GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

On 12/20/2022 at 5:52 PM, notsonice said:

notice the giant deviation in the past 30 years from the extended linear temperature trend????

 

do you know how to read the chart below???

 

I will help you, since 1980 all temperature readings are above the extended linear temp trend and the temp is now typically 1 degree centigrade higher than one would expect. Notice the correlation to the increase in CO2?????

Only a braindead moron would not be able to see the correlation..........CO2 is the cause.....

keep babbling that more CO2 is great, it is what morons do...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a perfect correlation between the reduction of particulates and the global warming of the last few decades.

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2874/Study-Reducing-human-caused-air-pollution-in-North-America-and-Europe-brings-surprising-result-more-hurricanes

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

CO2 is not an explanatory variable for earth temperature change.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013GPC...100...51H/abstract

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

Solar cycles are the principle determinant of earth temperature change.

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/8/11/130

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

What can go wrong in the winter?

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/tesla-owner-stranded-supercharger-christmas-eve-after-cold-weather-paralyzes-battery

Tesla Owner Stranded At Supercharger Station On Christmas Eve After Cold Weather Paralyzes Battery

by Tyler Durden

Sunday, Dec 25, 2022 - 09:45 AM

Besides freezing door handles, Tesla owners who braved the cold this Christmas weekend were met with 'winter range anxiety.' As we explained last week, cold weather will degrade battery performance. At least one video went viral on Christmas Eve of a person whose Model S wouldn't charge in the cold at a Supercharger station....

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 12/19/2022 at 2:42 AM, Rob Plant said:

Yes rules can be changed but that prospect looks incredibly unlikely across all governments and car manufacturers.

Old cars can be fixed but the older they get the more things that need fixing and the more expensive the running costs for that vehicle become. Parts for "old cars" will become more expensive as there will be less demand as there are fewer FF cars and therefore less production of the parts. Reliability then also becomes a factor too.

As a cost conscious person Ron surely this would become uneconomical to continue to fix old cars. 

Good points Rob but at 77 I can keep one or two of our three ICE vehicles running economically. Gasoline in the USA is already down to affordable prices even with high taxes. My highest mileage is on our minivan which is only 80,000 miles. We are not as socialist as Europe yet and have a better chance of reversing stupid policy ideas like the Netherlands is enforcing. Our 50 states have real powers also, so people can move to a more conservative state as desired. 

The future of all electric vehicles is still in play in every market. Large trucks, will continue to use fossil fuels as will most pickups, vans, and SUVs. 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

It is time to get serious with the Green nonsense, a salutary law suit should help to clear the air and bring the truth into the court room.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/ExxonMobil-Sues-EU-Over-Investment-Destroying-Windfall-Profit-Tax.html

"ExxonMobil Corp. is suing the European Union on the grounds that the 33% windfall tax will hinder investment.

The European Union windfall tax gives the bloc the authority to place a 33% levy on energy company profits for 2022.

Exxon’s chief financial officer Kathryn Mikells: The tax could cost $2 billion between now and the end of next year."

Edited December 28, 2022 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 460]

On 12/28/2022 at 2:38 PM, Ecocharger said:

It is time to get serious with the Green nonsense, a salutary law suit should help to clear the air and bring the truth into the court room.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/ExxonMobil-Sues-EU-Over-Investment-Destroying-Windfall-Profit-Tax.html

"ExxonMobil Corp. is suing the European Union on the grounds that the 33% windfall tax will hinder investment.

The European Union windfall tax gives the bloc the authority to place a 33% levy on energy company profits for 2022.

Exxon’s chief financial officer Kathryn Mikells: The tax could cost $2 billion between now and the end of next year."

 

People complain about taxes all the time, and yet the lawmakers manage to keep them in place.

They won't win.

"Death and taxes."

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

 

People bitch about taxes all the time, and yet the lawmakers manage to keep them in place.

They won't win.

"Death and taxes."

They will win the public debate, and that will remove these discriminatory taxes through the political arena.

The new science referred to above at the top of this page will finally see the light of day in public debate.

If the EU admits that these are not normal taxes but rather a disguised form of Green policy, that will be fraud and the legal challenge will succeed in any court of law.

I will ask the protesting posters to mark this Page 324 as a reference when they again begin to ask for references for this new science. Pay attention gentlemen! Pay attention Polyphia! No more complaints. Page 324, as easy to remember as  1 2 3.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Polyphia + 67]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

They will win the public debate, and that will remove these discriminatory taxes through the political arena.

The new science referred to above at the top of this page will finally see the light of day in public debate.

