Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Q-baby!]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

being the time traveler that i am, i just got back from the year 2032 and yes... the world is still here. however, the lunatics on the Left are proclaiming that COVID-19 actually saved the world from extinction and that if it wasn't for the bio-weapon being unleashed upon mankind, the world would have indeed ended at the end of Trump Jr.'s second term. they unequivocally state though that because Ivanka just won the election that all NPC's are going to expire in 12 months.

Man you clowns are losers! Losers beyond belief. 

[Chef Jim]

20 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

Man you clowns are losers! Losers beyond belief. 

 

Try to find a sense of humor.  It may do you, and those around you, some good. 

[Q-baby!]

15 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Try to find a sense of humor.  It may do you, and those around you, some good. 

Thanks! 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 3/23/2020 at 6:52 PM, B-Man said:

 

Reading comprehension problems continue above. 
 

Climate change is not a hoax. 
 

Solving it with increased taxes and more government regulations is a hoax

 

What exactly are the solutions to climate change that don't involve some form of a large-scale government-influenced initiative? This is an honest, sincere question for the message board. 259 pages of this thread are too many to peruse. Any specific articles, links, books, or YouTube videos I should check out? I'd be very open to free market solutions if there are good ones out there.

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

What exactly are the solutions to climate change that don't involve some form of a large-scale government-influenced initiative? This is an honest, sincere question for the message board. 259 pages of this thread are too many to peruse. Any specific articles, links, books, or YouTube videos I should check out? I'd be very open to free market solutions if there are good ones out there.

Answer: Scientific Innovation and the natural evolution of technology.

[ALF]

It looks  like the US is going to electric cars in a major way.

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, ALF said:

It looks  like the US is going to electric cars in a major way.

All in due time as the price point and performance of the technology makes it equivalent to competing forms of transportation. 

[GG]

7 minutes ago, ALF said:

It looks  like the US is going to electric cars in a major way.

 

Then you better hope that politicians are onboard to upgrade electricity generation and improving the power grid.

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Then you better hope that politicians are onboard to upgrade electricity generation and improving the power grid.

I believe the bigger challenge will be the recharging technology. Stations need to be more frequent with faster recharge times. The solar array on my home easily recharges an electric vehicle but only as long as I’m not driving all that far, or far away.

[ComradeKayAdams]

13 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Answer: Scientific Innovation and the natural evolution of technology.

 

Gotcha, but don't you think the government has a major role to play too, in terms of research grants from NSF, DOE, DOD, etc....? Or from government-run DOE research labs? Once upon a time, a lot of amazing and diverse science/technology resulted from throwing a lot of taxpayer money into NASA. There's also the temporal constraint component to man-made climate change. The free market operates on its own time frame.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, RealKayAdams said:

 

Gotcha, but don't you think the government has a major role to play too, in terms of research grants from NSF, DOE, DOD, etc....? Or from government-run DOE research labs? Once upon a time, a lot of amazing and diverse science/technology resulted from throwing a lot of taxpayer money into NASA. There's also the temporal constraint component to man-made climate change. The free market operates on its own time frame.

I think the government can help by getting out of the way. If you want to get somewhere fast, the last folks to turn to are those in government. It doesn’t make them bad people. It’s just the aquarium they swim in. 

[GG]

51 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I believe the bigger challenge will be the recharging technology. Stations need to be more frequent with faster recharge times. The solar array on my home easily recharges an electric vehicle but only as long as I’m not driving all that far, or far away.

It's the classic 80/20 rule.  For 80+% of cases, your  daily trips don't exceed the charged battery capacity.  You don't build your infrastructure to meet the needs of the 10%

[Chef Jim]

8 minutes ago, GG said:

It's the classic 80/20 rule.  For 80+% of cases, your  daily trips don't exceed the charged battery capacity.  You don't build your infrastructure to meet the needs of the 10%

Good point. Because my issue was always the lack of charging stations. But in reality how often does someone drive farther than one charge will take them in one shot. I drive my car every day but it’s 36 miles round trip. And If I can charge my car at home every day I would rarely need a remote charging station.  I’d plug in my car every day when I get home just as everyone plugs in their phone every night when they go to bed.  I assume that would be the process right. People would always charge at home.  
 

And why does every electric car (other than Tesla) look really stupid?  I mean come on BMW. Seriously??

 

 

 

 

[GG]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

Good point. Because my issue was always the lack of charging stations. But in reality how often does someone drive farther than one charge will take them in one shot. I drive my car every day but it’s 36 miles round trip. And If I can charge my car at home every day I would rarely need a remote charging station.  I’d plug in my car every day when I get home just as everyone plugs in their phone every night when they go to bed.  I assume that would be the process right. People would always charge at home.  
 

And why does every electric car (other than Tesla) look really stupid?  I mean come on BMW. Seriously??

