts up thread that answer DaveE's questions if unwilling to answer him directly. How can we expect others to change lifestyles and economies if this group is unwilling to debate, educate or type a few more sentences,