Wow what a speach! (Climate change)

[soulcity]

I'm neither a climate change denialist nor do I believe in it. The fact is that the entire issue(s) has become a quasi-religion filled with fear mongering and political opportunism.

But on that note....

I do NOT believe in the myth of sustainable "anything" or that "green" technologies exist. If people truly want a society that's sustainable and green then they need to roll back the clock 200 years. So perhaps we're doomed and perhaps we're not but there's no way in hell will I ever be able to find out the truth of our situation.

In the meantime for anyone that wants to make a difference I suggest that they:

* Get rid of their cars and ride horses.
* Stop taking planes and build wooden ships
* Plow their fields with an Ox
* Get rid of electricity and make bees wax candles.
* Don't go shopping for clothes and instead raise sheep for wool

So until I see big shots like Elon Musk ridding a horse to work... I'm not going to worry too much about the possibility of climate change.

[Headbanger]

Not believing in climate change is the same thing as being a climate change denier - that's virtually by definition. Kind of like when someone tells me that they aren't anti-vax, they just don't believe vaccines work. Its still being anti-vax.

All you are doing is falling for another line of BS. There are numerous "green" technologies. Its true that there is no such thing as having "0" environmental impact, but many technologies exist that have a considerably less impact on the environment than current mainstream technologies, and are becoming more widely available as time goes on.

For instance, using a hybrid vehicle is less damaging to the climate than a traditional gas powered vehicle. Using an electric car is much less damaging to the environment than a gas based car.
Or, building a nuclear power plant as opposed to building a coal fire plant. (As a bonus, we'd have a lot fewer cases of lung disease)
Or, switching to energy efficient lightbulbs if you have not already done so. (As a bonus, save a couple bucks on the electric bill)
Or switching to using GMO crops where possible to reduce the acreage needed to harvest the same amount of crops.

The proposals you made are clearly not sustainable, not feasible, nor environmental. "Olde fashion" does not mean better. In this case, you'd wipe out most of humanity in order to adopt those proposals [no electricity = no Haber process]. Sure, you could argue that wiping out most of humanity would reduce the carbon footprint, but at the same point, we can reduce the carbon footprint without having to resort to such drastic measures.

Elon Musk, through the Tesla lines of cars, has reduced the carbon footprint a lot more than switching over to riding a horse, and has made his patents pertaining to the construction of electric vehicles open so that other manufacturers can make them in an effort to stem global warming.

[RobertX]

You're preaching to the choir, soulcity. It's all easy when you say it, but how about spreading an acceptable message so that all of us can take heed and start?

Have you started?

[soulcity]

Not believing in climate change is the same thing as being a climate change denier -

Read my words...

I've absolutely no way of knowing if climate change is real or not.

Elon Musk, through the Tesla lines of cars, has reduced the carbon footprint a lot more than switching over to riding a horse, and has made his patents pertaining to the construction of electric vehicles open so that other manufacturers can make them in an effort to stem global warming.

Y2K... Weapons of mass destruction..... Climate change... etc... etc.. etc. It's always panic and promises of a horrible death if we don't do exactly as we're told.

SO since I don't know who to believe and I don't know what to believe. I therefore promise to not worry until I see politicians and CEO's of green corporations ridding horses instead of cars and using 2 tin cans on a string instead of smart phones.

You're preaching to the choir, soulcity. It's all easy when you say it, but how about spreading an acceptable message so that all of us can take heed and start?
Have you started?

One more time allow me to make myself clear.

I'm not going to do a damn thing different until I see someone like Elon Musk or Bernie Sanders giving up all their stuff in order to live like 18th century pilgrims.

[waregim]

For instance, using a hybrid vehicle is less damaging to the climate than a traditional gas powered vehicle. Using an electric car is much less damaging to the environment than a gas based car.
Or, building a nuclear power plant as opposed to building a coal fire plant. (As a bonus, we'd have a lot fewer cases of lung disease)
Or, switching to energy efficient lightbulbs if you have not already done so. (As a bonus, save a couple bucks on the electric bill)
Or switching to using GMO crops where possible to reduce the acreage needed to harvest the same amount of crops.

