New EPA regs coming phaseout gas engines

[Gregs24]

Oh dear, it seems he's taken his ball and gone home.

Nope - I'm still here. Ball in hand

I provided evidence for my viewpoint - others just post memes and insults. Pays your money and makes your choice on what to believe....

Sponsored

 

[wingnutt]

Not according to the courts in the UK

lol, that’s not exactly a high bar to measure from…jus sayin

 

[Gregs24]

lol, that’s not exactly a high bar to measure from…jus sayin

Odd you should say that as the UK justice system is widely recognised as one of the fairest and most well respected in the world, considerably higher than the US as it happens. But you seem to know better for some reason, maybe you could provide data to back up your assertion?

WJP Rule of Law Index | Global Insights (worldjusticeproject.org)

 

[Zooks527]

Ahh, a religious fanatic executing the eternal response of ignoring all evidence that doesn't agree with their agenda. Then resorting to puerile insults to avoid having to confront the truth!

Hey, you want a discussion, I'm fine for it. The problem with the climate cult is that they're focused on models instead of experience, with all projections being unfalsifiable. That's a religion, not science.

But, perhaps you have data to support your point. There has been a thing called "the scientific method" floating around for quite some time. It requires you posit a condition, make a prediction, and then observe the situation to show that the prediction is valid.

Can you cite such a study supporting your position?

As a side note, there's an interesting chart comparing the most used climate models to reality over the last 35 or so years.

There's a lot of words that can be used to describe models that are this far off. The most appropriate one is probably "wrong".

Ahh if climate change denial isn't enough lets drag in anti vaccine rhetoric.

Grow up

Well, perhaps if you could move beyond the disgusting habit of trying to equate the moral equivalency of the Holocaust to your unsubstantiated beliefs, people might give your viewpoint credence.

Just saying.

I provided evidence for my viewpoint

Where? Specifically, "evidence", not theories and models.

 

[Zooks527]

.

 

[TeeLew]

Ahh if climate change denial isn't enough lets drag in anti vaccine rhetoric.

Grow up

1. It's all the same shit.
2. You didn't answer.

 

[Gregs24]

Hey, you want a discussion, I'm fine for it. The problem with the climate cult is that they're focused on models instead of experience, with all projections being unfalsifiable. That's a religion, not science.

But, perhaps you have data to support your point. There has been a thing called "the scientific method" floating around for quite some time. It requires you posit a condition, make a prediction, and then observe the situation to show that the prediction is valid.

Can you cite such a study supporting your position?

As a side note, there's an interesting chart comparing the most used climate models to reality over the last 35 or so years.

There's a lot of words that can be used to describe models that are this far off. The most appropriate one is probably "wrong".


Well, perhaps if you could move beyond the disgusting habit of trying to equate the moral equivalency of the Holocaust to your unsubstantiated beliefs, people might give your viewpoint credence.

Just saying.


Where? Specifically, "evidence", not theories and models.

Christie is widely discredited - there is plenty of discussion about his 'evidence' out there if you look. This link compares his quotes with reality and evidential links - give it a read.

Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy (skepticalscience.com)

Climate misinformation by source: John Christy (skepticalscience.com)

Of course you will not read any of this as you don't want to hear it. Once the Holocaust gets mentioned we all know further discussion is pointless.

 

[Gregs24]

Where? Specifically, "evidence", not theories and models.

You didn't read my links did you?

Evidence:

The Earth is warming - FACT

Greenhouse gasses are causing the rise - FACT

Actual Carbon isotope evidence can prove that the CO2 rise is due to human activity - FACT

Global temperature rises are causing changes in weather patterns - FACT

Weather pattern changes will impact food production - part fact (already happening for some crops), part prediction

It is all out there if you look and learn, but hey, just stick your head in the sand and carry on.

Evidence & Causes of Climate Change | Royal Society

 

[Gregs24]

1. It's all the same shit.
2. You didn't answer.

To an ignoramus maybe

I didn't answer what? I have provided answers and evidence - where is yours?

 

[TeeLew]

To an ignoramus maybe

I didn't answer what? I have provided answers and evidence - where is yours?

I completely cop to being an ignoramus. That's me through and through.

First, lets set tone. This is not a rant. This is just me talking even keel. I'll share my thoughts and you can respond accordingly. I don't expect to change your mind and I doubt you'll change mine. This is fine. I want to find the common ground we both believe and then see where things depart. I think we often fail to do this and end up shouting past each other. There's no need or benefit from that.

--------------------------------------------------------------


You didn't answer the question of how many shots you've had. You should have 10. If you don't have 10, then you're not following The Science. Are you following The Science? We should all follow The Science. The nice man on the glow-box told me so. I think the parallels between our safe and effective response to the pandemic and our safe and effective response to Climate Change are easily drawn. Perhaps you disagree?

