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

[Johneb]

I want the wood for a wood cook stove!

 

[Sanwizard]

If we stopped all GHG production today it's true that we'd still warm a bit, that's because in addition to GHGs we also produce some short-lived anti-GHGs.

But in terms of only natural cycles, from this chart of past cycles and the zoom-in on just the right part, looks like we're already past or should soon be past that. Of course, that pesky jump in the last 100 years is unprecedented.

What they've always done. Climate change being true or false doesn't change the nature of people.


You can get EVs that go 300 miles on a charge. How far do you want to go? The Aptera has a range of 1k miles, and with the built-in solar might never need charging if your daily commute is < 40 miles.

My wife has a PHEV, she's normally all electric/solar-powered, but uses gas for the few trips a year she makes over 1k miles. Next evolution of batteries will have more range and might be as fast at refueling as a gas car.


You're welcome, glad it helped you! I liked the bit at the end of course.


I thought the 3 arguments proving climate change was man-made were well thought out and well presented.
But if you don't care why bother bringing it up?

But what about Methane?

 

[Sanwizard]

But what about Methane?

 

[Bob B]

Cut down old trees that aren't consuming much CO2, sequester the carbon by burying them, and plant new trees that will grow and consume a lot of CO2. Sounds a lot like the natural process of making the coal fields. What part didn't you like?

Actually it's just the opposite ..... Old trees sequester a lot of carbon but it takes at least 10 years after planting a tree for it to become effective.

Planting trees "doesn't make any sense" in the fight against climate change say experts

Afforestation is an unreliable way of sequestering atmospheric carbon, according to several key figures interviewed by Dezeen as part of our carbon revolution series.

www.dezeen.com

 

[Checkthisout]

Cut down old trees that aren't consuming much CO2, sequester the carbon by burying them, and plant new trees that will grow and consume a lot of CO2. Sounds a lot like the natural process of making the coal fields. What part didn't you like?

You are an absolute retard.

This completely conflicts with studies saying old-growth forests sequester more carbon.

You idiot.

Why Keeping Mature Forests Intact Is Key to the Climate Fight

Preserving mature forests can play a vital role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere, says policy scientist William Moomaw. In an e360 interview, he talks about the importance of existing forests and why the push to cut them for fuel to generate electricity is misguided.

e360.yale.edu

 

[Johneb]

You are an absolute retard.

This completely conflicts with studies saying old-growth forests sequester more carbon.

You idiot.

Why Keeping Mature Forests Intact Is Key to the Climate Fight

Preserving mature forests can play a vital role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere, says policy scientist William Moomaw. In an e360 interview, he talks about the importance of existing forests and why the push to cut them for fuel to generate electricity is misguided.

e360.yale.edu

Let’s keep it civil. Please. We’re not all rocket scientists.

 

[svetz]

But what about Methane?

Ambiguous sentence fragments are hard to reply to. What is it you're asking about?

Ford CEO says no one is buying EVs... Well, from Ford's website: FORD TO LEAD AMERICA’S SHIFT TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES So, hmmmm.... But it is true a number of manufacturers (e.g., Toyota) say no one wants them, despite their having the largest growth market (see graph right). Why is that? Could it be that some car companies don't yet make EVs , or they can't compete with others that got into the market earlier?

Could it be consumers don't like poorly thought-out and expensive EVs rushed to market? Or they're still peeved at irresponsible things the company has done in the past (e.g., diesel gate)? Are they worried China will undercut market prices and force all other car companies out of existence making it hard for repair or parts if they buy an EU model?

Tesla & BYD don't seem to have problems selling or making money.

And, if it's true that no one wants EVs... then why is every car manufacturer scrambling to make them?

Actually it's just the opposite ..... Old trees sequester a lot of carbon but it takes at least 10 years after planting a tree for it to become effective.

How is that the opposite?
Sure, seedlings have a startup period before they're truly "effective"; but you're ignoring that end-of-life trees are just taking up space and not consuming more CO2 then they produce. The startup timeframe also depends heavily on the tree species.

