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

climate change - Is Elon too late?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
There are networked grids to increase humanities understanding of the universe around them. Join one.
Peer reviewed journal database? No probs.

Or just join the marketing department of whatever megacorp pulls your chain the hardest.
Been there, done that. Cesspool of anti-intellectual narcissism, where members delude themselves that wealth = intellect
 
Slightly off topic - Why isn't the Green Community infuriated by Cryptocurrency?

A massive amount of CO2 is produced every hour in heavily populated regions for no reason whatsoever. Well, except greed. No upside. Completely wasted energy, much of it from coal (China).

About 66 TWh a year now.
Wait a minute. Were you under the misapprehension that Bitcoin was created by left wing ideology?
The Strange Connection Between Bitcoin and the Alt-Right

 
Mostly bad news from the recent BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

Even though renewable use is increasing rapidly, it was not enough as GHG emissions actually increased in 2017 for the first time in several years:

Global energy demand grew above its 10-year average, growing by 2.2% compared to the average of 1.7%, driven primarily by stronger economic growth in the developed world as well as a slight softening of the pace of improvement in energy intensity.

Carbon emissions were similarly estimated to have increased by 1.6% after little or no growth over the previous three years (2014-16).

Speaking directly to carbon emissions from energy consumption, BP’s group chief economist Spencer Dale said, “The backward step in last year’s data is most stark in carbon emissions from energy consumption, which are estimated to have increased by 1.6% in 2017.


That follows three consecutive years of little or no growth in carbon emissions. So, on the face of it, a pretty big backward step.”

Somewhat unsurprisingly, natural gas accounted for the largest increase in energy consumption, amounting to an increase of 96 bcm, or a 3% increase, the fastest increase since 2010.​

BP Review points to “big step backwards” in energy demand, emissions
Coal's 20-Year Reign Masks a Brewing Revolution

On a more positive note, the economics for solar and wind plus storage are now at a stage where they should be able to rapidly replace carbon. Solar plus storage bids in the 2-3c/kWh range should shut down a lot of coal and gas plants, and make it the lowest-cost source of new energy in much of the world.

Nevada’s 2.3-Cent Bid Beats Arizona’s Record-Low Solar PPA Price

"For perspective’s purpose, according to the EIA in 2016 either operations or maintenance for ‘fossil steam’ electricity sources were above 5¢/kWh for existing facilities across the USA. This is before fuel costs estimated at an average of 2.5¢/kWh."​

World’s largest li-ion battery and 707 MW of solar power in Colorado proposal

So the economics are already in place for solar plus storage (and wind plus storage) to replace carbon-based energy generation.

But we will also need strong government policies to support the transition, instead of resisting it as some are:mad:.
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute. Were you under the misapprehension that Bitcoin was created by left wing ideology?
The Strange Connection Between Bitcoin and the Alt-Right


The list for folks wrongly listed by the now purely-political-marketing firm Southern Poverty (cough) Law (gag) Center as hate groups is astounding. Any American who is not a donor to the SPLC is at threat of being labelled a Hate Group, and blacklisted from social networks such a FB/Twit/IG, etc, by SPLC's marketing/donation department. The fact the SPLC does know they are often wrong, still does not evoke an apology. Because of course, they make more money the more people they accuse. SPLC are indeed a Hate Group who funds their operations by extortion, and so far the RICO act can't touch them.

SPLC 12/2017 - "Bitcoin purchases can be traced by a determined researcher. And, the Southern Poverty Law Center will be releasing a list of 200 accounts tied to white nationalists and racists in the coming week."

That list is comprised of 36 individuals and entities that may or may not be political organizations, SPLC is not a court, nor exactly honest. Out of perhaps 5,000,000 accounts, claiming 200 are Nasi's/Etc, they found 36 who might just be innocent bystanders, since guilt in not necessary to make their list.

One of many examples, by a liberal press outlet - How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'? - The Atlantic

Best guess? Companies who accept bitcoin will be approached by SPLC for a 'donation', which is actually extortion. It has proven so successful, that it is expanding. Expect the ACLU to 'enhance' their donations soon.

SPLC is like some 'ecology' groups. In it for the bucks, they fund by extortion. "If you don't donate, we will list you as a climate change denier." It's a great way to make untaxable quick cash for little effort. Sort of like robbing liquor stores if you are FBI.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jrad6515
SPLC is like some 'ecology' groups. In it for the bucks, they fund by extortion. "If you don't donate, we will list you as a climate change denier." It's a great way to make untaxable quick cash for little effort. Sort of like robbing liquor stores if you are FBI.

