Forget the rebates... IL first state to levy annual "tax" on EVs... - Page 4 - Jaguar I-Pace EV400 Forum
 26Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 62 (permalink) Old 05-13-2019, 12:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Mister Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Illinois
Posts: 384
Paul Ehrlich, in the 1970 “Earth Day” issue of The Progressive, told readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” He stated elsewhere that that “air pollution … is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

In 1988, in an article titled, “Global Warming Has Begun,” said that “If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050…. The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.”

In the years 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore made statements about the possibility of a complete lack of summer sea ice in the Arctic by as early as 2013, and indicated in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, that sea levels could rise by 20 feet, putting many coastal cities under water.

On June 2, 2009, ABC aired a show called Earth 2100, in which it was predicted that by June 8, 2015, gas would be over $9 per gallon, milk would cost $13, and that New York City would be mostly under water.
Mister Dave is online now  
post #32 of 62 (permalink) Old 05-13-2019, 01:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Mister Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Illinois
Posts: 384
AOC told interviewer Ta-Nehisi Coates about the end of the world:

"Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?”

AOC claimed Sunday that people who believe the suggestion that the world will end in 12 years have the intelligence of a “sea sponge”.

“Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal."

In other climate change and Ocasio-Cortez related news, the New York congresswoman recently discovered what a garbage disposal is and asked whether the waste removal device is “environmentally sound.”

“I am told this is a garbage disposal,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I’ve never seen a garbage disposal. I never had one in any place I’ve ever lived. It is terrifying. I don’t know what to use it for, or what its purpose is.”

Ocasio-Cortez asked, “Is this environmentally sound?”

Be sure to catch her tonight at Howard University in DC!

Mister Dave is online now  
post #33 of 62 (permalink) Old 05-13-2019, 01:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Castro Valley, CA
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantrium View Post
You do know that if you are truly opposed to tax cuts, subsidies, etc. you can vote with your wallet and not take them, right?

Nothing is more baffling to me than hearing folks like Warren Buffet bemoaning his tax rate, yet no one is forcing him to take a single deduction or credit.

Write a check to the treasury to pay back every single ‘embarrassing’ subsidy/credit and then get back to me...
And then...

Quote:
Originally Posted by epirali View Post
I am sorry but this argument is a red herring. To say that tax policy is wrong is a valid argument, and to say "hey just you as a single person don't take it" has nothing to do with the original argument, rather its simply a bad argument to invalidate rather than discuss the merits or weaknesses of the position. Which is exactly what we have devolved to in this country.

Let's talk about the actual argument rather than throw up a smoke screen. What is is about Warren Buffets detailed criticism that you find incorrect? If he as an individual refuses to use them it doesn't address the economic and social points he is making.

The basic position that "all taxes bad, I keep my money" is not a economic nor political argument in my opinion.
Yup. My argument completely ignored in favor of getting in a lick. Typical internet arguing. How are Buffet or me wrong in our arguments about tax laws being way too low on and kind to the wealthy? That's the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Dave View Post
I'll take "you" as a collective "you" there, or maybe you're confusing me with someone else's comment. I don't think I want to do the logical gymnastics to figure this one out.

Sorry, I'm not foolish enough to actually take on the pushing a rope uphill task of convincing you or anyone else that what's "crystal clear" to them might not be in reality.

I've read some things that suggest that not all of what I'm being bombarded with is true. But you'll have to do your own homework in discovering that. It's not my job to educate you.

Logical dominos. I'm getting some clues on how things become crystal clear.

I'm not sure you understood what I meant. That's okay. I appreciate the effort at least. Let's see if I can make my meaning crystal clear.

Scientocracy is the practice of basing public policies on science. What we have now is the practice of basing science on public policies.

There's some irony in the conflicting logic there. I'm not sure who will spot it.

Meanwhile, I'll stand by my earlier remarks in this regard.
Parse "you" as you see fit. I don't see why it matters or is even worth bringing up.

The task of countering global warming science isn't "pushing a rope uphill," an odd idiom if I've ever seen one. It's a just plain futile task in the face of currently available evidence and science. But hey, I'm all ears. Should I start listing the arguments you would make and their flaws? How about how climate scientists used to all argue that we were headed for a new ice age? Oh, wait, that's not true. https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice...s-in-1970s.htm

Logical dominoes? I think you mean deductive logic.

I believe I used scientocracy in a way that matches your definition. I'm not sure why you then define it at me.