Also got a good laugh out of the costs of maintaining a forest when by planting the right species in the right area nature pretty much takes care of it for you. If you look up Paul Gimball (who was the guy being quoted in your snippet), you'll see he's involved in a competing carbon capture company called Nori, so he has a vested interest in pushing their technology over other technologies. They're essentially paying farmers to sequester carbon via land management practices and have to admit it sounds pretty cool. As to how it competes with Bill Bate's project, well that's probably why they're doing the experiment... you can't really know without trying.

While it is true we can't plant our way out of the problem; grasses, algae, & trees planned for carbon sequestration are still very promising carbon capture technologies; some of which create useful by-products.

 

[svetz]

...Solar is coming in the near future and even though I won't need that many panels i plan on covering the entire south roof.

When I did my original cost analysis on solar I didn't include the $ savings from not having to buy gas for an EV.
Let's say you drive 12k miles/year (32 miles a day). At $3.50/gallon and an ICE car with 35 miles per gallon that's a cost of ~$1200/yr/car for as long as you own it. You should also, of course, compare to grid costs. Unlike you I didn't do the whole south roof, so I want to add more for when I replace the last car. That car will have V2H, so the house will have a really big battery to power it for outages (live in an HVHZ) essentially for free.

 

[aenyc]

The Giant Science Lie that Underpins the Entire Collectivist Net Zero Political Project​

The false notion that the climate is collapsing due to human activity lies at the heart of the drive to collectivise human populations under a Net Zero global agenda. Everything about it is a lie. The science is not ‘settled’, it is an unproven hypothesis, and stating otherwise is giving credence to an obvious political construct. There is no way that scientists can calculate how much of the gentle rise in temperature seen over the last 200 years is caused by humans burning fossil fuel rather than natural influences. The idea that there is a 97% ‘consensus’ among scientists that humans cause the majority of warming is a whopper as big as they come, not least because holding that view is beyond current scientific knowledge.

This latter ubiquitous claim was recently revisited in a short essay published by the CO2 Coalition. It arose from a 2013 paper published by John Cook and asserted that 97% of 11,944 peer-reviewed science papers explicitly endorsed the opinion that humans had caused the majority of the warming of the last 150 years. Alas, 7,930 of those papers took no position on anthropogenic change and were excluded from the 97% claim. It was subsequently revealed that only about 0.5%, of the papers explicitly stated that recent warming was mostly human caused.

The authors of the CO2 Coalition essay quote Professor Richard Tol’s comment at the time:

Cook’s 97% nonsensus [sic] paper shows that the climate community still has a long way to go in weeding out bad research and bad behaviour. If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.

Science has three levels to judge the way the natural world operates – laws, theories and hypotheses. An apple falling from a tree hitting the ground demonstrates clearly the law of gravity. If it suddenly flew off into space, we would have to reconsider, but until then it is a given fact. A theory is an explanation that has been ruthlessly tested and is widely accepted as fact. Hypotheses covers the rest – mere suggestions that only gain credence with rigorous scientific testing and believable proof. Anthropogenic climate change is an unproven hypothesis, without a single credible peer-reviewed paper proving its proposition. And this is after at least 50 years of intense, money-no-object, scientific effort, all to no avail.

As the noted Australian geologist Dr. Ian Plimer is fond of pointing out: if there was such a paper, you would never hear the last of it. The common response to this is that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides the proof, but, again, no paper exists within that body of work to prove the hypothesis to any reasonable extent. As Dr. Plimer goes on to observe, when proof is sought, there is just “obfuscation and deafening silence”. A silence, it could be noted, disturbed only by the deafening pseudoscientific roar of computer models pumping out constant clickbait forecasts of climate Armageddon.

Anthropogenic climate change fails on almost every count. In particular, it cannot explain a vast body of observations available in the historic, near-historic and 600-million-year paleological record. In all that time, rarely do temperatures rise following rising carbon dioxide levels. In the near-historic period, ice core records going back about 500,000 years suggest that rising temperature preceded, and likely caused, CO2 levels to follow suit as natural processes such as ocean degassing come into play. Across the paleological period, CO2 levels have been up to 20 times higher with no evidence of a climate fireball. Over the last 120 years, temperatures have risen (1910-40, 1980-98), fallen (1940-75) and paused (2000-14, 2016-23), all at a time when CO2 showed a continuous rise.