If you are an informed climate change skeptic like myself it is all but impossible to have a civilized debate online about it so I don't even try any more. As soon as you question the AGW orthodoxy you are immediately insulted as a 'denier', then called stupid, and then labelled an oil company shill. If you persist in the debate you will eventually be likened to Hitler. No thanks, not worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanCar
The list for folks wrongly listed by the now purely-political-marketing firm Southern Poverty (cough) Law (gag) Center as hate groups is astounding. Any American who is not a donor to the SPLC is at threat of being labelled a Hate Group, and blacklisted from social networks such a FB/Twit/IG, etc, by SPLC's marketing/donation department. The fact the SPLC does know they are often wrong, still does not evoke an apology. Because of course, they make more money the more people they accuse. SPLC are indeed a Hate Group who funds their operations by extortion, and so far the RICO act can't touch them.

SPLC 12/2017 - "Bitcoin purchases can be traced by a determined researcher. And, the Southern Poverty Law Center will be releasing a list of 200 accounts tied to white nationalists and racists in the coming week."

That list is comprised of 36 individuals and entities that may or may not be political organizations, SPLC is not a court, nor exactly honest. Out of perhaps 5,000,000 accounts, claiming 200 are Nasi's/Etc, they found 36 who might just be innocent bystanders, since guilt in not necessary to make their list.

One of many examples, by a liberal press outlet - How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'? - The Atlantic

Best guess? Companies who accept bitcoin will be approached by SPLC for a 'donation', which is actually extortion. It has proven so successful, that it is expanding. Expect the ACLU to 'enhance' their donations soon.

SPLC is like some 'ecology' groups. In it for the bucks, they fund by extortion. "If you don't donate, we will list you as a climate change denier." It's a great way to make untaxable quick cash for little effort. Sort of like robbing liquor stores if you are FBI.
Nice try.
SPLC statement regarding Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Dr. J
If you are an informed climate change skeptic like myself it is all but impossible to have a civilized debate online about it so I don't even try any more. As soon as you question the AGW orthodoxy you are immediately insulted as a 'denier', then called stupid, and then labelled an oil company shill. If you persist in the debate you will eventually be likened to Hitler. No thanks, not worth it.

There is an old saying, "Follow The Money". No matter what your political leanings are, alert Americans who are not easily deceived, need to understand this not a good thing.

We have entered the New McCarthy Era. Our freedoms of all kinds are under threat by accusation. Accusations are now the currency of the realm and are rising daily. If you think you are safe by agreeing with them today, you are not a student of history. They will turn on anybody. We already have liberals turning on liberals. And we have only seen the beginning.
 
BTW - Mauna Loa is interesting. We melted our shoes and watched lava flow into the Pacific. It smells strongly of sulfur and is due for another major eruption soon (geologically). It's the tallest mountain on earth IIRC if you measure it from it's base to it's peak? (most of it is underwater).
A very strange place to measure average levels of anything. Europe has been industrialized far longer than the US, let's check there:

File:Greenhouse gas emissions (including international aviation, indirect CO2 and excluding LULUCF) trend, EU-28, 1990 - 2015 (Index 1990=100)-Fig1.png - Statistics Explained

Hasn't anyone told you yet that evidence must be thrown out the window when discussing greenhouse gasses?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrad6515


If you observe the response of many defendants when they lose or settle a lawsuit, you will often hear the exact same thing.

SPLC apologized not after they were accused of extortion, but after they realized they were going to have pay money for getting caught via the plaintiff's lawsuit and our court system. When a group of lawyers must admit they were caught and apologize, you know their guilt runs very deep.

You might also notice nobody at SPLC was charged with a crime either. Extortion is not legal.
 
Two things to note about the SPLC. They have some very, very good lawyers and accountants. Concerning their 'loss' in the Nawaz case:

"We will look to our insurance carrier to cover the cost of the settlement." (this is $3.4 million)

But did they need to? Judge for yourself. With nearly 1/2 a billion dollars in their war-chest, and $136.4 million in donations last year, they were not punished at all, not even financially. So crime DOES pay!

BREAKING: SPLC Amasses Half a Billion Dollars

When they found that not even the United Nations found any merit to their fabrications, they knew they would have to pay, and probably negotiated with their insurance company.

Don't get me wrong, the SPLC was a great organization to fight institutional and organized human rights violations. Ditto for the ACLU.

Times have changed though. That SPLC and ACLU are no longer with us. They are against Freedom now, and now are a political pressure group that supports a single party, just a branch of the DNC.
 
