Some things to consider as we move to EV's and more battery/wind/solar

[Boilermaker03]

Wow, this is totally new information to me. Why haven't the climate scientists studied the history of the climate? Seems like if they knew about these cycles, they could give us all much better recommendations.

I don't know, because they have an agenda maybe? Perhaps money? Incentive to keep one's job? All three? There are many reasons why. It's been well discussed that peer review isn't really all that. Fraud happens and I'm willing to bet it happens more than you or I believe it does.

"Peer review isn't good at catching outright fraud - the reviewers aren't charged with actually repeating the experiments described, and deliberate manipulation of data and tables can slip by even the most careful of reviewers. When fraud is discovered, articles are typically retracted."

But peer review isn't perfect

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Millions for Mann

Michael Mann Received Stimulus Money

The Wall Street Journal writes that $2.4 million of stimulus money went to climate scientist Michael Mann who helped rig the climate change consensus.

www.wsj.com

 

[Droid12345]

I don't know, because they have an agenda maybe? Perhaps money? Incentive to keep one's job? All three?

And there's our conspiracy theory again. The bulk of the scientific community is either actively promoting a falsehood, in the pocket of someone who is, or will lose their job if they dare speak out, right? Except, all the information about the climate cycles has been produced by the scientific community. It has been made publicly availably by the scientific community. You wouldn't know anything about climate cycles if scientists hadn't discovered it and published their findings. Yet, somehow, you think they're hiding it from us.

So, science is fully aware of these cycles and, yet, still at least purports to believe that human activity is currently warming the planet. Since you don't actually have any science that supports you (that wouldn't quickly be refuted by the bulk of other scientists), you're reduced to simply having to assert that we're being lied to, regardless of how absurd that claim is. The sheer percentage of scientists who would have to be either complicit in, or unaware of, the false narrative is staggering to the point of unbelievability.

It's been well discussed that peer review isn't really all that. Fraud happens and I'm willing to bet it happens more than you or I believe it does.

I don't disagree that peer review isn't perfect. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing. I don't disagree that fraud sometimes happen within the scientific community. That doesn't mean the consensus of the world scientific community on this particular topic is fraudulent.

But I don't want to go down this path again. You've made your position clear, so there's no need for you to continue to assert your position until you have some actual, verifiable evidence that there is a global conspiracy to use scientists to lie to the world's population so that the windmill companies can get rich, or whatever.

 

[Boilermaker03]

And there's our conspiracy theory again. The bulk of the scientific community is either actively promoting a falsehood, in the pocket of someone who is, or will lose their job if they dare speak out, right? Except, all the information about the climate cycles has been produced by the scientific community. It has been made publicly availably by the scientific community. You wouldn't know anything about climate cycles if scientists hadn't discovered it and published their findings. Yet, somehow, you think they're hiding it from us.

So, science is fully aware of these cycles and, yet, still at least purports to believe that human activity is currently warming the planet. Since you don't actually have any science that supports you (that wouldn't quickly be refuted by the bulk of other scientists), you're reduced to simply having to assert that we're being lied to, regardless of how absurd that claim is. The sheer percentage of scientists who would have to be either complicit in, or unaware of, the false narrative is staggering to the point of unbelievability.

I don't disagree that peer review isn't perfect. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing. I don't disagree that fraud sometimes happen within the scientific community. That doesn't mean the consensus of the world scientific community on this particular topic is fraudulent.

But I don't want to go down this path again. You've made your position clear, so there's no need for you to continue to assert your position until you have some actual, verifiable evidence that there is a global conspiracy to use scientists to lie to the world's population so that the windmill companies can get rich, or whatever.

The bulk of the scientific community is reliant on a handful of people that control our temperature graphs. Those same people are the one's involved in the climate gate emails.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Then I guess we're screwed.

That’s the problem with the eco-terrorists. When is “good enough” good enough? It seems like the answer is “never”. The goalposts seem to move every year.

How do you approach doing what they want without destroying the American economy in the process and without impacting the most economically-vulnerable the most with the policies? Truth is, the Progressives don’t really care about these things at all. They just want to shove their idealistic philosophies down the majority of the American populations’ throats. The just want more control - and going more electric allows this. Who controls the utilities? The government does…….Don’t what we want? Fine, we’ll shut off your power or we’ll ration it out and you’ll only get it when we say you’ll get it…….

 

[Droid12345]

The bulk of the scientific community is reliant on a handful of people that control our temperature graphs. Those same people are the one's involved in the climate gate emails.

Ah yes, climate gate. Because that hasn't been debunked already. Of course, I'm sure you think all the fact checkers are in on it, too, so we have no reason to believe them. But, here's what the investigation into the emails concluded:

“'We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention.'

Researchers should have worked more closely with professional statisticians, the university said, but the investigation did not find evidence that they were using misleading statistical methods."

But again, we all already know you think it's a conspiracy. The thing with conspiracy theories is that people who believe in them believe that any evidence that disproves it is actually just more evidence of the conspiracy. It's all part of the coverup.

 

[Droid12345]

The just want more control - and going more electric allows this. Who controls the utilities? The government does…….Don’t what we want? Fine, we’ll shut off your power or we’ll ration it out and you’ll only get it when we say you’ll get it…….

How would the government have more control over the power than they already do? Are they taking over the utilities?

Apart from that, does the government do this in other things that they do control? Do they deny drivers licenses to people who disagree with the party in power? Do people lose access Medicare, or public transportation, or to any other government services due to political disagreement? Or is electricity the last thing they need so their just biding their time until they're ready to start doing that?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Ah yes, climate gate. Because that hasn't been debunked already. Of course, I'm sure you think all the fact checkers are in on it, too, so we have no reason to believe them. But, here's what the investigation into the emails concluded:

“'We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention.'

Researchers should have worked more closely with professional statisticians, the university said, but the investigation did not find evidence that they were using misleading statistical methods."

But again, we all already know you think it's a conspiracy. The thing with conspiracy theories is that people who believe in them believe that any evidence that disproves it is actually just more evidence of the conspiracy. It's all part of the coverup.

No, it hasn't. You may have accepted a bs explanation, but it's very much real. How do I know? Because they've done exactly what they said they wanted to do in the emails. IE: they've altered the past temperature data to meet their theory. Otherwise, they had no explanation for of the heat of the 1930's as well as the cooling of the 1970's, so they cooled the 30's and warmed the 70's to make the trend look more linear.

People like you that have totally bought in are blind to this simple fact, but all you have to do is look at past temp graphs (in conjunction with the hundreds of news articles from around the world talking about each trend and how bad they were) and compare them to today's temp graphs. They aren't even close.

 

[BoilerJS]

Oh right, because the fact that the climate can and has changed naturally necessarily

Point made.

 

[Crayfish57]

For the record, China and India both get a far higher percentage of their energy from renewables than we do. So, while their CO2 may be higher than ours because of their dramatically higher populations, they're both making progress faster than we are. Maybe we should catch up

Source? You seem keen on that. I dont see many people in the us tearing old computers apart and burning stuff off of them to make a living. GD I bet you are a lot of fun at parties. I'd love to hear about the renewables India and China are using, those people dont give a sh*t about anything but where there next meal is coming from in general. Do you consider telemarketing a renewable?