As often happens in the human condition, the bad drives out the good. Plausible alternative explanations surrounding the effect of rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been more or less suppressed in the recent past. The hypothesis that CO2 ‘saturates’ after a certain level, and its warming properties fall away dramatically, has been around for many years. The gas absorbs heat only within narrow bands of the infrared spectrum. There is debate at what level the absorption work is mainly done, with some scientists suggesting from observations that ‘saturation’ sets in around 300 parts per million, 100 ppm lower than current levels. The big advantage of this hypothesis is that it provides a convincing explanation for much if not all the temperature and gas observations in the past.

The CO2 Coalition provides a timely reminder that science, unlike religion, is not a belief system. Like everyone else, scientists will say things for social convenience, political expediency or financial profit. For reasons such as this, science is not founded on the beliefs – in other words hypotheses – of scientists. It is a disciplined method of inquiry by which scientists apply pre-existing theory to observation and measurement to arrive at “that which is, and that which is not”, as the authors put it.

The CO2 Coalition concludes:

The long and hard road to scientific truth cannot be followed by the trivial expedient of a mere head-count among those who make their livings from Government funding. Therefore, the mere fact that climate activists find themselves so often appealing to an imagined ‘consensus’ is a red flag. They are far less sure of the supposed scientific truths to which they cling than they would like us to believe. ‘Consensus’ here is a crutch for lame science.

 

[aenyc]

The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up​

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the car industry has misjudged the scale of demand quite badly, says Ben Marlow in the Telegraph – and that is just the latest example of where the top-down economics of Net Zero are inevitably failing. Here’s an excerpt.

Vertu, which is one of Britain’s biggest car dealerships, has become the latest big name to admit that the sector is already suffering from a dramatic oversupply of battery-powered vehicles.
Indeed supply is outstripping demand to such an extent, that prices are tumbling rapidly.
The warning follows the extraordinary decision of German car titan Volkswagen in July to halt electric vehicle production at its sprawling Emden factory in north-west Germany and lay off a fifth of its 1,500 employees after sales of electric models fell 30% short of forecasts.
Unwanted electric cars are piling up on American forecourts too leaving some dealers to refuse further deliveries until the backlog has eased.
One hopes politicians the world over are paying attention because what we are witnessing is another example of how the top-down economics of Net Zero increasingly don’t stack up: with the introduction of an entirely arbitrary 2030 ban on petrol and diesel cars, the Government is forcing manufacturers to churn out millions of vehicles, regardless of whether the market actually exists or not.
The deadline should be scrapped without further ado. This ‘cart before the horse’ approach of trying to stimulate demand by creating supply is the wrong way round and almost never works in business.
Start-up Britishvolt tried something similar, promising to build a giant battery factory in Blythe, on the Northumbrian coast that would churn out enough batteries every year to power 300,000 cars.
Yet there was an even bigger flaw at the heart of its plans: it had failed to secure a single order – a situation that hadn’t changed by the time it ran out of money at the start of the year.
It’s hard to fault the intentions of the great Net-Zero crusade – a greener planet is something everyone should want to see. But far too much of it is built on hope rather than reality.
The Government’s policy on wind energy has proved to be similarly divorced from fact. The Contracts for Difference scheme, which guarantees a fixed price for the electricity that is produced for 15 years, is an effective incentive during more benign times but when overheads are surging, as they are now, it quickly becomes an impediment to progress.
With ministers showing little willingness to bend on prices in the face of rampant cost increases, major projects are being ruthlessly abandoned.
The biggest setback has come off the Norfolk coast after Vattenfall announced it would shut down construction of its Boreas wind farm. The 1.4 gigawatt development was set to power around 1.5m homes but the Swedish energy outfit insists a 40% surge in costs, driven by inflation, supply issues and rising wages means it is no longer viable.
Without more generous state subsidies others will surely follow suit, shattering Britain’s stated ambitions to nearly quadruple offshore wind capacity from 14GW currently to 50GW by the end of the decade.
Yet perhaps nothing underlines the Alice in Wonderland disconnection of ministers more than the campaign to force the population to green their homes with heat pumps.
Even a ban on the sale of new oil boilers from 2026 has failed to convince people to make the shift largely because the cost of converting your home can be huge, so too the disruption and upheaval from having one installed, while much of the technology suffers from several major flaws.
It might explain why, in spite of a Government scheme that pays bungs of between £5,000 and £6,000 per household, less than 14,000 vouchers have been claimed since it was launched in May last year.

