diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

Churches in the U.S. seem opposed to climate change. The biggest institutions Catholics, Muslims, Jewish are all solidly on board (e.g., Pope slams climate change deniers as 'stupid'). AFAIK, denialism seems to stem mostly from the paid for campaign fossil fuel companies are apparently still waging campaigns that the science isn't settled and political lobbying.


The two aren't exclusive and good religions/ministers/priests encourage questions and discovery. Religion doesn't mean cult, brain-washing, or there's only one way to think about things. There are many interpretations to nearly every passage in the bible. It's also about community. Having questions isn't uncommon ; -). If they're persistent questions talk to someone (e.g., ministers/priests/rabbi) and ask if they have time to chat.
I can understand why the top management and owners of fossil fuel companies are denying man made climate change, their incomes depend on it, shortsighted as they could easily change jobs even if their wages were reduced little. (after the fist couple of hundred thousand dollars per year, it doesn't matter you should be recently comfortable and a clear conscience might led to a more enjoyable existence. There might be some who believe they know more than 99% of climate scientist.

I am comfortable not following any of the religions, just like the followers of one religion are usually quite comfortable not following any of the other religions. I do think that religion can be a powerful motivator for some people to do the right or sadly the wrong thing. I can look at the statistics and see that fewer people consider themselves religious and that most people accept man made climate change. I can also see that younger republicans agree with the science while most republican males over 50 disagree. The older they get the more likely it is that they disagree with the scientific literature.

My question is if the church leaders in the US are driving young people away from church with the denial of the sciences, not just climate science, rather than embracing science like the head of the Catholic church seems to. Or is that just a coincidence.
 
I can understand why the top management and owners of fossil fuel companies are denying man made climate change, their incomes depend on it, shortsighted as they could easily change jobs even if their wages were reduced little. (after the fist couple of hundred thousand dollars per year, it doesn't matter you should be recently comfortable and a clear conscience might led to a more enjoyable existence. There might be some who believe they know more than 99% of climate scientist.
There are a lot who know more than climate (change) scientists, most people do, they just don't like to admit it because it is uncomfortable.

99% of Salesmen at the Ford Dealership agree that you should buy a Ford. It's settled, denier.
I am comfortable not following any of the religions, just like the followers of one religion are usually quite comfortable not following any of the other religions. I do think that religion can be a powerful motivator for some people to do the right or sadly the wrong thing. I can look at the statistics and see that fewer people consider themselves religious and that most people accept man made climate change. I can also see that younger republicans agree with the science while most republican males over 50 disagree. The older they get the more likely it is that they disagree with the scientific literature.
Government and or 'science' worship is the replacement for religion for some it seems. Religion is man's interpretation of God, of course religion is corrupted by man. That is why there is a communist pope. These organizations are corrupted just like every other human institution.

The reason that people over 50 are more likely to disagree with 99% of 'Scientists' is because is that they have lived through all the previous 'science' scams. Ice age, peak oil, overpopulation, sea level rise, global warming, climate change.

They are far more likely to be informed about such topics than the younger generation because they are aware of the frequency of lies, scams and trash that the establishment pushes onto us. The people who grow up and pay attention learn as they go, which leads to them recognizing reality. Those who haven't yet or never do grow up just accept the status quo and believe what they are allowed to.
 
Last edited:

Ford just reported a massive loss on every electric vehicle it sold​


New YorkCNN —
Ford’s electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year, helping to drag down earnings for the company overall.

Ford, like most automakers, has announced plans to shift from traditional gas-powered vehicles to EVs in coming years. But it is the only traditional automaker to break out results of its retail EV sales. And the results it reported Wednesday show another sign of the profit pressures on the EV business at Ford and other automakers.

The EV unit, which Ford calls Model e, sold 10,000 vehicles in the quarter, down 20% from the number it sold a year earlier. And its revenue plunged 84% to about $100 million, which Ford attributed mostly to price cuts for EVs across the industry. That resulted in the $1.3 billion loss before interest and taxes (EBIT), and the massive per-vehicle loss in the Model e unit.

The losses go far beyond the cost of building and selling those 10,000 cars, according to Ford. Instead the losses include hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off.

And that means this is not the end of the losses in the unit - Ford said it expects Model e will have EBIT losses of $5 billion for the full year.

The company said it is its “intention” to be have EV pricing cover the actual costs of building each EV, rather than covering all the research and development costs, within the next 12 months. But a price war among EVs for about a year and a half has made even that measure of profitability very difficult said Ford CFO John Lawler. He said while Ford has removed about $5,000 in cost on each Mustang Mach-E, “revenue is dropping faster than we can take out the cost.”

In 2023, Ford Model e reported a full-year EBIT loss of $4.7 billion on sales of 116,000 EVs, or an average of $40,525 per vehicle, just more than a third of the first quarter loss.
 