Elon Musk, through the Tesla lines of cars, has reduced the carbon footprint a lot more than switching over to riding a horse, and has made his patents pertaining to the construction of electric vehicles open so that other manufacturers can make them in an effort to stem global warming.

I much prefer a tin foil hat to a lifetime addiction to blue pills.

Fist, I do not deny environmental, or climate changes. But I do question the role of CO2 in them, and even promoters of CO2 AGW have been debating the exact models for Co2 effects on the atmosphere. Particularly about the SATURATION issue.

As for climate changes:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

EVs run on electricity, which require massive turbines to produce. Most powered by fossil fuels, as the amount of power required cannot be supplied by 'renewable' resources for the forseeable future. 100 megawatts of coal/oil energy, will produce around 85 megawatts of electricity. And as the energy required (actually joules, but I use wattage for convenience) is the same per pound to climb a hill at a fixed height, or combat air/mechanical resistance per mile - the gasoline engine would win any comparison based on the simple fact that the key factor: weight, is substantially less.

Even with avoiding road taxes, the cost per mile at present for electricity is roughly equivalent to a Gasoline Combustion Engine (GCE). In fact the EV is not even new. It was around in the Victorian Era battling against the steam engine. It lost.
EV's require vastly more energy to produce than a GCE vehicle. They weigh more, and require far more exotic and energy intensive material, such as lithium, and those very expensive batteries must be replaced at least once a decade. If not sooner.

But most important: If the EV was ever really adopted by the public we would need to have a *massive* overhaul of our power infrastructure. A typical service of around 100 amps, would need to be converted to around 1000 amps for any realistic time recharge with a powerful enough vehicle realistically engineered to take on hills and temperature extremes. This would require a massive upgrade to generation equipment as well as electric prices, that would at least double the cost of electicity per mile. And make GCE a bargain.

Their extra weight would significant increase the need for road surface repair/replacement, and increased usage of asphalt (petroleum).

Right now they are toys, used in Scandanavia by the affluent as a secondary vehicle for driving to work and back (at hours where a breakdown is less inconvenient).

I am all in favor of nukes, even breeder reactors to get the last erg out of the fuel. Hopefully with designs that dont expose spent fuel to the elements. But I think that coal should be used where appropriate and that scrubbing tech is sufficient.

Efficient lighting is a given. It is simply cheaper.

GMOs are greatly more destructive than the CO2 in a dozen Pinatubos.
The are based on a false genetics. They were devised at a time when introns in DNA were considered useless, and large neough to scattershoot foreign genes into with no ill effects. But it has since been discovered that those introns do play a real and vital part in gene expression, and that messing with them can have unintended consequences. Like the GMO bacteria used to make tryptophan that underwnet a spontaneous mutation and started making a nerve poison that killed about a thousand people. Like the GMO tomatoes that were pulled from the market after causing allergic reactions. And the simple fact that the genes expressed in the plants, if inserted into the human genome would generate poisons, cause cancer, alter metabolism, and do a host of other undesirable things. And due to 'frame-shifting' have effects that can take decades to appear.

One reason the human genome is so large is that those introns also contain alot of junk, like virus and bacterial residues and other bits and pieces acquired through diet or environmental exposure. Genetic exchange is a fundamental part of biological processes, particilarly at the bacterial level. As in intestinal 'fauna'.
The good news is that in reality, only about one in ten thousand newly created frankenseeds ever survive to germination due to the haphazard nature of the process. Most 'mutations' are fatal. And none of those used commercially have any required testing for safety. It is not without some damn good reasons that they are outlawd in many nations.

