Jaguar I-Pace EV400 Forum banner

21 - 40 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Oh my bad. I took cow farts for granted because AOC said so.

A common misconception is that the cow’s rear end emits methane, however the vast majority is released orally. Researched carried out by Grainger et al. in 2007 found that 92-98 % was emitted orally (I won’t go into detail about how they found that out!).
Also:

A dairy cow emits over twice the amount of methane than a beef cow and is by far the highest contributor of all the animals studied. There are also more dairy cows in the UK than beef cattle (1.81 million compared to 1.66 million).
Your glass of milk is worse then my steak.

You might not have heard:

Methane is a natural gas in the Earth, and the amount that comes from cattle is actually more insignificant than that naturally produced from such sources as volcanoes, the oceanic floor, swamps, etc.
We must ban volcanoes, the ocean floor and swamps immediately.

And finally.....

Cows that stand in the shade do not produce chocolate milk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
957 Posts
Well, this turned into a **** show.

I never said it was a democrat or republican thing. If you saw that, well, that's on your paranoid, delusional view of the world. Illinois is a blue state and the a-hole proposing the 1000 ev tax is a dem. In general, politicians do not only ignore the will of the populace, they make bad decisions too. Often the populace wants stupid, destructive, selfish things. That's when politicians should be leaders, not populists. Left and right, we have plenty of populists. I find it ironic when people complain about left wing populists while supporting right wing populists, and vice versa.

I imagine most people here are not pure greenies. The ipace isn't exactly the most efficient EV. If I wanted efficiency, I'd have a Prius for long driving days and a Fiat 500 for short driving days. We're all luxury car buyers here. My wife and I have four cars, only one of which is an EV, though we've had two small EVs leased before. One of the vehicles is a Ram 1500 with a Hemi. Thing weighs well over 5000lbs and gets 15mpg driven normally. I'm just driving it less now. Might sell it. Super comfy, though. Also super useful. Currently there's 600lbs of concrete bags in the back.

The science on global warming is clear and massively supported by scientists in the field. Some scientists from outside the field and, for some reason, many engineers feel otherwise. I don't get my science from engineers, though. I get my engineering from them, but I get my climate science from climate scientists. Among them, the agreement and science are absolutely crystal clear.

Total subsidies for the oil industry are massively greater than those for the alternative energy and EV industry. It's stupid, destructive policy that will cost us immensely in the long run.

The wealthy get subsidized at an embarrassing rate. For last tax year, I get a 7500 refund on the ipace, another 30% back on my home battery backup system, a write-off on home interest, massive business write-offs, deferred taxes on a significant chunk of income thanks to 403b, 457, and 401k, and probably more things I can't think of at the moment. Not to mention the massive tax cut that I got last year. If you don't like communism, how can you like subsidies for the rich and corporations? Isn't that communism too? Not that either of these things are communism, but I'm not even going to try to find a definition.

As for cap and trade, that's not my baby. It seems like it's gotten some mixed results. Lower carbon overall, but higher local pollution in vulnerable, poor areas.

Dead cows
Aren't much fun
When you call them
They don't
Come/
This conversation is rotting in the hall.

Don't be fooled. If that cow ever escaped, it would eat you alive in a heartbeat. Kill or be killed.
Human leather was used for lampshades by Socialists once upon a time.
I imagine they will do it again; history doesn't repeat, but it often does rhyme.
Cows with guns.

The Nazis were not socialist by any meaningful definition of the word.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
If you don't like communism, how can you like subsidies for the rich and corporations? Isn't that communism too? Not that either of these things are communism, but I'm not even going to try to find a definition.
They are or they aren't - I'm confused by this statement.

The Nazis were not socialist by any meaningful definition of the word.
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.
National Socialism is a form of state capitalism in which private owners reap all the profits, but the state directs them in what they want produced, so it is not really free-market capitalism either. Krupp, IG Farben, Leica and Siemens were among Nazi beneficiaries,.....
Curious: where did Nazis enter the discussion?

They were to some degree socialist in that they controlled the means of production even if they didn't take ownership of it.

.... In a real socialist country they would have been nationalized and the profits would have been taken and distributed back to the workers in the form of benefits and entitlements
The remainder of that quote is humorous. In theory it might be true.

And now that Nazis have been brought up, Godwin's law must be invoked.

I get my climate science from climate scientists. Among them, the agreement and science are absolutely crystal clear.
I try to introduce people to the concept of reverse scientocracy, but they resist. It kind of matters. It's what we have today.