If the EU admits that these are not normal taxes but rather a disguised form of Green policy, that will be fraud and the legal challenge will succeed in any court of law.

I will ask the protesting posters to mark this Page 324 as a reference when they again begin to ask for references for this new science. Pay attention gentlemen! Pay attention Polyphia! No more complaints. Page 324, as easy to remember as  1 2 3.

I have been paying attention. The (new?) research by Humlum et al. (2013) that you posted a link to has a number of issues. A quick search turned up the three articles that I link to below that note multiple flaws in Humlum et al.'s research. I know there are additional articles that have been published over the roughly 10 years since then that further question their analyses and conclusions. Try again.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000891

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113001562

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000908

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

China's NEVs reached a record 36.3 percent penetration rate in November, up 15 percentage points from 20.8 percent in the same month last year.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

19 hours ago, Polyphia said:

I have been paying attention. The (new?) research by Humlum et al. (2013) that you posted a link to has a number of issues. A quick search turned up the three articles that I link to below that note multiple flaws in Humlum et al.'s research. I know there are additional articles that have been published over the roughly 10 years since then that further question their analyses and conclusions. Try again.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000891

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113001562

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818113000908

Your first reference is merely a comment, not a research paper, and does not address the issue of the lag between earth temperature series and the CO2 series. That is the principal issue. The author appears to concentrate on recent decades, not long-term data. Your second reference is also the same. Also the third.

You have shown us nothing here relevant to the lag problem. Try again.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

China's NEVs reached a record 36.3 percent penetration rate in November, up 15 percentage points from 20.8 percent in the same month last year.

Again, irrelevant. Just current retail PERCENTAGE changes, nothing to get excited about.

You seem to be stuck in a rut, old man.

[Polyphia + 67]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Your first reference is merely a comment, not a research paper, and does not address the issue of the lag between earth temperature series and the CO2 series. That is the principal issue. The author appears to concentrate on recent decades, not long-term data. Your second reference is also the same. Also the third.

You have shown us nothing here relevant to the lag problem. Try again.

This is the comment and article link (to the Humlum et al. research) that you posted on December 23rd:

______________________________________________________________

CO2 is not an explanatory variable for earth temperature change.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013GPC...100...51H/abstract

______________________________________________________________

Given that, and given that the topic of the article was about temperature and CO2 coupling over the short-term (decades), I posted links to articles that addressed the shortcomings of THAT research. TailingsPond and others have posted information about why CO2 increase lagging temperature change over longer time periods does not negate the fact that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise. Here is a good site for that, which I believe I have posted in the past:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-advanced.htm

Let me turn now to your criticism that the three articles I linked to were "just" comments on the Humlum et al. research that were not themselves actual research. I am not sure that you know/understand the process of how publication works, and more generally how science progresses.

First, a researcher/group of researchers send their research manuscript to a journal. The editor of the journal will then send the manuscript to (typically) three other researchers who are experts in that particular field to review and evaluate the manuscript. Those reviewers provide critiques of the research (e. g., theoretical background, methodology, statistical analyses, etc.) that the editor uses to determine whether to accept the manuscript outright (very rare), to reject the manuscript (fairly common, especially in prestigious journals), or to invite the researcher(s) to respond to the reviewers' critiques and resubmit a revised manuscript for a second review. If a manuscript is revised and resubmitted, at that point it is typically either rejected or accepted, although another cycle of revising and resubmitting could be recommended. 

The above process is just the first stage of the gatekeeping process. Once an article is accepted and then published, it is consumed by the wider scientific community who act as a second set of gatekeepers. This gatekeeping is often provided in the form of "comment articles" like the ones that I linked to where other experts in the field note methodological flaws (e.g., not including a key variable or variables in a predictive model), statistical flaws, poorly drawn conclusions, etc. Often, researchers go beyond just noting the flaws in the research and conduct another study/experiment that "fixes" the flaws so that valid conclusions can be drawn. So, the comment articles that I linked to are a very important part of the process of evaluating the validity of research. 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

20 hours ago, Polyphia said:

This is the comment and article link (to the Humlum et al. research) that you posted on December 23rd:

______________________________________________________________

CO2 is not an explanatory variable for earth temperature change.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013GPC...100...51H/abstract

______________________________________________________________

Given that, and given that the topic of the article was about temperature and CO2 coupling over the short-term (decades), I posted links to articles that addressed the shortcomings of THAT research. TailingsPond and others have posted information about why CO2 increase lagging temperature change over longer time periods does not negate the fact that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise. Here is a good site for that, which I believe I have posted in the past:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-advanced.htm

Let me turn now to your criticism that the three articles I linked to were "just" comments on the Humlum et al. research that were not themselves actual research. I am not sure that you know/understand the process of how publication works, and more generally how science progresses.