 

[MurphyGuy]

The Giant Science Lie that Underpins the Entire Collectivist Net Zero Political Project​

The false notion that the climate is collapsing due to human activity lies at the heart of the drive to collectivise human populations under a Net Zero global agenda. Everything about it is a lie. The science is not ‘settled’, it is an unproven hypothesis, and stating otherwise is giving credence to an obvious political construct. There is no way that scientists can calculate how much of the gentle rise in temperature seen over the last 200 years is caused by humans burning fossil fuel rather than natural influences. The idea that there is a 97% ‘consensus’ among scientists that humans cause the majority of warming is a whopper as big as they come, not least because holding that view is beyond current scientific knowledge.

This latter ubiquitous claim was recently revisited in a short essay published by the CO2 Coalition. It arose from a 2013 paper published by John Cook and asserted that 97% of 11,944 peer-reviewed science papers explicitly endorsed the opinion that humans had caused the majority of the warming of the last 150 years. Alas, 7,930 of those papers took no position on anthropogenic change and were excluded from the 97% claim. It was subsequently revealed that only about 0.5%, of the papers explicitly stated that recent warming was mostly human caused.

The authors of the CO2 Coalition essay quote Professor Richard Tol’s comment at the time:


Science has three levels to judge the way the natural world operates – laws, theories and hypotheses. An apple falling from a tree hitting the ground demonstrates clearly the law of gravity. If it suddenly flew off into space, we would have to reconsider, but until then it is a given fact. A theory is an explanation that has been ruthlessly tested and is widely accepted as fact. Hypotheses covers the rest – mere suggestions that only gain credence with rigorous scientific testing and believable proof. Anthropogenic climate change is an unproven hypothesis, without a single credible peer-reviewed paper proving its proposition. And this is after at least 50 years of intense, money-no-object, scientific effort, all to no avail.

As the noted Australian geologist Dr. Ian Plimer is fond of pointing out: if there was such a paper, you would never hear the last of it. The common response to this is that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides the proof, but, again, no paper exists within that body of work to prove the hypothesis to any reasonable extent. As Dr. Plimer goes on to observe, when proof is sought, there is just “obfuscation and deafening silence”. A silence, it could be noted, disturbed only by the deafening pseudoscientific roar of computer models pumping out constant clickbait forecasts of climate Armageddon.

Anthropogenic climate change fails on almost every count. In particular, it cannot explain a vast body of observations available in the historic, near-historic and 600-million-year paleological record. In all that time, rarely do temperatures rise following rising carbon dioxide levels. In the near-historic period, ice core records going back about 500,000 years suggest that rising temperature preceded, and likely caused, CO2 levels to follow suit as natural processes such as ocean degassing come into play. Across the paleological period, CO2 levels have been up to 20 times higher with no evidence of a climate fireball. Over the last 120 years, temperatures have risen (1910-40, 1980-98), fallen (1940-75) and paused (2000-14, 2016-23), all at a time when CO2 showed a continuous rise.

As often happens in the human condition, the bad drives out the good. Plausible alternative explanations surrounding the effect of rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been more or less suppressed in the recent past. The hypothesis that CO2 ‘saturates’ after a certain level, and its warming properties fall away dramatically, has been around for many years. The gas absorbs heat only within narrow bands of the infrared spectrum. There is debate at what level the absorption work is mainly done, with some scientists suggesting from observations that ‘saturation’ sets in around 300 parts per million, 100 ppm lower than current levels. The big advantage of this hypothesis is that it provides a convincing explanation for much if not all the temperature and gas observations in the past.