Last edited:
If you are an informed climate change skeptic like myself it is all but impossible to have a civilized debate online about it so I don't even try any more. As soon as you question the AGW orthodoxy you are immediately insulted as a 'denier', then called stupid, and then labelled an oil company shill. If you persist in the debate you will eventually be likened to Hitler. No thanks, not worth it.
In my experience, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) science denial is, by & large, accompanied by logically fallacious reasoning & a poor understanding of the peer reviewed scientific method/process. It’s also from a perceived need to defend one’s ‘team’ born out of cognitive dissonance, but we’re not allowed to discuss that on here (or most forums, in my experience over years, for that matter), even though it goes a fair way to explaining the rationale of said position.
One common misrepresentation, even by those who accept the science, is that there is a claim of 97% support by ‘scientists’, based on the study by Cook et al.
It's true: 97% of research papers say climate change is happening
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

Well, the actual figure is 100%, by those who regularly publish in the field in reputable peer reviewed journals. Just for pertinence sake.

This is then refuted as being a logical fallacy itself of argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority), because scientific consensus is relied upon rather than the science itself. This itself becomes absurd at some point, because it implies that science cannot progress until each individual on the planet educates themselves to the same level as those peer reviewed scientists, on each specific piece of scientific research in any field!!!
The appeal to authority refutation can ‘cut the mustard’ if it’s a nascent idea or field with lower levels of rigour (eg: economics, sociology, etc), but less so when the peer reviewed science has been forged for over 120 years (i.e. AGW).

By the way, did you know the term ‘climate change’ was born because focus group studies found the term ‘global warming’ too confronting?

Here is a great site that elucidates the history of AGW science:

Global Warming Timeline
 
...

By the way, did you know the term ‘climate change’ was born because focus group studies found the term ‘global warming’ too confronting?
...

When they needed a wider definition of the effect of man-made yet naturally occurring greenhouse gasses they changed it to climate change.

They broadened the term because they found they could blame every kind of natural weather pattern on "anthropogenic greenhouse gases". If it gets wetter? Man. If it gets colder? Man. If there is a drought? Man. If there is a flood? Man.

The is no "Keeper of the Dictionary": in environmental science. Sort of like Greenhouse Gases. We know that is not how greenhouses work in truth. The CO2/Methane levels would kill you like a chemical weapon if their PPM were high enough to eclipse the glass trapping the heat.

We knew slash and burn was not clever, and mass destruction of rain forests wasn't bright, way before GHG was coined. And we know that propelling vehicles turns chemical energy into heat. All vehicles.
 
Last edited:
This is then refuted as being a logical fallacy itself of argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority), because scientific consensus is relied upon rather than the science itself.
That argument has a tincture of merit, but what follows is incredible: links to debunked garbage, newspaper articles, and personal blogs as something to rationally anchor the skepticism.

This is why denialists are called idiots. They can't even be even handed in avoiding the fallacies they purport to disavow. Every time I bothered to hear out a Jrad type who was "open to evidence from either side" of the debate I was offered something along the lines of Anthony Watts or propaganda from UK tabloids as equal but opposing evidence to peer reviewed science.
 
Last edited:
??? Did you post that from 1970? Because if not you're a denier not a skeptic...

The good news is that most of the American public has figured out that that the AGW scare is phony and understand that all the name calling and denier insults are what they do to people when they can't win arguments on the basis of science and have to resort to ad hominem attacks in an a futile attempt to prove their point. That is glaringly obvious in a few of the posts here. It always happens in global warming threads.

BTW it is funny that you mention 1970 since that is about the time that after years of cooling the scientists of the day were trying to convince that we were about to enter another ice age. Now they tell us that we are going to burn up.
 
Last edited:
The good news is that most of the American public has figured out that that the AGW scare is phony and understand that all the name calling and denier insults are what they do to people when they can't win arguments on the basis of science and have to resort to ad hominem attacks in an a futile attempt to prove their point. That is glaringly obvious in a few of the posts here. It always happens in global warming threads.

BTW it is funny that you mention 1970 since that is about the time that after years of cooling the scientists of the day were trying to convince that we were about to enter another ice age. Now they tell us that we are going to burn up.

SO2 causes cooling; CO2 causes warming... that's how physics works. Most scientists recognized that CO2 was winning. Guess what happens if you pass laws to limit adding SO2 but lack the courage or intelligence to limit CO2...

Which fact do you think is untrue?

  1. CO2 levels have risen ~40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started
  2. The burning of Fools Fuel has emitted over twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise (what hasn't collected in the atmosphere is acidifying the oceans)
  3. Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in temperature of >3C. The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years...
How can all be true but Global Warming false? If you deny physics.... you're not a skeptic, you're a denier... that's how english works...

I'm curious how deep this rabbit hole goes... do you think the Earth is flat? That water or fire are elements?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: jrad6515 and EinSV