First, a researcher/group of researchers send their research manuscript to a journal. The editor of the journal will then send the manuscript to (typically) three other researchers who are experts in that particular field to review and evaluate the manuscript. Those reviewers provide critiques of the research (e. g., theoretical background, methodology, statistical analyses, etc.) that the editor uses to determine whether to accept the manuscript outright (very rare), to reject the manuscript (fairly common, especially in prestigious journals), or to invite the researcher(s) to respond to the reviewers' critiques and resubmit a revised manuscript for a second review. If a manuscript is revised and resubmitted, at that point it is typically either rejected or accepted, although another cycle of revising and resubmitting could be recommended. 

The above process is just the first stage of the gatekeeping process. Once an article is accepted and then published, it is consumed by the wider scientific community who act as a second set of gatekeepers. This gatekeeping is often provided in the form of "comment articles" like the ones that I linked to where other experts in the field note methodological flaws (e.g., not including a key variable or variables in a predictive model), statistical flaws, poorly drawn conclusions, etc. Often, researchers go beyond just noting the flaws in the research and conduct another study/experiment that "fixes" the flaws so that valid conclusions can be drawn. So, the comment articles that I linked to are a very important part of the process of evaluating the validity of research. 

You posted that blog site before and it does not support your views, as I already pointed out to you. It is not a science research site or science article, and it does nothing to challenge the discovery that CO2 changes LAG earth temperature changes. That basic finding by itself discredits the idea that CO2 can be a cause of temperature change, as pointed out by many scientists.

Again, the criticisms you referenced did not criticize the basic finding that CO2 changes respond to earth temperature changes, not the other way around. That alone is sufficient to disprove the theory of CO2 causing temperature change.

Now if you have something that challenges the lag discovery, show us. Otherwise you have nothing to say on the matter. As usual.

Nor did you challenge the article on particulate levels , nor the article on the correlation of solar cycles with earth temperature change. You are way behind the learning curve.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ron Wagner + 642]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWOClHq1VyU

California's ban on big rigs and buses made before 2010 goes into effect in January

Edited January 2, 2023 by Ron Wagner

[TailingsPond + 460]

Regulations work.

 

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

20 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWOClHq1VyU

California's ban on big rigs and buses made before 2010 goes into effect in January

Boycott the State of California and don't deliver into the state. Have trailer lots built along the border and drop trailers off. If they want their goods, come get them with your State approved Semi-truck. Shippers can arrange with little work to make it happen if they ban together. Ports will fill up with commodities and not enough Trucks to move the freight. Piss on that socialist state!!!

[TailingsPond + 460]

7 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Boycott the State of California and don't deliver into the state. Have trailer lots built along the border and drop trailers off. If they want their goods, come get them with your State approved Semi-truck. Shippers can arrange with little work to make it happen if they ban together. Ports will fill up with commodities and not enough Trucks to move the freight. Piss on that socialist state!!!

California has controlled the US environmental regulations for a long time.  They regulate and the rest of the states follow.

Fact is they produce a lot of stuff the rest of the states want and have a huge number of wealthy consumers. They export, your fantasy is backwards...

Remember 2-stroke engines? Cali effectively got rid of them with a pen.

Notice all the "this product contains a substance known to the state of California..." warning labels?

California wins. A proven track record of success.

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 460]

2 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Shippers can arrange with little work to make it happen if they ban together. Ports will fill up with commodities and not enough Trucks to move the freight. Piss on that socialist state!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP

Go ahead, try and band together.  California has more wealth than numerous states combined.

They also make the food you like... should produce imports from Mexico increase?  Destroy yourselves internally over your "right" to pollute? Not a very noble cause.

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

3 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP

Go ahead, try and band together.  California has more wealth than numerous states combined.

They also make the food you like... should produce imports from Mexico increase?  Destroy yourselves internally over your "right" to pollute? Not a very noble cause.

 

Like CO2 is "pollution"...a great joke fostered by the comedians in Hollywood.

I was there this year, my wife's relative was married on the coast and we took a close look at the sidewalks of L.A. and San Francisco. My uncle was editor of an Oakland daily newspaper some decades ago, he would have something to say about this.

Whatever happened to dear old California? Those cities are striving to transform their sidewalks into dump heaps. For shame. The liberal dream has descended into a nightmare.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 460]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Like CO2 is "pollution"...a great joke fostered by the comedians in Hollywood.