As for anything science being crystal clear, you destroy the entire premise of science when you declare such. Science by it's own nature is never settled.

Total subsidies for the oil industry are massively greater than.....
..... greater than a lot of things. I've read this for years. Not once has anyone stumbled upon why while lamenting this. There are actually non-evil reasons why. But I suppose that when everything is crystal clear, so must be the evil oil subsidy.

Kids, if you are ever confused about why intelligent conversations are so difficult to have,......
Hello again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Getting back to the topic, this is refreshingly the correct outlook on the subject:

It seems that this particular tax is particularly excessive (compared to the additional fuel tax for ICW cars).

Having said that, it is inevitable that the same taxes on conventional cars designed to fund the maintenance of the roads we all drive on will have to find their way to electric cars. While electricity is cheaper than gas, the cost of paving the road is the same regardless of the type of engine is in the car driving on it, so the tax to total cost ratio will be worse for EVs for the overall contribution of EVs to the road maintenance to be the same per car.

Given the social benefits of driving EVs, hopefully these taxes will be waived for a while to help motivate the transition, but at tome point, all cars will have to pay their share of the road infrastructure costs.
One might feel that this PROPOSAL is excessive. Maybe it really isn't, particularly in light of the proposed gas tax hike. Or... both are excessive. I live in this state and I'm quite familiar with the idiocy that goes on in Springfield. This is probably just an idiot looking for attention.

They also want to implement a "Fair Tax" which will turn out to be anything but fair.
.............................

As for promoting EVs, here's a good way to present yourself on the subject:

McRat said:
I like electromotive drive for a daily driver because its a superior driving experience. Better transmission, better motor, more convenient.
Notice the absence of politics, or any other kind of divisive speech here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
957 Posts
They are or they aren't - I'm confused by this statement. Curious: where did Nazis enter the discussion? They were to some degree socialist in that they controlled the means of production even if they didn't take ownership of it. The remainder of that quote is humorous. In theory it might be true. And now that Nazis have been brought up, Godwin's law must be invoked. I try to introduce people to the concept of reverse scientocracy, but they resist. It kind of matters. It's what we have today. As for anything science being crystal clear, you destroy the entire premise of science when you declare such. Science by it's own nature is never settled. ..... greater than a lot of things. I've read this for years. Not once has anyone stumbled upon why while lamenting this. There are actually non-evil reasons why. But I suppose that when everything is crystal clear, so must be the evil oil subsidy. Hello again.
I think I've addressed everything you wrote:

My point is that you used the word communism is a way that matches no meaningful use of the word. Then I pointed out all sorts of things in America that are similar to the policy you criticized but that benefit the rich only as opposed to the not so rich only. Then I threw my hands in the air over the thought of trying to come up with an agreed upon concept of communism.

Nazis entered the discussion when McRat mentioned Socialists using human leather to make lampshades. It was quoted immediately above where I used the word Nazis.
Nazism is a rejection of socialism. Nazism is the philosophy of a racial hierarchy and is highly capitalistic. Socialism is about class and ensuring that the means of production benefit the working man. There's a reason Germany was at war with the Soviets, and it wasn't because the Soviets were philosophically in line with Nazism.

I don't know what it means to invoke Godwin's Law. Is he going to appear for us and shame the argument? Anyway, talk to McRat.

There is such thing as scientific consensus, and there is such a thing as the evidence and proper analysis thereof. There has been a lot of scientific consensus and a lot of evidence with proper analysis backing it up. Until somebody can present even a shred of evidence that would make me doubt the reality of global warming, I see no reason to doubt it. The primary arguments against global warming that I've heard are "It's cold outside" and "The climate models don't all exactly agree so they must all be false". I've read many more, and they all fall apart under scrutiny. My favorite was "I did an experiment on my kitchen table and proved CO2 doesn't cause global warming." Well, that and some guy saying that the Chinese made it up to make money somehow.

And if the evidence and consensus point in the direction of global warming ever so strongly then something should be done. And if something should be done, the government should be part of making it happen, because the government is the best tool around for making something important and big happen. If there's some other effective way, I'm all ears. And if the government should be part of making it happen, it's not the same as socialism or communism, not that that especially matters but it apparently does to some. And since cars are a huge contributor to global warming, and since, over their lifetime, EVs use less fossil fuels than ICE cars, then policies that move people into EVs are good, and policies that move people out of EVs are bad. And therefore a $1000 registration fee on EVs is just bad policy. And therefore subsidizing fossil fuel production is bad policy.