And THEN there is the other aspect: Their use is generally with an external poison such as glyphosate, or an Agent Orange component - to which they are resistant. Glyphosate has shown itself to be carcinogenic, as well as Agent Orange. And our diet is saturated with it. Its even been increasingly used in Non-GMMO crops such as wheat to kill the harvest, so it is easier for combines to process.

I live in farm country. Here the farmers say that GMOs increase crop yields for the first two years and then fall off. Weeds quickly adapt to it as I have seen in our driveway with Roundup. Farmers also say that their livestock can readily spot the difference between GMO feed and 'real' feed, and always prefer the latter. If a cow can SMELL the difference, you can be pretty sure that they are NOT equivalent.

And a simple course in physics would demonstrate how Musk is *wasting* far more energy than he is 'saving'.

This is not to say that fossils fuels should not be supplanted. They are finite and EROI is rapidly diminishing. Within a century they will simply be impractical, so we must ramp up industry and tech processes to speed up the replacement tech. And all that takes huge amounts of resources and energy. As in fossil fuels.

As i said before, a post-industrial society is better known as a third world shithole.

[Headbanger]

Read my words... 

I've absolutely no way of knowing if climate change is real or not. 

I read your words, and the sentiment is still ridiculous. There are heaps of data that show that climate change is very real. I mean, you can use the google fingers, or peruse NOAA data if you want, or look through any of the scientific literate science news sites, etc. Being deliberately ignorant of this does not make you some kind of climate change "agnostic," because you are not dealing with some question of metaphysics, philosophy, or spirituality; this is a question of what the facts are and whether the facts have been proven. They have been.

Y2K... Weapons  of mass destruction..... Climate change...  etc... etc.. etc.    It's always panic and promises of a horrible death if we don't do exactly as we're told.

SO since I don't know who to believe and I don't know what to believe.    I therefore promise to not worry until I see politicians and CEO's of green corporations ridding horses instead of cars and using 2 tin cans on a string instead of smart phones.

Yes, let's use that as a reasonable metric for anything! Perhaps I should wait to throw away all his bottled water before I trust drinking tap water. /s

I do think its ironic that you use the examples of Y2K and Weapons of Mass Destruction. The irony of Y2K is that it was a really serious program bug that would have caused very real and serious ramifications, but was virtually eliminated by a massive effort in software upgrades. For weapons of mass destruction, the threat has never gone away. We are still living in a world of mutually assured destruction.

---

For instance, using a hybrid vehicle is less damaging to the climate than a traditional gas powered vehicle. Using an electric car is much less damaging to the environment than a gas based car.
Or, building a nuclear power plant as opposed to building a coal fire plant. (As a bonus, we'd have a lot fewer cases of lung disease)
Or, switching to energy efficient lightbulbs if you have not already done so. (As a bonus, save a couple bucks on the electric bill)
Or switching to using GMO crops where possible to reduce the acreage needed to harvest the same amount of crops.

Elon Musk, through the Tesla lines of cars, has reduced the carbon footprint a lot more than switching over to riding a horse, and has made his patents pertaining to the construction of electric vehicles open so that other manufacturers can make them in an effort to stem global warming.

I much prefer a tin foil hat to a lifetime addiction to blue pills.

Nothing quite says you approach the vast piles of BS on the internet with a spoon and a whet appetite than bringing up an outdated reference to a science fiction movie that is predicated on bad science.

Fist, I do not deny environmental, or climate changes. But I do question the role of CO2 in them, and even promoters of CO2 AGW have been debating the exact models for Co2 effects on the atmosphere. Particularly about the SATURATION issue.

As for climate changes:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

More PRATT!
Go refute thyself and be free https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

EVs run on electricity, which require massive turbines to produce. Most powered by fossil fuels, as the amount of power required cannot be supplied by 'renewable' resources for the forseeable future. 100 megawatts of coal/oil energy, will produce around 85 megawatts of electricity. And as the energy required (actually joules, but I use wattage for convenience) is the same per pound to climb a hill at a fixed height, or combat air/mechanical resistance per mile - the gasoline engine would win any comparison based on the simple fact that the key factor: weight, is substantially less.