There are a lot who know more than climate (change) scientists, most people do, they just don't like to admit it because it is uncomfortable.

99% of Salesmen at the Ford Dealership agree that you should buy a Ford. It's settled, denier.

Government and or 'science' worship is the replacement for religion for some it seems. Religion is man's interpretation of God, of course religion is corrupted by man. That is why there is a communist pope. These organizations are corrupted just like every other human institution.

The reason that people over 50 are more likely to disagree with 99% of 'Scientists' is because is that they have lived through all the previous 'science' scams. Ice age, peak oil, overpopulation, sea level rise, global warming, climate change.

They are far more likely to be informed about such topics than the younger generation because they are aware of the frequency of lies, scams and trash that the establishment pushes onto us. The people who grow up and pay attention learn as they go, which leads to them recognizing reality. Those who haven't yet or never do grow up just accept the status quo and believe what they are allowed to.


Very true, the only thing from my observation is that "Critical thinking" exists in approximately equal proportion among all age groups. There are plenty of over 50's who are ignorant on things, and there are plenty of Gen X/Z/M who are aware.

I personally know many over 50's who experienced the worst of USSR in their lifetime but after moving to the states are completely blind to all the shenanigans that are going on here in the last 30 years. Its really pretty sad (i.e. many in this crowd lined up for the clot shots truly believing they are safe and effective).

On cLIEmate change it is weird - they often parrot what they hear on TV, but when you explain to them the ridicule of it all and you remind them of their past life experiences, they seem to snap out of it and understand. Which is why its even more important that we explain again and again the ridiculousness of the entire "manmade climate change" hoax.
 
VPP bill passes Maryland Assembly

The reason that people over 50 are more likely to disagree with 99% of 'Scientists' is because is that they have lived through all the previous 'science' scams.
They weren't science scams in my opinion. Sure I lived through them, but headlines like "Florida to disappear under rising oceans" or "World entering Ice Age" were scams to sell newspapers and not perpetrated by scientists. People tend to forget there's a middleman in that scenario with their own agenda. A lot of those were so ridiculous that they were probably started by the PR firms fossil fuel companies hired to discredit scientists (which isn't a conspiracy theory, it's testimony before congress ref).

They are far more likely to be informed about such topics than the younger generation because they are aware of the frequency of lies, scams and trash that the establishment pushes onto us
What do you do when both sides of the "establishment" are adamantly pushing both sides? For example, Trump says it's a hoax, Biden says it's an urgent crisis.

The quantity & quality of the science shows GHGs are the prime cause of global warming. These might interest you:
...I am comfortable not following any of the religions
Belief in God and belief in religions are two totally different things and many people believe in one and not the other. Religions and Governments are great ideas ... in theory. In practice, well that's something else. I suspect it's the "freewill" aspect; give someone free agency with limited knowledge and the road to hell becomes paved with good intentions. YMMV. ; -)



 
Last edited:
VPP bill passes Maryland Assembly


They weren't science scams in my opinion. Sure I lived through them, but headlines like "Florida to disappear under rising oceans" or "World entering Ice Age" were scams to sell newspapers and not perpetrated by scientists. People tend to forget there's a middleman in that scenario with their own agenda. A lot of those were so ridiculous that they were probably started by the PR firms fossil fuel companies hired to discredit scientists (which isn't a conspiracy theory, it's testimony before congress ref).


What do you do when both sides of the "establishment" are adamantly pushing both sides? For example, Trump says it's a hoax, Biden says it's an urgent crisis.

The quantity & quality of the science shows GHGs are the prime cause of global warming. These might interest you:

Belief in God and belief in religions are two totally different things and many people believe in one and not the other. Religions and Governments are great ideas ... in theory. In practice, well that's something else. I suspect it's the "freewill" aspect; give someone free agency with limited knowledge and the road to hell becomes paved with good intentions. YMMV. ; -)




So climate alarmists are also frauds just trying to sell Newspapers?

Can we ascribe those same motives to the people in the videos whom you constantly post?

What motives do you ascribe to people like us who do not "beleive"?

Do you even know what we think or did our "bad science" get debunked about 10 years ago.


Edit: Guys, I just had re-read what Svetz said here.

He literally just said that fossil fuel companies hired pr firms to publish writings that made claims about climate change that were deliberately over the top so that it would embarrass actual climate scientists

This means that:

1) climate change isn't that bad and that all the sensationalist rhetoric about how bad it's going to be is actually disinformation from people opposed to climate communism.

Or

2) This is a cop-out in order for the "experts" todistance themselves from all the incorrect claims of doom and gloom they have been "predicting" over the years.
 