The irony is that you completely fail to defend your earlier remarks, instead attacking me by saying how ironic my answers are. Your understanding of science and logic are questionable.
jsimon7777 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 62 (permalink) Old 05-13-2019, 01:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Mister Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Illinois
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimon7777 View Post
The task of countering global warming science isn't "pushing a rope uphill," an odd idiom if I've ever seen one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Sorry, I'm not foolish enough to actually take on the pushing a rope uphill task of convincing you or anyone else that what's "crystal clear" to them might not be in reality.
Read what I said please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimon7777 View Post
But hey, I'm all ears.
Ah ah ah..... it's your education and your responsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimon7777 View Post
Logical dominoes? I think you mean deductive logic.
I mean logical dominoes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimon7777 View Post
I believe I used scientocracy in a way that matches your definition. I'm not sure why you then define it at me.
Just being crystal clear. I'm not sure you got the reverse part though.

Let's assume you did. Is there any possible issue with basing science on public policy? That is to say, can science be corrupted by government?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimon7777 View Post
Your understanding of science and logic are questionable.
There it is - the ad hominem remark. It always comes out in the end.

Last edited by Mister Dave; 05-13-2019 at 01:41 PM.
Mister Dave is online now  
post #35 of 62 (permalink) Old 05-13-2019, 02:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Mister Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Illinois
Posts: 384
Just tossing out a quote from an actual climatologist:

Quote:
Surface temperature of the planet is warmer than it was a hundred years ago about 9/10th of a degree Celsius...It's not a lot. There are two periods of warning, one in the early 20th Century that could not have been caused by human beings because we hadn't put enough CO2 in the air, and one in the later part of the 20th Century that either slows down or ends depending upon whose data you use somewhere in the late 1990s, only to resume with the big El Nino that covered the news the last couple of years.

So the theory is right, but the application of it is wrong. It is nowhere near as warm as it's supposed to be.

There are 32 families of computer models that are used by the United Nations, each government sponsored. And all of them are predicting far, far too much warming.

In "Science" magazine in late 2016, and there was a paper that was published by a French climate modeler called "The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning," and in it, he speaks of parameterizing -- we could say fudging -- the models to give, his words, an anticipated acceptable range of results.

The models systematically predict that as you go up in the atmosphere in the tropics which are 40% of the earth that the temperature should rise dramatically as you go further up in the atmosphere. So when you get to the level of the jet stream, the computer models are predicting seven times. I didn't say seven-tenths of a degree, I said seven times more warming than is being observed.

It's a fantastic systematic error, and again, that along with the difference between the surface temperatures or rather the lower atmospheric temperatures and what's being observed, that's sufficient to kill the endangerment finding.
Mister Dave is online now  
post #36 of 62 (permalink) Old 05-13-2019, 02:46 PM
Senior Member
 
sciencegeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 741
Scientists are people too. You have to look at the sum of the available evidence. It's really easy to find flaws in any scientific study, and it's tempting for individual scientists to overinterpret predictions. What matters, when it comes to predictions, is the broad scientific consensus .. and that can be wrong too. It may be wrong in timing, not usually in what eventually will occur.

Don't confound predictions with facts. Facts are just that. Facts. There are scientific facts where the science is so solid that it's silly to imply that "nothing is ever really true in science because the nature of science is such that it questions".

For example: Do antibiotics work? Yes. For many, the actual molecular mechanism is known. I mean the real chemistry. Down to the atomic mechanism. Scientists have predicted the emergence of superbugs, which are bacteria that carry multiple resistance loci, for quite some time now. And it's coming true. Similarly, scientists have been predicting sea level rise for quite some time. It's coming true.

So let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Science can make mistakes, and individual scientists make more mistakes than the whole of the community (that's just math).
epirali likes this.
sciencegeek is online now  
post #37 of 62 (permalink) Old 05-13-2019, 02:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Mister Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Illinois
Posts: 384
He also said:

Quote:
If science is involved in developing economies, and I believe it is, we were doing really, really well. Now, when the government takes it over, the government gets what it wants and the government can give out money to basically only study the global warming via climate models. Did not take a look at climate history and to see what that really tells us, and then the government can have the policies that it wants. Because, do you expect, do you really expect scientists who have been paid for decades to study the effects of warming and to create models that by the way have too much warming, do you expect them to testify in front of Congress when asked do we need more research? They would say no, it's really a non-problem? They'd get thrown out of their jobs if they did that.

And so it becomes self-perpetuating. Now global warming is a cosm, it's not a microcosm. It's a pretty big cosm -- cosmos -- in this constellation, but there are other issues that the government just abuses science on to take people's stuff, if you don't mind, and that governments distort in service of a political end.
Quote:
When you buy off the academy, you can get what you paid for, and you know, when we went into the federalization of science, the academy said, "Okay, we'll apply for your money and we're going to tack on 50% for every research application that we're going to call overhead, and that money, we, the universities, will use as we choose, and so a lot of it that the engineering and science departments generate all this revenue, probably goes to keep the dramatic language of the department to flow which does not have enough student traffic."