 

 

 

 

I know, why make them look like clown cars?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Gotcha, but don't you think the government has a major role to play too, in terms of research grants from NSF, DOE, DOD, etc....? Or from government-run DOE research labs? Once upon a time, a lot of amazing and diverse science/technology resulted from throwing a lot of taxpayer money into NASA. There's also the temporal constraint component to man-made climate change. The free market operates on its own time frame.

Certainly the government has a major role to play, and you’re almost to the “how” if it all in the above. (IMO of course) 

 

Kennedy made landing a man on the moon a national goal — and people went with it. In part due to national pride, in part due to a fear of the Soviet threat. And you’re 100% correct that the Apollo program produced numerous benefits which we are still reaping today. I think very few would object to a similar national goal being set with regards to climate — even something bold. Where the rub comes is with the HOW of it all. The Apollo Program didn’t attempt to completely remake our economic model and form of government, as an example. It worked within both to accomplish its goal. The Green New Deal (and it’s variations) all seek to completely upend both in exchange for powers that, in the opinion of many, have little to no hope of solving the actual issue. 
 

The loudest eco-voices in government/media/academia know this to be true. They know it’s an uphill sell to the bulk of the public. The workaround to that has been to over-hype the urgency and push fear-mongering instead of an honest discussion about the topic. The subject itself, despite being about science, has become dogmatic rather than empiric. Models became bibles — to argue against them is met with scorn and vitriol. Of course the other side of the debate, largely the oil cartels, add to this with their own fear-mongering and hysteria. Both sides buy politicians, making the debate overly partisan to the point of making any sort of compromise feel impossible. 

So, since (imo) any “rational” discussion on this topic is nearly impossible without retreating into an echo chamber, allow me to circle back to your post above and give you an even more controversial/just-for- fun answer to how the government can solve the problem quicker than private industry alone. It’s actually pretty simple, and would be a complete game-changer that would give us a real chance to not only slow the rising carbon levels, but reverse it entirely. Permanently.  
 

How? Simple: declassify all the top secret patents related to propulsion. Declassify the truth about any recovered craft which (definitely) may exist. And then partner with the private defense contractors who are already proficient in building this tech to completely revamp our transportation industry and power grid. It would have an almost immediate impact, create millions of real infrastructure and manufacturing jobs at home and around the world. It would help the emerging nations get off coal decades faster, while reducing global poverty by leaps and bounds as energy becomes more efficient and cheaper for even the poorest of nations. If they did that, you could completely change the world within three generations while solving major issues within our society even beyond the environmental ones. 
 

Sounds nuts. I know. But the USN did just acknowledge these crafts — wherever they’re from and however they work — are real. Asking if any of them have ever been studied, beyond visual observation, seems like a logical next question. From a political “tent” perspective, that’s the kind of movement that could cross partisan lines. Which means you likely could get even more voices / pressure applied to the cause and pols elected at the ballot box. 
 

? 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Deranged Rhino
Typos

[123719bwiqrb]

How about we work on healthcare (or should I say holistic medicine) in the 2020s, and we get back to this pet green project in the 2030s?  

[ALF]

10 hours ago, GG said:

 

Then you better hope that politicians are onboard to upgrade electricity generation and improving the power grid.

You are right  

General Motors to spend $20 billion through 2025 on new electric, autonomous vehicles

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/04/gm-to-spend-20-billion-on-new-electric-autonomous-vehicles.html

 

The new rule cuts the year-over-year improvements expected from the auto industry, slashing standards that require automakers to produce fleets that average nearly 55 mpg by 2025. Instead, the Trump rule would bring that number down to about 40 mpg by 2026, bringing mileage below what automakers have said is possible for them to achieve.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/490318-trump-administration-rolls-back-obama-era-fuel-efficiency-standards

 

Even 40 mpg  will need some electric to get the average that high.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

13 minutes ago, ALF said:

You are right  

General Motors to spend $20 billion through 2025 on new electric, autonomous vehicles

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/04/gm-to-spend-20-billion-on-new-electric-autonomous-vehicles.html

 

The new rule cuts the year-over-year improvements expected from the auto industry, slashing standards that require automakers to produce fleets that average nearly 55 mpg by 2025. Instead, the Trump rule would bring that number down to about 40 mpg by 2026, bringing mileage below what automakers have said is possible for them to achieve.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/490318-trump-administration-rolls-back-obama-era-fuel-efficiency-standards

 

Even 40 mpg  will need some electric to get the average that high.

 

#orangemanbad

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

#orangemanbad

He's a complete idiot, you don't see that? 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/4/2020 at 10:15 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

Certainly the government has a major role to play, and you’re almost to the “how” if it all in the above. (IMO of course) 

 

Kennedy made landing a man on the moon a national goal — and people went with it. In part due to national pride, in part due to a fear of the Soviet threat. And you’re 100% correct that the Apollo program produced numerous benefits which we are still reaping today. I think very few would object to a similar national goal being set with regards to climate — even something bold. Where the rub comes is with the HOW of it all. The Apollo Program didn’t attempt to completely remake our economic model and form of government, as an example. It worked within both to accomplish its goal. The Green New Deal (and it’s variations) all seek to completely upend both in exchange for powers that, in the opinion of many, have little to no hope of solving the actual issue. 
 

The loudest eco-voices in government/media/academia know this to be true. They know it’s an uphill sell to the bulk of the public. The workaround to that has been to over-hype the urgency and push fear-mongering instead of an honest discussion about the topic. The subject itself, despite being about science, has become dogmatic rather than empiric. Models became bibles — to argue against them is met with scorn and vitriol. Of course the other side of the debate, largely the oil cartels, add to this with their own fear-mongering and hysteria. Both sides buy politicians, making the debate overly partisan to the point of making any sort of compromise feel impossible. 

So, since (imo) any “rational” discussion on this topic is nearly impossible without retreating into an echo chamber, allow me to circle back to your post above and give you an even more controversial/just-for- fun answer to how the government can solve the problem quicker than private industry alone. It’s actually pretty simple, and would be a complete game-changer that would give us a real chance to not only slow the rising carbon levels, but reverse it entirely. Permanently.  
 

How? Simple: declassify all the top secret patents related to propulsion. Declassify the truth about any recovered craft which (definitely) may exist. And then partner with the private defense contractors who are already proficient in building this tech to completely revamp our transportation industry and power grid. It would have an almost immediate impact, create millions of real infrastructure and manufacturing jobs at home and around the world. It would help the emerging nations get off coal decades faster, while reducing global poverty by leaps and bounds as energy becomes more efficient and cheaper for even the poorest of nations. If they did that, you could completely change the world within three generations while solving major issues within our society even beyond the environmental ones. 
 

Sounds nuts. I know. But the USN did just acknowledge these crafts — wherever they’re from and however they work — are real. Asking if any of them have ever been studied, beyond visual observation, seems like a logical next question. From a political “tent” perspective, that’s the kind of movement that could cross partisan lines. Which means you likely could get even more voices / pressure applied to the cause and pols elected at the ballot box. 
 

? 

 

You lost me a bit in your last two paragraphs, DR, but I always appreciate outside-the-box brainstorming for difficult problems! Here is broadly where I stand on this subject, since I have some time to waste this morning:

 

1. Man-induced climate change is not a hoax like this thread title suggests. The science behind it, in terms of the fundamental mechanisms by which planets warm, has been well-established since the middle twentieth century. The accumulated evidence is overwhelming. I won’t bore my dear PPP readers with talk of weather pattern data, average temperatures, summer sea ice, greenhouse gases, ice core gas deposits, atmospheric carbon isotopes, ocean sediments, tree rings, corals, sun activity, orbital mechanics, cyanobacteria, yadda yadda yadda…unless people really want to…

 

2. The computational models that scientists use to predict global warming time frames and levels of severity are certainly open to criticism, but not at all to the degree that the biggest and loudest climate change skeptics state. When it comes to the problem-solving stages of climate change, I have no problem operating from the worst-case starting point of these models due to the grave potential impact on civilization.

 

3. Private industry has an important role to play in terms of technological innovation and churning out applicable products into the global markets, but it needs government incentives to move toward these solutions in a focused and expedited manner. In terms of the fundamental science behind these products, this is best done in academia and with (primarily public) research grants. It’s been this way for a while now. The glory days of Bell Labs and IBM research labs are long gone. The same goes for the government labs, too. The glory days of NASA and the Manhattan Project are even more long gone.

 

4. I enthusiastically support the Green New Deal, but only when viewed as a declaration of a moral imperative and a loosely outlined philosophy for getting to that point of solving man-made climate change. I’m not comfortable with calls for nationalizing our energy industries, for example. I’m also very unhappy with exclusions of nuclear energy and what I see as an overreliance on wind farms. We need many more details on the (unavoidably disruptive) economic transition process for fossil fuel companies and all other industries affected by substantial infrastructure changes. I’d also like to see a greater emphasis on things like addressing reforestation initiatives, the environmental impact of meat/dairy industries, and public/private land right claims. Basically, I’m open-minded to a wide range of discussion on the details, but I’m also fairly convinced at this point that a large primarily government-based movement is needed to tackle climate change. We are, after all, at this point because we have not been a proper watchdog of capitalism since the Industrial Revolution began. I don’t think capitalism is inherently evil or anything like that, but it has proven over and over again that it is not much of an environmental steward and doesn’t respond very well to long-term problems and community-shared risks like man-made global warming. We need to be pragmatic and not turn a once very healthy American skepticism of centralized government authority into a dogmatic pathology. Sure, be wary of increased government reaches of power and government arbiters of economic victors in a Green New Deal, but also hold that same standard for fossil fuel companies that have been manipulating government regulations and spreading disinformation campaigns for quite some time now.