Last edited:
VPP bill passes Maryland Assembly


They weren't science scams in my opinion. Sure I lived through them, but headlines like "Florida to disappear under rising oceans" or "World entering Ice Age" were scams to sell newspapers and not perpetrated by scientists. People tend to forget there's a middleman in that scenario with their own agenda. A lot of those were so ridiculous that they were probably started by the PR firms fossil fuel companies hired to discredit scientists (which isn't a conspiracy theory, it's testimony before congress ref).
Operation Mockingbird media and the actual scientists are not the same thing. Most Scientists the oft quoted 99% of scientists agree are comprised of a sampling of scientists, most of whom are not even climate scientists agreed. They are likely serious people who take their given discipline of science seriously. They likely assume that the other sciences are also serious and honest and take it to be a legitimate demonstrable theory.
What do you do when both sides of the "establishment" are adamantly pushing both sides? For example, Trump says it's a hoax, Biden says it's an urgent crisis.
Yes indeed, they are. Those who wish to control and extort hummanity will not lose no matter which way we go. They control both sides.

They use the Hagelian dialectic to move society the toward their goals. Simplified as Problem-reaction-solution.

Trump was on board with a lot of terrible tyranny, Biden is a travesty of a President, either way they will both have their limos and jets for life.

I am familiar with the pitch, just because one can use an incomplete computer model to prove climate change theories that don't end up happening does not prove anyhthing.
They use unreliable data, and do not take all factors into account, to come to dubious conclusions. Garbage in garbage out.

I am not willing to accept the inevitable downgrade to the human condition because of this theory and neither should anybody else.

Climate Change was ALWAYS politicized, even when it was the other precursors, ice age, overpopulation, famine, sea level, warming, etc.
Belief in God and belief in religions are two totally different things and many people believe in one and not the other. Religions and Governments are great ideas ... in theory. In practice, well that's something else. I suspect it's the "freewill" aspect; give someone free agency with limited knowledge and the road to hell becomes paved with good intentions. YMMV.
Agreed.
 
And then there is stuff like this, which totally discredits the establishment and proves that they are faking data by all means possible

BBC Uses Corrupted Airport Data to Circulate Scares About “Extreme Heat” and Climate Change​


Last week saw a dramatic illustration of how far parts of the mainstream media has departed from the scientific process in its aim to catastrophise the climate and push society to accept the global Net Zero collectivisation. “London seeing more days above 30°C, experts say”, ran a BBC headline, with a reported suggestion that London must adapt to the “new reality”. But it turns out that the ‘experts’ have used “airport data for consistency across worldwide cities, including City Airport in London”. It is difficult to think of a more unsuitable dataset to promote notions of “extreme heat”, other than perhaps to take measurements next to the door of a blast furnace.

Similar versions of the story appeared in numerous mainstream outlets including Sky and the Independent suggesting the material was subbed from a circulated release. It originated from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED,) a green activist think tank that collects funding from a wide variety of governmental and private sources. The analysis is said to be part of a larger project to look at how “climate change” is affecting the world’s most populated cities. Sky said the IIAD report was just one in a raft of warnings in the last year, “about the pressing need to adapt the country to climate change”. IIED researcher Tucker Landesman claimed it was clear that the “extreme heat is here to stay and London must adapt soon to remain liveable for everyone”.

Landesman is an urban studies graduate from the LSE and he appears big on woke woo-woo. ‘Connecting decarbonisation and social justice’ and ‘Towards queer-centred urban development’, are two of his recent publications. Tucker is said to be “particularly interested in intersectional approaches to urban poverty and inequality”. No doubt these are his areas of expertise, but in collating measurements next to the exhausts of multiple jet aircraft for the purpose of making predictions of Thermogeddon, he would appear to be operating outside his comfort zone. Given what scientists have discovered about the urban heat effect, and its dramatic short-term effect on temperature measurements, it is difficult to understand why the BBC is giving house room to this ‘new analysis’. Having to pass through airports that are noticeably hotter than surrounding areas in air-conditioned buildings is hardly front page news – unless, of course, there is some pseudoscientific agenda at work.

The use of data from unsuitable sites has bedevilled the recent collection of accurate temperature measurements in most meteorological operations around the world. Earlier this year, the Daily Sceptic revealed that nearly eight out of ten of the U.K. Met Office’s measuring sites had huge scientifically-designated ‘uncertainties’ that effectively disqualified them from providing accurate data. Despite such large potential corruptions, the Met Office was able to claim to a hundredth of a degree that last year in the U.K. was only 0.06°C cooler than the year before.

The World Meteorological Organisation rates weather sites from class 1 to 5 based on the amount of human-caused heat corruption that is likely to occur next to the measuring devise. Class 4 comes with ‘uncertainties’ of 2°C and these accounted for 48.7% of the Met Office’s 380 recording stations. Class 5 comes with ‘uncertainties’ of 5°C and these applied to 29.2% of the total, with many of the stations set down the runways at local airports. For instance, frequent reference is made to high readings at the class 5 military airport at Northolt.