It's not so much Climate Change which I disagree/deny, although I've found that any straying from the approved dogma means the Nazi allusion gets used regularly. IDGAF. Summoning Godwin are we? Flat-Earth comparisons are usually common as well. Regardless, there is always some insult concerning a lack of scientific knowledge and the odd comment on knuckle-dragging. It's quite childish. We simply disagree on a point which is taboo to debate.

I believe over the last couple centuries, since a time called The Little Ice Age, the Earth has warmed in a reasonably linear manner. This has happened at the same time as the planet has industrialized. Our CO2 production has likely had an influence on this warming, but we have no way of knowing if the effect is 5% or 95%. We just know they're correlated. We cannot show causation. We can show possible mechanisms of causation, but these are often offset by other naturally occurring processes, so the modelling is always incomplete. The famous "Hockey Stick" graph is not what it was originally sold to be. Neither is anything else in Gore's movie, but the entire movement has yet to stray from the path it laid out.

"Hottest day ever" is a silly click-bait headline that people obsess over. The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. We have reasonable data for 150-200 years and very good data for about 70. Do you have any idea how absurd it is to claim some sort of 'Record Breaking Heat' when you're ignoring 99.9999999967% (the real number) of the time the planet has existed?

At the end of the day, we are being urged to do something today to make like better for people in roughly 100 years. In doing so, we are depriving about 4 billion people from living better lives *Right Now*. It might be simply tax extraction for those living in the US or Europe, but in many parts of Africa, Asia and South America, it's the difference between having electricity or not. It's the difference between having clean drinking water or not. It's the difference between having a manufacturing base or not. It's the difference between having basic transportation or not. It's the difference between having food or not.

Millenia ago, the Egyptians worshipped Ra, The Sun God. They rightfully understood that all of their energy, one way or another, came from the sun. We're exactly the same. Our energy is either from the sun or from us reproducing the processes internal to the sun. In the energy equation, fossil fuels are little more than concentrated sunlight. If we were to track energy consumption of a country, we'll find that since the beginning of the industrial age, it has been a surrogate for the prosperity of the country. Energy rich countries are successful countries.

I don't have so much of a problem with people claiming Climate Change is a problem. I think it's definitely something which we will need to adapt. Humans are quite good at adapting. I think we'll probably use more air-conditioning in hot places in the summer. I think we'll probably move away from rising sea-water. I think we probably won't live in deserts. This is just humanity naturally responding to the environment. It's not a tragedy. It's just a reality.

I'm much more against Climate Change policies than I am the idea of Climate Change. The policies enacted in the name of Climate have no effect to actual Climate Change. These laws are being used as mechanism for a distribution of funding which is controlled through governmental corruption, tax extraction and social engineering.

Consumer EV's do *nothing* to reduce greenhouse gasses. They distribute it through different means. They need massive amounts of mining to produce the batteries. Some of that mining is by slave labor in Congo. The laws that we are putting in place to 'encourage' (mandate) EV use is also putting in place the economic conditions that mandate the use of slave labor. What do you care, though? You're saving planet. It's just too bad that the same families which suffered under Leopold are now suffering under the yoke of the US in cobalt mines. Fvck 'em, right? If I don't have to be a slave then why should I really care?

Nothing will happen concerning an actual mitigation of Climate Change because there are 8 billion people on the planet and only about 1/2 live in 'modern' conditions. The rest will do whatever they need to burn whatever they can to produce the energy they need, just like we did. Whatever will happen will determine how we need to adapt. The shit is out of the goose. The thought that we can take, "2 weeks to flatten the curve" is as foolish now as it was then. There is no 'hiding from it.' That's not an option and it never was. There is only adapt or die.

I'm not going to post a bunch of links and I'm not going to read yours. Scientific isn't scientific if its just manufactured and/or manipulated data to produce a necessary result. This is disturbingly common throughout academia and, frankly, I don't trust Climate data as the benefit for faking this data is much, much greater than in most other fields which we know is rampant. My thoughts are roughly in line with Steve Koonin or Bjorn Lomborg. I'm a bit more fatalistic than others, because that's just me. I'm not on some great limb scientifically speaking. I'm making no spectacular claims or prognostications.

The Climate side makes sweeping statements and prognostications. They do so mainly through the use of simulation work. I've worked with quite a bit of simulation software since about 2004-05. They are amazing tools. They are also hugely limited tools. They give you a very detailed view of a *possible* future. They are not a crystal ball. They are good at giving you a snapshot of what could potentially happen. They can never take into account enough input detail to tell you what *will* happen. Further, they can't even approach an answer as to the implications of some possible future. Using a computer simulation as a crystal ball could only be done by someone who has never done anything but use a simulation or by those who are working towards a pre-determined outcome. Anyone who has done simulation work and then followed it with a practical example understands that the former is not a replacement for the latter.