So now, the academy roots for anything that is big government that it feels it can tie onto to maintain this relationship. The roots of political correctness, there are many, manifold and varied. But one of them certainly was the enslavement of the academy.
He was asked: "Are there benefits from some increased heat on the planet?"

Quote:
Yes, the whole philosophy here is straight out of Voltaire. You know, Pangloss and the best of all possible worlds, we don't live in the best of all possible climates. And our atmosphere is not in the best of all possible composition. So what's happened as it's warmed this half a degree in the late 20th Century and the CO2 has gone up and up in the atmosphere, well, what we've done is we've created a greener and greener planet and the greening of the planet earth is profound. There's a very recent paper that just came out a couple of months ago, showing tremendous increases in how much green matter there is on the planet.

The largest increases by the way are in the tropical rainforest. It's growing like topsy.

Prairies that cows either go on or we harvest it for hay, the data for 17 years of satellite data show the grassland, green mass, if you will, is growing at 5% per year. That's huge. Another paper, "Nature" magazine by Ziaxen Ju (ph) two years ago looked at the planetary greening and said what are the causes? He did something called a factor analysis. Seventy percent of it was a simple direct effect of putting more carbon dioxide in the air because it's plant food. And one of the other big causes of the planetary greening was climate change, the warming of the planet. Yes, we never hear about this, but it's real.......

......the greenhouse changes work is they warm the coldest temperatures preferentially to warming the warmer ones, so the growing season, which ends with the first frost in autumn and begins with the last frost in the spring, the growing seasons get longer and longer and longer, the greenhouse effect also affects nighttime temperatures more than it affects daytime temperatures, that's when the cold temperatures are.

So you have a longer time for the planet to green up and then you have longer growing seasons and you have the direct fertilization of carbon dioxide which is even more important than the climate change itself, and you're winding up with a much greener planet. I've looked at these numbers. I can tell you that the amount of agricultural productivity that is now being induced in the planet by CO2 particularly in these grassland areas is going to provide a lot of our food for our future.

Last edited by Mister Dave; 05-13-2019 at 02:57 PM.
Mister Dave is online now  
post #38 of 62 (permalink) Old 05-13-2019, 03:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Mister Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Illinois
Posts: 384
On The EPA:

Quote:
We had a lot of work to do when it started out. We had really serious air quality problems in the country and the EPA did a great job with that. It tried - it succeeded in controlling sulfur and nitrogen oxides that came out of power plants, acid rain and all that good stuff. But unfortunately, like most bureaucracies, one of the easy low hanging fruit are the things you get and then you start to get more arcane, but your bureaucracy is embedded and then the agency takes on a life of its own and that's what has happened. Can it be fixed? Yes, it could be. We could take a look at the endangerment finding from carbon dioxide and see how scientifically well supported or non-supported it is. I think that would go a long way.

And then, we would have a much more sensible policy. We would not be shooting ourselves in the energy foot like we are and we would continue to maintain our society at higher level.
Mister Dave is online now  
post #39 of 62 (permalink) Old 05-14-2019, 12:28 AM
Senior Member
 
sciencegeek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 741
The bit about "the academy" is just utter and complete baloney ... typical conspiracy theory BS.

But I'm glad he got the facts right on the greening study. It's one study that has shown potentially beneficial effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Do we agree that it's caused by humans? Because if you think that this study supports your arguments you probably also agree that CO2 increase is caused by humans. Since publication of that study there actually has been robust debate in the literature about it, largely with data, analysis, and, you know, science.

The study also supports the idea that CO2 increase is a risk factor. Imagine if temperatures increase, sea level rises accelerate, and the greening of the planet, which we now might think of as a good thing, return us to the climate and environment of the Cretaceous in a handful of generations. I mean, sure, maybe that will be interesting. But it's a risk factor. Siberia will blossom. Arizona may wither. Bangladesh will cease to exist. Miami? Hmm. Probably not. Why increase those risks?
epirali likes this.
sciencegeek is online now  
post #40 of 62 (permalink) Old 05-14-2019, 10:30 AM
Senior Member
 
McRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Norco, California, USA
Posts: 1,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Dave View Post
My steak for dinner was very tasty. I didn't call it but it was there on the plate anyway. Yummy!

How do you call a cow anyway? I've heard people call pigs, but not cows.
You bang on the gate. Then you need to herd any stragglers. Wear rubber boots. Most will follow the leader, and the leader knows that after milking, it's feed time. But yeah, you actually tell the farm hands to do it.

Or just call their cellphone. I herd (har) the USDA issued cellphones to underprivileged cows.

Jaguar i-Pace FE Photon Red 20" wheels, "Leaper"
Two Chevrolet Volts in service
24.2 kW x 480v 3ph solar array self-installed.
McRat is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome