Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

3.6 ha ha 

 

 

You do realize, those aren't that same thing.....right?

Your response is like the old saying "I can't be out of money! I still have checks."

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

11 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Biden keeps running up the victories 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/manchin-strikes-major-deal-schumer-climate-tax-health-care-rcna40350

 

In an unexpected breakthrough, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., reversed his opposition to quickly moving a broad filibuster-proof bill Wednesday and announced he will support a package that includes major investments in drug pricing, as well as provisions to address climate change and taxes on the wealthy.

There’s been so much winning! Hard to believe there are polls showing him even more unpopular than the last guy. I’ve read that it might be a problem with messaging. I’m going with that and heaping equal blame on NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and Twitter for not being clear in articulating these victories. 

[B-Man]

13 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Biden keeps running up the victories 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/manchin-strikes-major-deal-schumer-climate-tax-health-care-rcna40350

 

In an unexpected breakthrough, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., reversed his opposition to quickly moving a broad filibuster-proof bill Wednesday and announced he will support a package that includes major investments in drug pricing, as well as provisions to address climate change and taxes on the wealthy.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

But the package’s climate portions could shift that dynamic. They would invest tens of billions of dollars in tax incentives encouraging generation of clean energy, the manufacture and purchase of electric vehicles, and the retooling of current auto factories.

Much of it can be thought of as investments in manufacturing jobs geared toward a specific social end — as industrial policy. What’s more, notes Princeton University professor Jesse Jenkins, it invests billions in the manufacture of green energies in declining coal communities.

“The new political opportunity is that this bill will deliver real benefits across the heartland,” Jenkins told me. He noted this could illustrate “economic opportunity in the energy transition,” which might “fundamentally change the politics of climate.”

Or, as Todd Tucker, the Roosevelt Institute’s industrial policy specialist, put it: “Ultimately, the way forward is to reorient climate towards jobs and security.”

4 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

There’s been so much winning! Hard to believe there are polls showing him even more unpopular than the last guy. I’ve read that it might be a problem with messaging. I’m going with that and heaping equal blame on NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and Twitter for not being clear in articulating these victories. 

polls? lol 

[SoCal Deek]

31 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But the package’s climate portions could shift that dynamic. They would invest tens of billions of dollars in tax incentives encouraging generation of clean energy, the manufacture and purchase of electric vehicles, and the retooling of current auto factories.

Much of it can be thought of as investments in manufacturing jobs geared toward a specific social end — as industrial policy. What’s more, notes Princeton University professor Jesse Jenkins, it invests billions in the manufacture of green energies in declining coal communities.

“The new political opportunity is that this bill will deliver real benefits across the heartland,” Jenkins told me. He noted this could illustrate “economic opportunity in the energy transition,” which might “fundamentally change the politics of climate.”

Or, as Todd Tucker, the Roosevelt Institute’s industrial policy specialist, put it: “Ultimately, the way forward is to reorient climate towards jobs and security.”

polls? lol 

Tibs.....we've gone over this. Where do you think the electricity for electric vehicles comes from?  Cars don't make power.  They consume it.

[Tenhigh]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Tibs.....we've gone over this. Where do you think the electricity for electric vehicles comes from?  Cars don't make power.  They consume it.

 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

 

No need for a cartoon. You can look at it in real life. Did you see the news segment where the Spokes Babe from Ford tells the reporter that the power for the electrical vehicle she's selling 'comes from the building' that they're standing in front of?  And when the reporter then turns and asks the Spokes Dude from the local power company where the building's power comes from he, without hesitation, says....."it comes from COAL!".

Edited July 28, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[aristocrat]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

WAIT, I WAS TOLD THE REEF WAS IRREVOCABLY DOOMED BY CLIMATE CHANGE: 

 

Coral cover increases in parts of Great Barrier Reef.

 

 

 

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2022/08/04/australia-Australia-Great-Barrier-Reef-cover/3641659633887/

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 7/28/2022 at 3:37 PM, SoCal Deek said:

No need for a cartoon. You can look at it in real life. Did you see the news segment where the Spokes Babe from Ford tells the reporter that the power for the electrical vehicle she's selling 'comes from the building' that they're standing in front of?  And when the reporter then turns and asks the Spokes Dude from the local power company where the building's power comes from he, without hesitation, says....."it comes from COAL!".

So people in charge of things not thinking it out all the way?  What's in effect here is the "out of sight, out of mind" principal.  Because moving some activity, in this case burning fossil fuels to power an EV, to a different point in the process does not eliminate the activity. 

 

An intelligent question to ask is how much different, objectively through measurement of CO & CO2 (its really carbon monoxide being produced through combustion and then the CO bonds with "free" oxygen" in the atmosphere to form CO2, correct?), is the carbon emission level from the power plant to power that vehicle than just using an ICE vehicle directly?  None of the 97% of all scientists and "experts" getting paid to recite the climate change talking points appear ready to tackle that one.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

So people in charge of things not thinking it out all the way?  What's in effect here is the "out of sight, out of mind" principal.  Because moving some activity, in this case burning fossil fuels to power an EV, to a different point in the process does not eliminate the activity. 

 

An intelligent question to ask is how much different, objectively through measurement of CO & CO2 (its really carbon monoxide being produced through combustion and then the CO bonds with "free" oxygen" in the atmosphere to form CO2, correct?), is the carbon emission level from the power plant to power that vehicle than just using an ICE vehicle directly?  None of the 97% of all scientists and "experts" getting paid to recite the climate change talking points appear ready to tackle that one.

there are many studies on this. It’s pretty straightforward although lengthy pchem actually.  Did the math exercise freshman year in collage. It’s true the grid needs to produce cleaner energy for EV cars to be rational, and carbon monoxide is an unnecessary detail. 
 

They say it’s all about CO2. The more in the air the more likely the earth to warm.  You can’t burn anything for energy without co2. I’m alway wondering where there work is on supers respiratory algae that can just suck the co2 out so hard we go back to an ice age. Then we don’t need all this other silliness. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[DrW]

2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

So people in charge of things not thinking it out all the way?  What's in effect here is the "out of sight, out of mind" principal.  Because moving some activity, in this case burning fossil fuels to power an EV, to a different point in the process does not eliminate the activity. 

 

An intelligent question to ask is how much different, objectively through measurement of CO & CO2 (its really carbon monoxide being produced through combustion and then the CO bonds with "free" oxygen" in the atmosphere to form CO2, correct?), is the carbon emission level from the power plant to power that vehicle than just using an ICE vehicle directly?  None of the 97% of all scientists and "experts" getting paid to recite the climate change talking points appear ready to tackle that one.

 

No. If enough oxygen is present (and this is almost always the case), the products of combustion are water and CO2. E.g., the equation for the combustion of octane, a component of car fuel:

 

2 C8H18(l) + 25 O2(g) → 16 CO2(g) + 18 H2O(g)

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 minutes ago, DrW said:

 

No. If enough oxygen is present (and this is almost always the case), the products of combustion are water and CO2. E.g., the equation for the combustion of octane, a component of car fuel:

 

2 C8H18(l) + 25 O2(g) → 16 CO2(g) + 18 H2O(g)

I get what you're saying but if I captured the gas coming out of the tailpipe into an isolated vacuum container before it has an opportunity to contact the atmosphere isn't that container full of CO gas?  

[DrW]

19 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I get what you're saying but if I captured the gas coming out of the tailpipe into an isolated vacuum container before it has an opportunity to contact the atmosphere isn't that container full of CO gas?  

 

No. Most of the exhaust gas will be CO2 (and water). CO is just a small (but very toxic) byproduct due to some incomplete combustion. Modern catalytic converters actually reduce the CO amount to close to zero if the engine is properly tuned.

[Big Blitz]

Europe's energy crisis has gotten so bad that French power stations are being allowed to break environmental rules as a fresh heatwave looks set to cause more chaos

 

 

French power stations are reportedly being allowed to break environmental rules to stay open, per Bloomberg.

 

The waiver is in place until September and will potentially breach national environmental standards.

 

Europe's prolonged hot weather is putting a further strain on energy supplies.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/energy-french-power-stations-environmental-rules-heatwave-europe-2022-8

[B-Man]

 

 

Greenpeace's Patrick Moore and the hardcore evidence against climate change myths

American Thinker, by Alicia Colon

 

 

One of the most interesting persons I interviewed for the New York Sun was Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. (snip) I recently watched him on YouTube discussing his book, “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom,” and it is an eye opener to anyone who still believes in the global warming hoax. (snip) Mr. Moore’s book not only documents the hardcore evidence that global warming is a not a threat to the planet, it argues that we are essentially still in an ice age. While he covers climate change, he also debunks all the other lies we’ve been fed by environmental charlatans such as Gore.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/08/greenpeaces_patrick_moore_and_the_hardcore_evidence_against_climate_change_myths.html

 

 

.

[GaryPinC]

Happy to see dishonest scientist thoroughly investigated.  Any time an investigator insists on collecting or analyzing data alone is trouble.

 

https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says

 

 

"Several former members of Dixson’s lab supported the whistleblowers’ request for an investigation. One of them, former postdoc Zara Cowan, was the first to identify the many duplications in the data file for the now-retracted Science paper. Another, former Ph.D. student Paul Leingang, first brought accusations against Dixson to university officials in January 2020. He left the lab soon after and joined the broader group of whistleblowers.

Leingang, who had been at Dixson’s lab since 2016, says he had become increasingly suspicious of her findings, in part because she usually collected her fluming data alone. In November 2019 he decided to secretly track some of Dixson’s activities. He supplied the investigation with detailed notes, chat conversations, and tweets by Dixson to show that she did not spend enough time on her fluming studies to collect the data she was jotting down in her lab notebooks."

 

 

[LeGOATski]

On 8/7/2022 at 4:57 PM, B-Man said:

 

 

WAIT, I WAS TOLD THE REEF WAS IRREVOCABLY DOOMED BY CLIMATE CHANGE: 

 

Coral cover increases in parts of Great Barrier Reef.

 

 

 

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2022/08/04/australia-Australia-Great-Barrier-Reef-cover/3641659633887/

lol, did you even read the article?

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

39 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

lol, did you even read the article?

 

I did not read the article, just saw the graph and heard the narrative for 20 years- what does the article say it means?

[LeGOATski]

8 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I did not read the article, just saw the graph and heard the narrative for 20 years- what does the article say it means?

The reef has always been recoverable. Plant and animal populations are recoverable. We know this. We've known this, despite whatever narrative you're referring to. I'm not saying you're in the wrong, I'm honestly not sure what specific narrative you mean. I assume bleached corral is permanently dead, or bleached, but it doesn't mean more can't grow.

 

Conservation efforts go a long way, but we can't stop the large natural events that cause the bleaching of the reef, IMO. This is a train that will keep on rolling and is a cyclical global process.