Even with avoiding road taxes, the cost per mile at present for electricity is roughly equivalent to a Gasoline Combustion Engine (GCE). In fact the EV is not even new. It was around in the Victorian Era battling against the steam engine. It lost.
EV's require vastly more energy to produce than a GCE vehicle. They weigh more, and require far more exotic and energy intensive material, such as lithium, and those very expensive batteries must be replaced at least once a decade. If not sooner.

But most important: If the EV was ever really adopted by the public we would need to have a *massive* overhaul of our power infrastructure. A typical service of around 100 amps, would need to be converted to around 1000 amps for any realistic time recharge with a powerful enough vehicle realistically engineered to take on hills and temperature extremes. This would require a massive upgrade to generation equipment as well as electric prices, that would at least double the cost of electicity per mile. And make GCE a bargain. 

Their extra weight would significant increase the need for road surface repair/replacement, and increased usage of asphalt (petroleum).

Right now they are toys, used in Scandanavia by the affluent as a secondary vehicle for driving to work and back (at hours where a breakdown is less inconvenient).

Such much wrong with this.

First off, I advised a combined approach. By changing the fundamental source of energy that backs the grid, Electric cars will mirror a drop in CO2 emissions.

The price per mile of electric cars vs gas engines favors electric cars. https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/.../costs.pdf

I have no idea where you are getting this notion that electric cars can't work hills, or what temperature range you are referring to for "extreme temps."

On a typical road, designed to withstand semi's driving on it, the added weight of an electric car is not likely to add much impact.

I am all in favor of nukes, even breeder reactors to get the last erg out of the fuel.  Hopefully with designs that dont expose spent fuel to the elements. But I think that coal should be used where appropriate and that scrubbing tech is sufficient.

Plant designs don't expose the fuel to the elements. Scrubbing technology is not sufficient because there is still disproportionately large CO2 emissions from the plants.

Efficient lighting is a given. It is simply cheaper.

The stopped clock phenomena in action.

GMOs are greatly more destructive than the CO2 in a dozen Pinatubos.
The are based on a false genetics. They were devised at a time when introns in DNA were considered useless, and large neough to scattershoot foreign genes into with no ill effects. But it has since been discovered that those introns do play a real and vital part in gene expression, and that messing with them can have unintended consequences. Like the GMO bacteria used to make tryptophan that underwnet a spontaneous mutation and started making a nerve poison that killed about a thousand people. Like the GMO tomatoes that were pulled from the market after causing allergic reactions. And the simple fact that the genes expressed in the plants, if inserted into the human genome would generate poisons, cause cancer, alter metabolism, and do a host of other undesirable things. And due to 'frame-shifting' have effects that can take decades to appear.

One reason the human genome is so large is that those introns also contain alot of junk, like virus and bacterial residues and other bits and pieces acquired through diet or environmental exposure. Genetic exchange is a fundamental part of biological processes, particilarly at the bacterial level. As in intestinal 'fauna'.
The good news is that in reality, only about one in ten thousand newly created frankenseeds ever survive to germination due to the haphazard nature of the process. Most 'mutations' are fatal.  And none of those used commercially have any required testing for safety.  It is not without some damn good reasons that they are outlawd in many nations.

Wow. What a load of crap. [double entendre re. mention of intestinal fauna]
GMO safety has been extensively tested, and is required to meet the same safety requirements of other foods.
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-new-plant-...red-plants

If these introns are dangerous, they sure haven't shown up in data.

And THEN there is the other aspect: Their use is generally with an external poison such as glyphosate, or an Agent Orange component - to which they are resistant. Glyphosate has shown itself to be carcinogenic, as well as Agent Orange. And our diet is saturated with it. Its even been increasingly used in Non-GMMO crops such as wheat to kill the harvest, so it is easier for combines to process.