I was there this year, my wife's relative was married on the coast and we took a close look at the sidewalks of L.A. and San Francisco. My uncle was editor of an Oakland daily newspaper some decades ago, he would have something to say about this.

Whatever happened to dear old California? Those cities are striving to transform their sidewalks into dump heaps. For shame. The liberal dream has descended into a nightmare.

Those older trucks emit much more than just CO2.

I hated San Francisco, San Diego was great.

[notsonice + 1,063]

8 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Boycott the State of California and don't deliver into the state. Have trailer lots built along the border and drop trailers off. If they want their goods, come get them with your State approved Semi-truck. Shippers can arrange with little work to make it happen if they ban together. Ports will fill up with commodities and not enough Trucks to move the freight. Piss on that socialist state!!!

Boycott the State of California and don't deliver into the state.???? 

lol boy do you love to babble BS......

Go ahead, you should boycott anything that moves through California........Remember the 2 biggest ports in the nation are LA and Long Beach.......Do you think that you can somehow create 2 ports that big on the west coast to handle the seaborne trade that moves to and from the ports by truck ???? send all the trucked freight to Portland or Seattle ???? or maybe only rail in/out  freight ha ha ha go for it , lets see how many truckers/shipping companies will boycott California for you or jump on your pick it up at the border plan.....

Have trailer lots built along the border and drop trailers off.???? You obviously are the master of Babble..I am sure a lot of trucking companies will jump on your babbling plan...LOL dude what are you smoking today?????

Shippers can arrange with little work to make it happen if they ban together.?????? make what happen ??? walk away from delivering to their destinations or picking up freight because you do not like the requirement to use newer model trucks???? 

Keep babbling BS....it is what you do best.

 

 

 

 

[notsonice + 1,063]

On 1/2/2023 at 11:28 PM, Ecocharger said:

Like CO2 is "pollution"...a great joke fostered by the comedians in Hollywood.

I was there this year, my wife's relative was married on the coast and we took a close look at the sidewalks of L.A. and San Francisco. My uncle was editor of an Oakland daily newspaper some decades ago, he would have something to say about this.

Whatever happened to dear old California? Those cities are striving to transform their sidewalks into dump heaps. For shame. The liberal dream has descended into a nightmare.

dude .......what are you babbling about now........the requirement to use newer trucks is to reduce Nitrous Oxide emissions ....you know the stuff that forms smog....

Los Angeles and other California cities have the most polluted air in the country, according to the newest State of the Air report from the American Lung Association. The LA-Long Beach region ranked highest for ozone pollution, fifth for annual particle pollution and eighth for daily fine particle pollution, the 2022 report found. Bakersfield, Visalia, Fresno and San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland also scored among the nation’s top 25 most polluted cities on the list.

 

 

I was there this year, my wife's relative was married on the coast and we took a close look at the sidewalks of L.A. and San Francisco.????? what does that have to do with emissions from Trucks and Buses. Did you bother to look at the sky instead of looking down all the time at concrete? Because if you looked up you did not see blue skies.

your whole post is nothing but babble..

My uncle was editor of an Oakland daily newspaper some decades ago????

Brown clouds of smog is a Republican Reality....they really do not like clean air

 

 

 

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

On 12/27/2022 at 9:57 PM, Ron Wagner said:

Good points Rob but at 77 I can keep one or two of our three ICE vehicles running economically. Gasoline in the USA is already down to affordable prices even with high taxes. My highest mileage is on our minivan which is only 80,000 miles. We are not as socialist as Europe yet and have a better chance of reversing stupid policy ideas like the Netherlands is enforcing. Our 50 states have real powers also, so people can move to a more conservative state as desired. 

The future of all electric vehicles is still in play in every market. Large trucks, will continue to use fossil fuels as will most pickups, vans, and SUVs. 

Ron in fairness at 77 I'd feel the same way. The point I was making was for the general population and for ICE vehicles apart from trucks the future doesnt look that bright.

Having said that there will be many who wish to maintain their ICE vehicles and continue to drive them, I will wait to see where governments/US States massively hike ICE fuel taxes to force people down the EV route due to ever increased fuel costs. I dont agree with such intervention but its how the world works if the government doesnt get its way to begin with.

The EV revolution will happen not because of the questionable science but because those with the deepest pockets want it to be so, just ask Mr. Musk.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

14 hours ago, notsonice said:

Brown clouds of smog is a Republican Reality....they really do not like clean air

Yer about as clueless as they come dude. If you don't know why Los Angeles is so smoggy then you need do some research. Then you can post venom and hate on people. Do some reading about the subject and then get back with an intelligent answer. Less than 10% of L.A's traffic is trucks and buses.