The CO2 Coalition provides a timely reminder that science, unlike religion, is not a belief system. Like everyone else, scientists will say things for social convenience, political expediency or financial profit. For reasons such as this, science is not founded on the beliefs – in other words hypotheses – of scientists. It is a disciplined method of inquiry by which scientists apply pre-existing theory to observation and measurement to arrive at “that which is, and that which is not”, as the authors put it.

The CO2 Coalition concludes:

This basically says you're an idiot.

Study finds economic inequality promotes belief in conspiracy theories

New findings published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology indicates that economic inequality increases susceptibility to belief in conspiracy theories. The research provides evidence that the perception of societal breakdown is a key pathway between inequality and conspiracy beliefs.

www.psypost.org

 

[aenyc]

Hurricane Idalia Aftermath: Saltwater Exposure Causes 'Thermal Runaway' In Flooded Electric Vehicles​

Electric vehicles flooded by a storm surge produced by Hurricane Idalia have spontaneously ignited in the Big Bend area. This underscores a lesser-known safety concern for the thousands of Americans who recently purchased EVs and reside in coastal regions vulnerable to flooding.

In the aftermath of the storm, fire officials in Pinellas County, west of Tampa, reported at least two incidents of EVs combusting after lithium-ion batteries were exposed to the saltwater.

"If you own a hybrid or electric vehicle that has come into contact with saltwater due to recent flooding within the last 24 hours, it is crucial to relocate the vehicle from your garage without delay," a Facebook post by Palm Harbor Fire Rescue reads.
"Saltwater exposure can trigger combustion in lithium-ion batteries. If possible, transfer your vehicle to higher ground," the post continued.
It also said, "This includes golf carts and electric scooters. Don't drive these through water. PHFR crews have seen numerous residents out in golf carts and children on scooters riding through water."

Fire officials posted multiple images of a Tesla fire in Dunedin.

Video taken by James McLynas shows another burnt-out Tesla in Pinellas Park.

"Hurricane flooded Tesla Bursts into flames while being towed to the storage lot. Driver picked up the flood damaged Tesla from a storm damaged home and was towing it back when it burst into flames. Driver stopped on a street and quickly off loaded the burning car to save his truck. (that's why there are burnt tow dollies under it). When the fire department arrived, they put it out, but it kept reigniting. After several attempts to put it out, they just let it burn out. This was all that was left," McLynas wrote in his post on YouTube.

The issue with EV battery packs is that saltwater corrodes wiring and battery components, often leading to shorts or exposed wiring. And then thermal runaway ignites the battery -- very few fire departments nationwide are trained in lithium fires.

This problem isn't limited to Tesla EVs. Last year, Hurricane Ian struck Southwest Florida, causing inland flooding that led to dozens of EV fires (read: here & here).

What's ironic is that government and climate doomsayers say decarbonizing the transportation sector with EVs will save the planet from imminent destruction (remember Greta said the world would end in 2023), but these unproven vehicles are only sparking more headaches.

As for imminent climate doom, well, more than a thousand scientists just signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis, read: Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration.

 

[MurphyGuy]

​

As for imminent climate doom, well, more than a thousand scientists just signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis, read: Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration.

ROFLMAO

More KOCH Family funded bullshit giving idiots their opinions.
Various members of CLINTEL’s list of ambassadors, and its extended list of signatories, have connections to libertarian free-market groups with a history of climate science denial, including the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.7 All three organisations are members of the Koch-funded Atlas Network.

 

[Johneb]

Let's face it, you can find one study after another that read one way and also the opposite. Were arguing about something that can't be proved one way or the other. We can however do our part to use the finite resources of our planet. Solar, recycling everything that can be recycled, reusing anything that can be reused either by us or by donating/selling it so someone else can get use out of it. Pladtics can be broken down into fuel. Etc, etc, etc....