The BBC report claims that “really extreme temperatures” have become more frequent with seven days above 35°C in the past three decades, five of which occurred within the last five years, statistics from 1994-2023 show. Statistics also show that passenger numbers at the enlarged City Airport tripled over that period, although numbers are still well down on the years before Covid.

Screenshot-2024-05-06-at-00.49.34-1024x629.png

According to the official Met Office figures, which as we have seen need taking with plenty of salt, there has been a small rise in the average summer maximum temperature since the mid 1990s. It is about 0.8°C, but the recent rise is only 1.2°C higher than the averaged maximums recorded in the less urban heat corrupted records from around 90 years ago. Given that the global temperature has been gently warming over the last 150 years as a recovery from the Little Ice Age, this is not surprising. What would have been considered a ‘nice’ summer in the mid 1930s is now, one degree centigrade later, promoted in politicised alarmist terms with weather maps painted in hellish reds and purples.

In 2022, an insight into the heat corruptions at airports was provided by two former NASA scientists working out of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Dr. Roy Spencer and Professor John Christy found massive human-caused heat distortions in the temperature record across the United States. Airports were found to be particularly prone to higher temperatures compared with those recorded in surrounding less urbanised areas.

Screenshot-2024-05-06-at-00.49.53-1024x955.png

The most dramatic finding occurred at Orlando airport where decadal warming since 1973 of 0.3°C is slashed to just 0.07°C after the data has been ‘de-urbanised’. The number of passengers has soared in recent years with over 50 million people passing through the ever-growing airport, the gateway to Mickey Mouse and the Magic Kingdom. Interestingly, the divergence between the two temperature datasets becomes more pronounced from the turn of the century.

Unsurprisingly, many of the Met Office’s heat ‘records’ have been recorded since the turn of the century. Almost all of them are from ‘junk’ class 5 and ‘near junk’ class 4 sites. Class 5 maximum temperature records, with their ‘uncertainties of 5°C, have been declared in Northern Ireland and three U.K. areas. The record in Central S was measured in St. James’s Park in London, site of one of the five 40°C plus recordings of July 19th, 2022. Class 4 record holders are even more numerous with the highest Scottish record set at Charterhall. Hawarden Airport is home to the highest Welsh recording. No less than five U.K. areas have records attributed to this class which comes with ’uncertainties’ of 2°C.

And, of course, who can forget the national joke record of 40.3°C declared on July 19th, 2022 at Coningsby – or more accurately, RAF Coningsby. Blink and you might have missed it since the 60-second record was caused by a 0.6°C spike either side of 3.12pm. As it happened, it appears that no less than three typhoon fighter jets were landing at or near that time.
 

Biden's New Carbon Capture Mandates Will Cause Blackouts, Increases Prices​


The lie of the day is from the EPA: Carbon capture will pay for itself (thanks to IRA subsidies). No, it won’t even with subsidies. Expect blackouts and a higher price for electricity.




Suite of Standards to Raise Costs, Reduce Output

Let’s take a dive into the EPA news release Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes Suite of Standards to Reduce Pollution from Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants

“Today, EPA is proud to make good on the Biden-Harris Administration’s vision to tackle climate change and to protect all communities from pollution in our air, water, and in our neighborhoods,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “By developing these standards in a clear, transparent, inclusive manner, EPA is cutting pollution while ensuring that power companies can make smart investments and continue to deliver reliable electricity for all Americans.”
A final rule for existing coal-fired and new natural gas-fired power plants that would ensure that all coal-fired plants that plan to run in the long-term and all new baseload gas-fired plants control 90 percent of their carbon pollution.
The final emission standards and guidelines will achieve substantial reductions in carbon pollution at reasonable cost. The best system of emission reduction for the longest-running existing coal units and most heavily utilized new gas turbines is based on carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS) – an available and cost-reasonable emission control technology that can be applied directly to power plants and can reduce 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from the plants.
Lower costs and continued improvements in CCS technology, alongside tax incentives from President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act that allow companies to largely offset the cost of CCS, represent recent developments in emissions controls that informed EPA’s determination of what is technically feasible and cost-reasonable. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also includes billions of dollars to advance and deploy CCS technology and infrastructure. EPA projects that the sector can comply with the standards with negligible impact on electricity prices, thanks to cost declines in CCS and other emissions-reducing technologies. EPA analysis also finds that power companies can comply with the standards while meeting grid reliability, even when considering increased load growth.
Final EPA Rule

The EPA’s Final Rule is only 1,020 pages long. There were 953 references to carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS).

I went through some of those 953 references and found these tidbits.