I'm not a scientist and have never claimed to be. I am an engineer, which means that the average scientist and I took a lot of the same classes at university early in school and similar classes later. They did so more from a theoretical view where as my classes were more practical in nature, but similar thought processes are in play. The main difference in our jobs at this point is that when I do something, it absolutely must work. A scientist may work on a question for 10 years without finding an answer. I don't get that. I have to act. What people often overlook is that not reacting is a completely valid reaction and, very often, it's also the correct one.

 

[Cav427]

So, wrong headline, however a 50 / 50 mix of ICE versus EV is not a good thing. What will happen? The preferred vehicles ICE will be way more expensive. The gov't should not be picking winners and losers. The ultimate goal is for the people to take a bus. This just moves that a heck of a lot closer. Most of buy a Mustang, showing independence in thought. They want no Independent thought, everyone put in a box of Work From Home and deliveries.

 

[scd603]

Reading matters too…(not directed at you Dan, just a general statement)

Shipping is the worst. No emissions system (3rd-world countries they flag in don't require), and they burn the bottom of the barrel dirtiest diesel. Did you ever take a cruise and go up on the top deck and look at the smoke? Fact, the cruise ships that go around Europe release the equivalent of 50% of the vehicles in Europe! That doesn't count commercial shipping.

Have you ever heard this mentioned by politicians?

And the greenies also shun nuclear, which is the only viable non-CO2 option.

 

[scd603]

One thing never mentioned about EVs is that they have essentially half the life expectancy of an ICE car due to battery depletion. Despite them being "cleaner" or zero tailpipe emissions or however they want to spin it, the fact is with EVs, over time, twice as many have to be made, doubling emissions from the manufacturing of cars (double the raw materials, double the transport, etc.). I doubt a 20+ year outlook study has been done, but my guess is the emissions offset during the operation of the EV will be offset and perhaps worse overall compared to fuel efficient ICEs with a longer life expectancy.

They never talk about how the electricity use for EVs is produced. And the fact that they are largely charged at night when wind and solar don't produce. And if course, they shun nuclear.

 

[scd603]

^^^. EXACTLY….

But these “greenies” can’t grasp the fact that EV isn’t magical, it’s NOT greener than ICE at all…. There’s too many avenues that are not being properly pursued or being worked out as far as logistics from lifecycle start to end…. Whatever that “end” may be at this stage…

Those of us who don’t have blinders on can already see and predict the worldwide failure and desecration to the planet due to this “EV push”, that has absolutely NO organized plan. It’s just “let’s make EVs, let’s change the emissions laws, let’s just keep spending and dishing out millions to fund this and that EV project who cares if it’s a success or failure, and let’s put some $$$ in mah pocket”…. Who cares about recycling, who cares about about destruction of the planet..

Side bar:
You know what is so damn hypocritical and hysterical about the whole “going green” and EV movement, is all these greenies are supposedly pushing a “green agenda”, but they have no problem flattening, leveling, and bulldozing away blocks/lots (acres) of trees/vegetation to put in more shopping centers, stores, misc. buildings, condo complexes, and now mega EV battery factories - and turning what once was green to GRAY….

You ever drive around your area and wonder why abandoned buildings or vacant/closed shopping centers can’t be repurposed, updated or leveled and build on an existing pad site that is already zoned/cleared for plumbing, gas or electric - instead of right up the road from those locations, you see land being cleared for the same damn thing??

Acres of trees and other vegetation life flattened - which helped us by producing oxygen, was a positive impact to “climate change”, provided a “filtering” mechanism for pollution/environmental fallout, provided shade, kept land intact due to massive root systems, prevented massive water run off, provided blockage from wind/storm damage, provided barriers from excessive noise, and provided necessary covering so lower plant life and wildlife could thrive on the land those trees once stood over…. BUT F-YEA, WE’RE GOING GREEN PEOPLE, we’re going soooooo damn greeeeen….

And no, I’m not a tree hugger… I’m trying to point out the BIG PICTURE where the whole “go green” and EV movement is furthest from being green by any means. It’s a deceptive front end campaign with BS gas lighting while the back end is busy lining pockets…

In my town people are hysterical because a big landowner is clear cutting trees to build solar farms. There is some irony for you!

 

[scd603]

There are a huge range of carbon compounds and just because life needs Carbon doesn't mean CO2 and Methane emissions are not a bad thing!

Cyanide contains Carbon - I wouldn't suggest you try it!

I respect your right to disagree. I wish we as a society would do more of that. Science is based on disagreement and testing hypotheses. All that goes out the window with climate research as scientist who don't agree, don't get funding. Anyhow, I do have one question. Why do you own a mustang and not a Mach E?

Sponsored