 

[svetz]

Searing heat reshapes US food production​

From wilting wheat to stressed pollinators, US farmers and fishermen see unexpected climate effects... farmers across the midwest are preparing for temperatures to reach 115F (46C)... surface ocean temperatures soared over 101F, bleaching coral reefs...Phoenix recorded 31 consecutive days above 110F...dead pollinators...farmers reported smaller yields...unprecedented marine heatwave...cattle died...

Call to disqualify politicians who deny Climate Change​

Opinion: Well-intentioned, but not in the best interest of a democratic society.

More Home insurers cut natural disasters from policies as climate risks grow​

​

NASA Study Reveals Compounding Climate Risks at Two Degrees of Warming​

A 2-degree rise in global temperatures is considered a critical threshold above which dangerous and cascading effects of human-generated climate change will occur.

Opinion: We're already seeing the AMOC slow and thermokarsts and haven't hit 1.5C

International effort to hold Russia accountable for the climate impact of its invasion​

 

[Sanwizard]

The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up​

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the car industry has misjudged the scale of demand quite badly, says Ben Marlow in the Telegraph – and that is just the latest example of where the top-down economics of Net Zero are inevitably failing. Here’s an excerpt.

Common sense must be applied to the climate hysteria.

 

[svetz]

Let's face it, you can find one study after another that read one way and also the opposite. Were arguing about something that can't be proved one way or the other.

So, that's like saying flat-earthers might be right because no one can prove anything. There are real peer-reviewed studies, and those do provide compelling evidence that global warming is real, that it is manmade, and that it causes climate change. Governments say it, universities say it, even the oil companies agree that it is true.

But you're right, there are entities that are working very hard to sow doubt and confusion; it is hard to separate fact from fiction. That's why it's important to look at understand the motives of the source. For example, I don't buy the whole government conspiracy theory reason because the government wins either way.

We can however do our part to use the finite resources of our planet. Solar, recycling everything that can be recycled, reusing anything that can be reused either by us or by donating/selling it so someone else can get use out of it. Pladtics can be broken down into fuel. Etc, etc, etc....

 

[svetz]

Common sense must be applied to the climate hysteria.

Good video with easy-to-understand explanations, esp. around the Milankovitch cycles! Thanks for posting!

Although I don't understand your "Common sense must be applied to the climate hysteria." as the video says that global warming is real, it is man-made, and we're headed towards extinction if we don't do something about it. Possibly you mean the end of the video where he says we broke it and we still have time to fix it?

 

[Sanwizard]

So, that's like saying flat-earthers might be right because no one can prove anything. There are real peer-reviewed studies, and those do provide compelling evidence that global warming is real, that it is manmade, and that it causes climate change. Governments say it, universities say it, even the oil companies agree that it is true.

But you're right, there are entities that are working very hard to sow doubt and confusion; it is hard to separate fact from fiction. That's why it's important to look at understand the motives of the source. For example, I don't buy the whole government conspiracy theory reason because the government wins either way.

So what all this back and forth tells me, is human nature is amazing. Once your mind is made up on a subject, its very difficult to change unless it slaps you upside the head.

I once stood in a parking lot in south Florida, and almost could not see the building I was heading for. It was smoke from a fire in the everglades. I could hardly breath. That one experience proved to me that mother nature is way more powerful than anything humans can do( with the exception of nukes).

That fire itself was most likely more destructive than the resulting smoke. Same thing for the recent Maui fire, where close to 1000 people have perished due to the electric infrastucture. This is why I have zero fear of any climate change, but do fear the politics and communist tactics of climate change fanatics.

 

[aenyc]

Let's face it, you can find one study after another that read one way and also the opposite. Were arguing about something that can't be proved one way or the other. We can however do our part to use the finite resources of our planet. Solar, recycling everything that can be recycled, reusing anything that can be reused either by us or by donating/selling it so someone else can get use out of it. Pladtics can be broken down into fuel. Etc, etc, etc....