CCS is an adequately demonstrated technology that achieves significant emissions reduction and is cost-reasonable, taking into account the declining costs of the technology and a substantial tax credit available to sources.
The first component of the BSER [Best System of Emission Reduction] for base load combustion turbines is highly efficient generation (based on the emission rates that the best performing units are achieving) and the second component for base load combustion turbines is utilization of CCS with 90 percent capture.
One of the key GHG [Greenhouse Gasses] reduction technologies upon which the BSER determinations are founded in these final rules is CCS—a technology that can capture and permanently store CO2 from fossil fuel-fired EGUs.
I confess. I did not read all 1020 pages and don’t intend to. I have seen enough by reading through a dozen or so of the 953 references to CCS.

Returning to the Biden-Harris document I note references to “reasonable cost” and “largely offset the cost of CCS.” Thus CCS is admittedly not cost effective even with subsidies.

IISD Sustainable Development


For a rebuttal to the above Biden claims, please consider the International Institution for Sustainable Development article Why Carbon Capture and Storage Is Not a Net-Zero Solution for Canada’s Oil and Gas Sector

The poor track record of CCS in Canada is part of a broader trend. According to the Global CCS Institute (2022), the global growth of carbon captured by commercially operating CCS facilities has been much slower than anticipated. As of September 2022, only 30 commercial CCS projects are operating across all sectors around the world, capturing 42.5 Mtpa. This falls far short of the IEA’s (2009) previous target of 300 Mtpa by 2020. Most proposed projects have been withdrawn: of the 149 CCS projects anticipated to be storing carbon by 2020, over 100 were cancelled or placed on indefinite hold (Abdulla et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021). In the United States, despite significant industry and government investment in the technology, more than 80% of proposed CCS projects have failed to become operational due to high costs, low technological readiness, the lack of a credible financial return, and dependence on government incentives that are withdrawn. Of those projects that are operating globally, 73% of the carbon captured is used for EOR.
Put simply, proponents of CCS have repeatedly over-promised on the technology’s ability to reduce emissions, and CCS projects have under-delivered.
CCS is both energy and capital intensive. The greatest amount of energy is required for the capture and compression of carbon, with additional amounts needed for transportation and storage. Capture and compression alone require 330–420 kWh per tonne of CO2 captured. CCS projects increase the energy demand of the facility they capture carbon from by 15%–25% on average, which stands to increase emissions given that the energy used to capture CO2 is often natural gas-powered electricity. In general, the technology is highly energy inefficient and generates its own emissions.
The above doc largely pertains to carbon capture in Canada’s Oil and Gas Sector, not electricity production, bit it is instructive on the difficulty of and inefficacy of carbon capture.

The lead CCS image is from that post.
 
Biden EPA’s Plan to Ration Electricity (Told you so!!!)

The Wall Street Journal calls the CCS mandate Biden EPA’s Plan to Ration Electricity

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act says the EPA can regulate pollutants from stationary sources through the “best system of emission reduction” that is “adequately demonstrated.” Carbon capture is neither the best nor adequately demonstrated. As of last year, only one commercial-scale coal plant in the world used carbon capture, and no gas-fired plants did.
EPA says Inflation Reduction Act tax credits and funding in the 2021 infrastructure bill will “incentivize and facilitate the deployment” of carbon capture. But subsidies would have to be two to three times larger to make the technology cost-effective at a coal plant. Carbon capture reduces a plant’s efficiency, which also raises costs.
Because carbon capture uses 20% to 25% of the electricity generated by a power plant, less will be available to the grid. That means more generators will be needed to provide the same amount of power. But new gas-fired plants won’t be built because the technology will make them uneconomic. Talk about a catch-22.
Another problem: CO2 must be stored underground in certain geologic formations, largely in the upper Midwest and Gulf Coast. Permitting new wells for CO2 injections can take six years. Pipelines to transport CO2 can take even longer. Green groups oppose pipelines for CO2 as they do for oil and natural gas.
All of this will hit while demand for power is surging amid new manufacturing needs and an artificial intelligence boom. Texas’s grid operator this week raised its forecast for demand growth for 2030 by 40,000 megawatts compared to last year’s forecast. That’s about seven times the power that New York City uses at any given time.
Texas power demand will nearly double over the next six years owing to data centers, manufacturing plants, crypto mining and the electrification of oil and gas equipment. When temperatures in Texas recently climbed into the 80s, the grid operator told power plants not to shut down for maintenance. Americans around the country are increasingly being told to raise their thermostats during the summer and avoid running appliances to prevent blackouts.
Even some Democrats are noticing the pinch on their voters’ pocketbooks. Reps. Marcy Kaptur, Henry Cuellar, Mary Sattler Peltola, Vicente Gonzalez and Jared Golden last weekend urged President Biden to defer finalizing EPA’s power-plant rules because they could “inadvertently exacerbate existing problems related to the unaffordability of electricity” and cause “increased risks to electric reliability.”
Mr. Biden’s new rules will surely draw a legal challenge. But as litigation plays out, the tremendous uncertainty will delay investment in much-needed new gas plants. Americans didn’t face energy rationing in Mr. Biden’s first term, but they might in a second.
The Inflation Reduction Act Keeps Biting in Predictable Ways

Biden plans to reduce inflation by raising costs, producing less electricity when more is needed, force people into EVs without a capable grid, pipeline captured carbon when the pipelines don’t exist and allegedly increase reliability.

It’s so stupid even some Democrats are concerned. Well not to worry, this can all be done at a “reasonable cost” with costs “largely offset” thanks to the IRA.

Expect blackouts and a much higher price for electricity as a key component of “reasonable cost”.
 
I am familiar with the pitch,
Except those aren't so much pitches as they are explanations as to why believers think the climate is warming.

just because one can use an incomplete computer model to prove climate change theories that don't end up happening does not prove anyhthing.
We certainly don't know everything, and certainly scientists are aware of that. So much so they can give a range to the accuracy of the predictions (although that cone gets pretty wide pretty quickly and they warn "tipping points" might make things rapidly worse than predicted). Maybe it's hubris to try to put a box around the unknown, but they're only human. ; -)

When can you trust a model? How about when it proves itself year after year? The models (and there are lots of them) closely match observed data it does seem to indicate we can in fact predict some broad trends. Certainly more so than a politician ; -). Real science includes the magnitudes of the unknowns to help gauge the reality of the work. For example, the forecast below is from an older IPCC report with me adding the red dots for observed data. The outer dotted lines are the stated accuracy of the model, as you can see they did an amazingly good job with the predictions. This does not look like GIGO to me.


1626442556704-png.56458


I am not willing to accept the inevitable downgrade to the human condition
because of this theory and neither should anybody else.
Nor should you!
There's no reason to accept a downgrade to the human condition. Having to
do without, eating bugs, etc. is rhetoric of the PR mill making it sound like
the solution is worse than the problem. For example, solar with battery
backup is now on par with natural gas, from Lazard's:
1693482585003-png.165395

But, ignoring the problem won't make it go away. In fact, ignoring it costs us more every year. For example, we have been tracking weather costs long before global warming was even a thing to the public. This is why insurance companies are pulling out and wind/flood insurance rates have dramatically risen if you can even get them.

1980-2023-billion-dollar-disaster-time-series.png

Climate Change was ALWAYS politicized, even when it was the other precursors, ice age, overpopulation, famine, sea level, warming, etc.
Not in the beginning. In the beginning both parties agreed about the science. The video was pretty interesting and I can't say that I disagreed with the Republican economists for the decision made early on because what they did at the time and the programs they put into place was rational and sound behavior.
 
Last edited:
Conclusion

I have to assume that this is an example of the Climate Industry’ Misdirection Campaign described recently by Kip Hansen. All of the authors are associated in some way with public health departments at universities. I doubt that any of them has any background in climatology or meteorology beyond a possibly a class or two in introduction to Climate Change – The Existential Threat. Today it is sufficient to just note that extreme weather is getting worse due to climate change to hype the results claimed because the peer reviewers know that is “true”.
 
Except those aren't so much pitches as they are explanations as to why believers think the climate is warming.
The Earth and the Sun have gone through many cycles. It is not unreasonable to believe that the temperature will change, it is however very unreasonable to attribute warming to human activity due to Co2. It is even more unreasonable to use this belief to DESTROY western civilization. The deindustrialization has been happening for decades and is largely predicated upon this belief.

We certainly don't know everything, and certainly scientists are aware of that. So much so they can give a range to the accuracy of the predictions (although that cone gets pretty wide pretty quickly and they warn "tipping points" might make things rapidly worse than predicted). Maybe it's hubris to try to put a box around the unknown, but they're only human. ; -)
When can you trust a model? How about when it proves itself year after year? The models (and there are lots of them) closely match observed data it does seem to indicate we can in fact predict some broad trends. Certainly more so than a politician ; -). Real science includes the magnitudes of the unknowns to help gauge the reality of the work. For example, the forecast below is from an older IPCC report with me adding the red dots for observed data. The outer dotted lines are the stated accuracy of the model, as you can see they did an amazingly good job with the predictions. This does not look like GIGO to me.


1626442556704-png.56458
Temperture predictions could be made by observing temperatures on the ground and measuring and observing the sun. It proves very little.

Tempertures can only be considered meaningful if the measurment devices are calibrated properly and in the same exact physical environment in perpetuity. They aren't. This is to say nothing of the geoengineering projects which do affect our weather systems and climate. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and HAARP are a couple items to consider.


Nor should you!
There's no reason to accept a downgrade to the human condition. Having to
do without, eating bugs, etc. is rhetoric of the PR mill making it sound like
the solution is worse than the problem. For example, solar with battery
backup is now on par with natural gas, from Lazard's:
1693482585003-png.165395

But, ignoring the problem won't make it go away. In fact, ignoring it costs us more every year. For example, we have been tracking weather costs long before global warming was even a thing to the public. This is why insurance companies are pulling out and wind/flood insurance rates have dramatically risen if you can even get them.

1980-2023-billion-dollar-disaster-time-series.png
No ignoring the problem won't make it go away. It hasn't yet. The problem isn't CO2 from anthropogenic sources, but a system of governments, corporations, NGOs and NPOs that are destroying the systems that provide humans with the ability to site and debate these sorts of things as opposed to struggling ceaselessly to prove a basic existence. We can not build alternatives for our clean and successful systems without those alternatives being viable. They are not.

How will we replace all of the things that petrochemicals provide?

How will we heat and cool the buildings of the world without making CO2? (Or radioactive waste)

How many animals should be culled in the name of CO2 reduction?

Are you ok with giving up your car for CO2?

Or meat? Or flying? Or rights?

They are convincing people that there is a problem in order to steer them toward their desired solution. A prison planet where you rent every object that you touch... from them.
Not in the beginning. In the beginning both parties agreed about the science. The video was pretty interesting and I can't say that I disagreed with the Republican economists for the decision made early on because what they did at the time and the programs they put into place was rational and sound behavior.

I wonder how many knew what this would become? If we actually attempt to get rid of 'fossil' fuels too soon people will suffer, all for a faulty theory, because we couldn't recognize the obvous con.

Do you want to own nothing and be happy?
 
The Earth and the Sun have gone through many cycles. It is not unreasonable to
believe that the temperature will change, it is however very unreasonable to
attribute warming to human activity due to Co2.

Observations show that the temperature is increasing more rapidly
than ever before in our planet's history. What accounts for this change?

Changes in CO2 concentration have been modeled to show a precise fit (more).

As you can see from the graph to the right, it's not an increase in solar output.
So, it's not the sun.
temperature_vs_solar_activity_2021.png


Milankovitch cycle
The other big "natural" driver is the Milankovitch cycle, which are three
orbital mechanics (obliquity, precession, and eccentricity) with periods
of around 100,000 years, 41,000 years, and 26,000 years.

We know warming isn't caused by the Milankovitch cycle as we're currently
in a cooling phase (despite temperature going up).

The three effects aren't synchronized, so each cycle is different. But, it's over
such a large scale of time it's not really worth bringing into the conversation
(when was the last time someone worried about the north star not being north?)

Why did the CO2 in the atmosphere double in the last century?
Carbon has radioactive isotopes that can be measured in the atmosphere. Volcanoes and burning fossil fuels contain different amounts of those isotopes. By measuring the isotopes in the air we know that the doubling of CO2 is caused by humans from burning fossil fuels. More...

It is even more unreasonable to use this belief to DESTROY western civilization.
I agree. The reason you hear that is a lot of vocal people are worried about the impacts of climate change causing famine and widespread rapid human migration leading to disease, war, and a general breakdown of society. But, it could just as easily go the other way and unite us and make us stronger (although history says that's naive).

The deindustrialization has been happening for decades and is largely predicated upon this belief.
What deindustrialization? Other than the COVID blip our GNP continues to rise.

The world as a whole is burning as much fossil fuels as ever.
1715078888569.png
fossil-fuel-consumption-by-type.svg
Even countries that have rapidly embraced electrification have been seeing their GNPs increase despite dire predictions. Why wouldn't they when LCOEs are better?

Tempertures can only be considered meaningful if the measurment devices are calibrated properly and in the same exact physical environment in perpetuity. They aren't.
Temperatures are generally from satellite measurements and spot checked with ground observations. Before that, the uncertainty of the data goes up as the temperature is derived from gases trapped in ice cores. Those measurements typically come with a range of accuracy. The conclusions have to take that range of accuracy into consideration. Lucky for us, scientists actually know that and do.

...a system of governments, corporations, NGOs and NPOs that are destroying the systems that provide humans with the ability to site and debate these sorts of things as opposed to struggling ceaselessly to prove a basic existence.
Yet, few people have trouble posting their opinions as to if it is real or not. Debate is all over the place.
Not that I disagree, but I would restate it to business interests are actively promoting confusion. I'm fine with challenging science, but not so accepting of character assassinations and purposely ignoring facts to spread mistruth.

We can not build alternatives for our clean and successful systems without those alternatives being viable. They are not.
Why do you think that?
What about solar isn't viable? The LCOE I posted earlier shows Solar with batteries are on par with the costs on natural gas combined cycle.
There's also hydro, nuclear, CAES, and many other systems that are already in use around the world.

How will we replace all of the things that petrochemicals provide?
This is a false argument.
Why do we need to eliminate petrochemicals for products? It's only the petrochemicals we burn that are the issue.