And we do live in a reverse scientocracy. A lot more science in the government would be a good thing. It's been only slightly above zero my whole life but has dropped precipitously below zero in the past two years. Saying things are crystal clear isn't anti-science. That's some strange form of scientific puritancy. Don't mistake certainty and clarity for the inability to change one's mind in the face of evidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
"Nazism is a rejection of socialism" - Work for Everyone, Free Medical, Free Vacations, Living Minimum Wage, "The State over the Individual", TV and media owned by the state (first country with TV), the Government owned many factories, it was the National Socialist Worker's Party. NSDAP was a populist movement, not the armed overthrow of a government. However, like most attempts at socialism, the rich figured out a way to get richer. Greed always trumps altruism.

Trivia - Siemens (and many others) are directly responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent slave workers. They built factories by hiring slaves from the government around the concentration camps, and when a worker was not performing up to schedule, they told the SS handlers (the slaves were owned by The State) to 'replace' that worker, who was killed the next morning. Siemens officials were aware of this. Siemens (and many others) never appeared before a Russian or Allied court for their criminal acts. The rich override both capitalists and socialists.

There are still deep-dark-secrets about the whole 1933-1965 period that remain documented but hidden. And many Urban Legends surrounding it. NSDAP was an enemy of communism, that is true, but they themselves were socialist before the war. Most countries involved became socialist during the war.

Putting a draconian tax on anything is socialist and usually a form of social engineering. States are not taxing EV road taxes, they taxing them with property taxes. If it stays in your garage most the time, you are taxed for ownership.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,158 Posts
The wealthy get subsidized at an embarrassing rate. For last tax year, I get a 7500 refund on the ipace, another 30% back on my home battery backup system, a write-off on home interest, massive business write-offs, deferred taxes on a significant chunk of income thanks to 403b, 457, and 401k, and probably more things I can't think of at the moment. Not to mention the massive tax cut that I got last year. If you don't like communism, how can you like subsidies for the rich.
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
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...
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
My point is that you used the word communism is a way that matches no meaningful use of the word. Then I pointed out all sorts of things in America that are similar to the policy you criticized but that benefit the rich only as opposed to the not so rich only. Then I threw my hands in the air over the thought of trying to come up with an agreed upon concept of communism.
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.

There is such thing as scientific consensus, and there is such a thing as the evidence and proper analysis thereof. There has been a lot of scientific consensus and a lot of evidence with proper analysis backing it up. Until somebody can present even a shred of evidence that would make me doubt the reality of global warming, I see no reason to doubt it. The primary arguments against global warming that I've heard are "It's cold outside" and "The climate models don't all exactly agree so they must all be false". I've read many more, and they all fall apart under scrutiny.
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.

And if the evidence and consensus point in the direction of global warming ever so strongly then something should be done. And if something should be done, the government should be part of making it happen, because the government is the best tool around for making something important and big happen. If there's some other effective way, I'm all ears. And if the government should be part of making it happen, it's not the same as socialism or communism, not that that especially matters but it apparently does to some. And since cars are a huge contributor to global warming, and since, over their lifetime, EVs use less fossil fuels than ICE cars, then policies that move people into EVs are good, and policies that move people out of EVs are bad. And therefore a $1000 registration fee on EVs is just bad policy. And therefore subsidizing fossil fuel production is bad policy.
Logical dominos. I'm getting some clues on how things become crystal clear.

And we do live in a reverse scientocracy. A lot more science in the government would be a good thing. It's been only slightly above zero my whole life but has dropped precipitously below zero in the past two years.
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.

Saying things are crystal clear isn't anti-science. That's some strange form of scientific puritancy. Don't mistake certainty and clarity for the inability to change one's mind in the face of evidence.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
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!

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
957 Posts
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...

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.

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-age-predictions-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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
The task of countering global warming science isn't "pushing a rope uphill," an odd idiom if I've ever seen one.
Me said:
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.

But hey, I'm all ears.
Ah ah ah..... it's your education and your responsibility.

Logical dominoes? I think you mean deductive logic.
I mean logical dominoes.

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. :smile2: 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?

Your understanding of science and logic are questionable.
There it is - the ad hominem remark. It always comes out in the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Just tossing out a quote from an actual climatologist:

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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
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).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
He also said:

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.
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?"

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
On The EPA:

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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
My steak for dinner was very tasty. I didn't call it but it was there on the plate anyway. Yummy! :smile2:

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. :D

Or just call their cellphone. I herd (har) the USDA issued cellphones to underprivileged cows.
 
21 - 40 of 62 Posts
Top