The only problem with this is that it is the cLIEmate change cult that is pushing their agenda on everyone. (just one example https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/09...comply-with-new-energy-rules-may-face-prison/)


I say we let free markets sort this out without subsidies.
The question is are any of you, armchair demagogues, ready to give up all the wonders of western civilization that was enabled by conventional fuels? Until you really are (And i am 100% sure none of you are because you would have to give up things as basic as clean water and plentiful food), the whole debate is completely pointless.

PS. None of the globalist pushers of this crap are giving up their lavish lifestyle.

 

[Sanwizard]

The only problem with this is that it is the cLIEmate change cult that is pushing their agenda on everyone. (just one example https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/09...comply-with-new-energy-rules-may-face-prison/)


I say we let free markets sort this out without subsidies.
The question is are any of you, armchair demagogues, ready to give up all the wonders of western civilization that was enabled by conventional fuels? Until you really are (And i am 100% sure none of you are because you would have to give up things as basic as clean water and plentiful food), the whole debate is completely pointless.

PS. None of the globalist pushers of this crap are giving up their lavish lifestyle.

Exactly right. Hypocyrites all until they adopt an Amish lifesyle.

The sad part is that those same people are pushing for WW3 or another pandemic to reduce the polulation, so we may all be living an Amish lifestyle soon anyway after the nuclear winter.

 

[aenyc]

Media Ignores Story of Unjustified Retraction of a Climate Skeptical Paper Due to Bullying​

While many media outlets ran stories this week about a scientific paper suggesting that Penguin chicks in Antarctica are dying by the thousands (despite evidence suggesting they aren’t), the mainstream media ignored another story that shows an ugly episode of bullying of a science journal by prominent climate scientists who demanded that a peer-reviewed paper they didn’t like be retracted.

The paper, A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming, said in its abstract, “In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.” This single phrase likely triggered the demands by prominent climate scientists for the paper to be retracted. Yet that claim is true, supported by real world data and numerous conclusions presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report.

This is yet one more in a growing list of shameful episodes in the catalog of climate science calumnies. It features many of the same rogues gallery of climate researchers caught playing fast and loose with data and short-circuiting peer review in the infamous ClimateGate scandal of 2009, such as Dr. Michael E. Mann and Dr. Stefan Rahmsdorf who used their influence to get this paper retracted. Here is the notice from The European Physical Journal Plus, which has officially retracted the paper with this statement:

“Retraction Note: A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
The Original Article was published on 13 January 2022
Retraction Note: Eur. Phys J. Plus (2022) 137:112
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding the selection of the data, the analysis and the resulting conclusions of the article. The authors were invited to submit an addendum to the article, but post publication review of the concerns with the article and the submitted addendum concluded that the addendum was not suitable for publication and that the conclusions of the article were not supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors. In light of these concerns and based on the outcome of the post publication review, the Editors-in-Chief no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions reported in this article.

• The authors disagree with this retraction.”

Mind you the paper had already gone through peer review and the Editors didn’t cite any specific instance of the use of bad data or the drawing of unsupported conclusions, rather, it seems, unwanted attention from large mainstream media organizations and pressure from prominent outside researchers lead to a failure of “confidence” in the results. When they let “the science” through the peer review process decide, the paper was approved and published. When climate alarmism raised its ugly head objecting, the paper was retracted. This cowardly decision was the subject of Team Climate Crisis Resorts to Bullying, Again published at WUWT ten days ago. At that date, the paper was simply “under dispute”.

So, over a year and a half after publication, with over 40 citations, the paper is retracted at the behest of the “ClimateGate gang.”

The retraction by the relatively small and obscure journal The European Physical Journal Plus, and its prominent publisher Springer, shows a core problem in study of climate change: the corruption climate science in the pursuit of a political agenda.