US courts have allowed the claim that glyphosate causes cancer, against the advice of most large scientific bodies. Our diet is not saturated with glyphosate.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...th-cancer/

I live in farm country. Here the farmers say that GMOs increase crop yields for the first two years and then fall off. Weeds quickly adapt to it as I have seen in our driveway with Roundup. Farmers also say that their livestock can readily spot the difference between GMO feed and 'real' feed, and always prefer the latter. If a cow can SMELL the difference, you can be pretty sure that they are NOT equivalent.

Great, and I'll accept that is true when I start accepting hearsay from deep state red/blue pill mouthpieces. Nothing you've said here can't be explained by confirmation bias.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/...s-studies/

And a simple course in physics would demonstrate how Musk is *wasting* far more energy than he is 'saving'.

Oooo, a simple physics claim. If you had an understanding of physics necessary to make that claim, you would be able to demonstrate it with calculation. [/quote]

[soulcity]

I read your words, and the sentiment is still ridiculous. There are heaps of data that show that climate change is very real. I mean, you can use the google fingers, or peruse NOAA data if you want, or look through any of the scientific literate science news sites, etc.

Scientists are like everyone else today. IE: They're all trying to prove their prowess and advance their careers.
Sadly in any field there's always going to be a whole lot of political correctness and popular opinions for anyone trying to climb the ladder of success.

It's like today's media in which you can choose the narrative that you like the best. So if someone hates Trump they'll watch CNN and if they love him they'll watch Fox News. But in the end no one is broadcasting anything close to the facts or the reality of the situation.

It's the same thing with climate change.... "Maybe it's really happening and maybe it's not" but I'm not going to worry about it until I see Elon Musk selling horses in order to save the environment.

[LZA]

I read your words, and the sentiment is still ridiculous. There are heaps of data that show that climate change is very real. I mean, you can use the google fingers, or peruse NOAA data if you want, or look through any of the scientific literate science news sites, etc.

Scientists are like everyone else today. IE: They're all trying to prove their prowess and advance their careers.
Sadly in any field there's always going to be a whole lot of political correctness and popular opinions for anyone trying to climb the ladder of success.

It's like today's media in which you can choose the narrative that you like the best. So if someone hates Trump they'll watch CNN and if they love him they'll watch Fox News. But in the end no one is broadcasting anything close to the facts or the reality of the situation.

It's the same thing with climate change.... "Maybe it's really happening and maybe it's not" but I'm not going to worry about it until I see Elon Musk selling horses in order to save the environment.

I think I see your confusion in this... Politicians are NOT true scientists.

Politicians USE science to push their agendas... This whole world is full of bullshit... The science is there... Climate change is as real as gravity... It just in this day and age of the uber retard... People who think opinions are facts, you get shit like Climate change deniers and flat-earth thinkers... It's hard to sift through the propaganda, but it can be done...

Any your theory of going back to the old days may be noble, but reading your other posts, your view may be slanted since you have admitted that the past is your favorite time... All due respect, going back to horses is not a feasible way of thinking.

Why would it be needed if Elon Musk can build a car that's better and less harmful to the environment... He got that way through Science... The same science that proves things like climate change exists... We can have our cake and eat it too if we use science (not political malarkey) to get us there...

IMHO, denying things proved by science like climate change, we may as well deny things like gravity, the sun and moon don't exist...

Another example of what I'm getting at... Climate change can be mixed in with all the other conspiracy theories, like 0-11 and the moon landing...

The moon landing is a debate had by many, but you can't deny that the moon exists... Just like the effects of climate change are unknown and debated at this time, but it does exist... The hole in the ozone was much bigger than now... we took scientific steps in a forward direction to correct a real problem. Climate change is another problem we can solve in the same way

[soulcity]

I think I see your confusion in this...

You know what really bothers me???

It seems that all these "climate activists" are determined to label me either a wacko conspiracy theorist or that I'm some sort of poor confused simpleton.

Well I graduated from university and I know how academia works. Needless to say that the shit hits the fan whenever someone goes against almost any accepted orthodoxy. Science is NOT supposed to be a popularity contest and its job most certainly isn't trying to prove the null hypothesis. Unfortunately scientists are just like everyone else and they too can be arrogant, greedy, attention whores and they pursue careers, etc.

So my opinion on climate change is exactly the same as my opinion on the moon landing.

1. I've never been to the moon
2. I'm never going to be on the moon
3. Regardless if we did or did not land on the moon it makes zero difference in my life.

So I don't care.

Therefore until I see a massive exodus of people giving up their computers, phones and cars and riding horses... I just don't care what politicians, scientists and climate activists have to say.

[Headbanger]

I think I see your confusion in this...

You know what really bothers me???

It seems that all these "climate activists" are determined to label me either a wacko conspiracy theorist or that I'm some sort of poor confused simpleton.

I am not sorry, especially since I did not call you a simpleton, and climate change denial is pseudoscience/conspiracy. Your ideas expressed here are crap. I am attacking your ideas. It would be one thing to claim that you didn't understand how climate change works, but you are not; you are claiming that you can't know it is happening [bs - it is empirically determined with the data open to the public], that even if it is, it won't affect you [despite it literally going to affect the environment in which you live].

I mean its really not that hard. Even at a precursory glance, if most people who study something, tend to agree on a topic that pertains to that subject, they are probably right. With an astounding 97% of climate scientists agreeing that global warming is happening and that CO2 is driving it, it seems fair that we can safely say that the Earth is warming.
 

Well I graduated from university and I know how academia works.  Needless to say that the shit hits the fan whenever someone goes against almost any accepted orthodoxy.

 

Science /= Academia; Of course, this is a thinly veiled version of the Galileo gambit; Galileo stood up against the popular view of the day and was persecuted for it, but was later found out to be right. Therefore, you must be right because your beliefs are unpopular. Except, that's not how that works. The popularity of your idea has nothing to do with whether that idea is true or false. It is very much possible for popular ideas to be quite real. For instance, that the Earth is round.

It also has to deal with the amount of evidence and the quality of the evidence behind each viewpoint. In this case, there is a massive amount of data, multiple data sets, thousands of papers, and accurate predictions all supporting AGW. The contrary view is simply not able to compete in terms of quality or quantity.

Of course, its much easier for you to believe that scientists are just little NPC's in white coats regurgitating what the evil system fed them to begin with, because they don't want to discover whatever "in knowledge" you think you have for fear of persecution.

Science is NOT supposed to be a popularity contest and its job most certainly isn't trying to prove the null hypothesis.  Unfortunately scientists are just like everyone else and they too can be arrogant, greedy, attention whores and they pursue careers, etc. 

In other words, you don't like what they say so rather than attack the argument, you resort to assuming that they possess negative character traits. Sure, there are some bad guys that do bad things and manipulate results for their own end. But thinking that 97% of a given population are bad people? I mean, there's cynical, but that's out there in left field.

I don't even think you know what a null hypothesis is, especially in this context.

So my opinion on climate change is exactly the same as my opinion on the moon landing.

1. I've never been to the moon
2. I'm never going to be on the moon
3. Regardless if we did or did not land on the moon it makes zero difference in my life.

1. I've never been to climate change
2. I'm never going to be on the climate change

There. That's what you sound like. That is exactly what you are sounding like right now.

And yes, climate change WILL affect you, whether you believe in it or not. It is already having an effect on the world, and as part of the world, that includes you.

So I don't care.

Therefore until I see a massive exodus of people giving up their computers, phones and cars and riding horses... I just don't care what politicians, scientists and climate activists have to say.

In other words, you are just going to believe whatever it is you want regardless of the facts. That is exactly why you are a climate change denier. [/quote]