How will we heat and cool the buildings of the world without making CO2? (Or radioactive waste)
Electricity, renewables, or geothermal.
Radioactive waste gets a bad rap because, well, it's radioactive. But it seems viable to me. If anything the bigger problem with nuclear is the availability of fuel, LCOE, and the oopsie factor (a wind turbine exploding won't make the news, if a reactor melts down you'll never hear the end of it).

How many animals should be culled in the name of CO2 reduction?
Why would you want to?

Sure, they produce GHGs...but so do humans. You might be interested in this post, in it I show the additional costs per pound of beef to be around a nickel/pound in the worst case scenario to be carbon neutral. Beef is the highest, something like 14x chicken for GHGs, so all other meat based products would be less per pound. BTW, those beef GHG numbers looked high to me, probably a worst case grain-fed scenario with no manure management. You might also be interested in cows are part of the climate solution.

Are you ok with giving up your car for CO2?
Yes, and no.
There are EVs, FCEVs, CAVs so need to give up a car to be green. EVs are great! More reliable, great pickup, cheaper than gas to operate, good range, quiet, and best of all I charge mine with solar (Full disclosure, mine is currently a PHEV).
But... they're not for everyone currently. If they live in an apartment or someplace where charging is hard I wouldn't recommend them. We definitely need a solution for this. But just because there isn't a great solution for them now doesn't mean there won't be by 2050.

Also, with green fuels & CDR we don't need to give up ICE.

Or meat? Or flying? Or rights?
No need to give the first two up to be carbon neutral. As to the last, I can see politicians trying ; -)

They are convincing people that there is a problem in order to steer them toward their desired solution. A prison planet where you rent every object that you touch... from them.
That's what the they want you to believe. ; -)

If we actually attempt to get rid of 'fossil' fuels too soon people will suffer,
Agreed

all for a faulty theory, because we couldn't recognize the obvous con.
Disagree. The con is that it's okay to keep burning fossil fuels.

Do you want to own nothing and be happy?
ROFL. That's easy to turn around, do you want to lose everything and be the cause of mass world-wide devastation because you didn't take the time to really look at the evidence and chose to belief the easy path? To have crocodiles residing in the artic circle like the last time the global temperature was 4°C higher?

  • Ken Cohen, Exxon CEO: ... Climate change is real and appropriate steps should be taken..." ref
  • Mike Wirth, Chevron CEO" “Climate change is real. There’s no doubt about it,” ref
  • Gretchen Watkins, Shell CEO: "...urgent need for action on climate change" ref
 
Last edited:
manmade cLIEmate change is hoax, always remember that no matter how many times they attempt to gaslight you.

So much for going green! Fuel for SNP’s ‘eco-ferries’ has to be transported 8000 miles​


You just could not make this up!


The SNP’s delayed ferries have been hit by a new farce after it emerged that their special ‘green’ fuel must be imported 8,000 miles from Qatar then driven thousands more miles each year by road.

The vessels were designed with ‘dual-fuel’ engines which can run on liquefied natural gas (LNG), designed to cut emissions, as well as conventional diesel.

However, eight years after work began on the ferries Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa, the Scottish Government says there is no clear date for when LNG tanks, known as a bunkering facility, will ever be built here.

As a result, LNG must be imported in diesel-powered ships from Qatar to a terminal in England and then driven 450 miles to Scotland.

It is feared that will lead to emissions far in excess of savings generated by the supposedly environmentally friendly engines.

The complex dual-fuel design has been cited as one of the main reasons behind the shambolic delivery of the vessels for the route from Ardrossan, Ayrshire, to Arran.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-SNPs-eco-ferries-transported-8000-miles.html
 
That's easy to turn around, do you want to lose everything and be the cause of mass world-wide devastation because you didn't take the time to really look at the evidence and chose to belief the easy path? To have crocodiles residing in the artic circle like the last time the global temperature was 4°C higher?

The only problem is that there is absolutely no world-wide devastation or anything of the sort. It has been completely made up by the parasites in power, who continuously, time after time completely ignore their own preaching. They travel in private jets, sail diesel megayachts and have multiple beachside property - this tells you beyond any doubt that they dont believe their own narrative, which only exists to rid you of the modern progress while they get even more for themselves.

Crocodiles in the arctic circle? What a bunch of made up BS, just like the rest of the cLIEmate change narrative. Its so ridiculous its laughable. 4C? LOL only in your alarmist (shill) mind.

What's sad is that actions that they take that ARE REALLY devastating - such as messing with nature via geoengineering, messing with biome via genetic engineering, gain of function research with viruses, military "adventures", GMO food, chemical pollution - noone ever talks about any of this, in fact the parasites in power greatly encourage all of this because they directly benefit from this stuff.

 
Last edited:
manmade climate change is fraud. probably the biggest fraud since covid.
Read this excellent article to see how mass formation enables the parasites in power to have control over people, stop listening and obeying this crap. it is all made up. It is people who follow this narrative that are commiting mass atrocity

1715089707223.png

 
Back
Top