Commenting on this instance of apparent cowardice in the face of pressure, Tony Thomas writes in Quadrant-online, How Science is Done These Days:

There’s nothing new about mainstream climate scientists conspiring to bury papers that throw doubt on catastrophic global warming. The Climategate leaks showed co-compiler of the HadCRUT global temperature series Dr Phil Jones emailing Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, July 8, 2004:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, a colleague] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Thanks to a science whistle-blower, there’s now documentation of a current exercise as bad as that captured in the Jones-Mann correspondence. This new and horrid saga – again involving Dr Mann – sets out to deplatform and destroy a peer-endorsed published paper by four Italian scientists. Their paper in European Physical Journal Plus is titled A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming and documents that extreme weather and related disasters are not generally increasing, contrary to the catastrophists feeding misinformation to the Guardian/ABC axis and other compliant media.

Calls for retractions began only after two Australian media outlets’, the Australian and Sky News Australia, reports on the study garnered more than 400,000 views and thousands of comments. Leading climate alarm promoters in the form of The Guardian, Agence France-Presse, and the Covering Climate Now, a cabal of some 500 media outlets with reach to a 2 billion audience, to respond with fury and publicly rake the journal over the coals.

Writing on the retraction in his substack article, “Think of the Implications of Publishing,” climate researcher, Roger Pielke Jr, Ph.D. said:

To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.
The abuse of the peer review process documented here is remarkable and stands as a warning that climate science is as deeply politicized as ever with scientists willing to exert influence on the publication process both out in the open and behind the scenes.

Prominent climatologist Judith Curry, Ph.D. tweeted concerning the controversial retraction, “Reprehensible behavior by journal editors in retracting a widely read climate paper (80,000 downloads) over politically inconvenient conclusions. Journal editors asked me to adjudicate, and my findings were in favor of the author.”

There is good news though, the lead author of the retracted paper, physicist Gianluca Alimonti, from the National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Milan, Italy, and one of his co-authors, Luigi Marian, an agrometeorologist, have published a new paper “Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?” in the journal Environmental Hazards. Their answer? No, they are not increasing. We will wait and see if this paper is targeted by the Climategate Gang as well.

The media silence on this ugly episode episode of scientific bullying speaks volumes about their preferences for the kinds of facts, scientific scandals, and truths they choose to report – and ignore.

 

[Bob B]

How is that the opposite?
Sure, seedlings have a startup period before they're truly "effective"; but you're ignoring that end-of-life trees are just taking up space and not consuming more CO2 then they produce. The startup timeframe also depends heavily on the tree species.

It's the opposite because you said replace the old trees with new trees so they remove more CO2.
Old trees ... unless they are dead .... remove more CO2 than young trees. In fact trees younger than 10 years remove little to no CO2.
So, yeah, that's the opposite of what you said.

If their plan is to just cut down a bury dead trees and dead trunks on the forest floor, that would make some sense .... That's called basic forest management and is also very effective at reducing forest fires ..... but cutting down old trees and replacing them with new trees makes no sense.

 

[Sanwizard]

It's the opposite because you said replace the old trees with new trees so they remove more CO2.
Old trees ... unless they are dead .... remove more CO2 than young trees. In fact trees younger than 10 years remove little to no CO2.
So, yeah, that's the opposite of what you said.

If their plan is to just cut down a bury dead trees and dead trunks on the forest floor, that would make some sense .... That's called basic forest management and is also very effective at reducing forest fires ..... but cutting down old trees and replacing them with new trees makes no sense.

Nothing the left does makes sense, unless its money and control for them. 10% for the big guy.

They would rather people die than admit they are wrong.

Perfect examples are all the democrat controlled leftist utopias that are blue state cities. Crime, homelessness, addiction, indoctrination in schools, Godless immorality, high taxes, high prices, normal people fleeing, illegals getting more benefits than veterans.

Forcing their ideas on others like good communists. Eat bugs, no gas, no cars, no religion.

 

[Nobodybusiness]

Let's face it, you can find one study after another that read one way and also the opposite. Were arguing about something that can't be proved one way or the other. We can however do our part to use the finite resources of our planet. Solar, recycling everything that can be recycled, reusing anything that can be reused either by us or by donating/selling it so someone else can get use out of it. Pladtics can be broken down into fuel. Etc, etc, etc....

Yup you can.

Being mandated to “Go green” with no choice is the issue not recycling.