GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Polyphia + 67]

1 hour ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

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. 

But they are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of greenhouse gases and exhaust that is smog-forming. Highway corridors that are used heavily by trucks have been nicknamed "diesel death zones."

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

16 hours ago, notsonice said:

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 dumbass babble..... get help along with your idiot pal Old-Dickless.

My uncle was editor of an Oakland daily newspaper some decades ago???? who the fuck cares who your uncle was or was he a big fan of smog???

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

 

 

 

You mean that California is Republican? Man, are you confused.

My first cousins live in Visalia, and if I go there at the right time of year, it is a wonderful place. Great Mexican food downtown.

But parts of L.A. and San Francisco are nightmares created by liberal dead heads.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

15 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

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.

Those mile-high taxes will never happen, they would cripple the standard of living for most Americans and cause a revolt by the people who vote Democrat.

Biden & Co. would become dust in the wind.

[TailingsPond + 461]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Those mile-high taxes will never happen, they would cripple the standard of living for most Americans and cause a revolt by the people who vote Democrat.

Biden & Co. would become dust in the wind.

If you look at fuel prices around the globe you will see many nations already pay a lot more -and do not have revolts- and they also have higher standards of living. 

FYI the USA is not even in the top ten on standard of living and has had a recent attempt to overthrow the gov't despite cheap gas.

Perhaps there is more to life than driving? 

Edited January 4, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

2 hours ago, Polyphia said:

But they are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of greenhouse gases and exhaust that is smog-forming. Highway corridors that are used heavily by trucks have been nicknamed "diesel death zones."

Why is there so much pollution in Los Angeles?

The large population of 4 million in LA, with another 6 million in the surrounding county, significantly contributes to its 'non-attainment' air quality status because of heavy vehicular emissions and traffic congestion.Mar 30, 2022.

How an inversion over L.A. Basin acts like a lid on a pot - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)    <--------read this

[TailingsPond + 461]

33 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Why is there so much pollution in Los Angeles?

 

Combustion of fossil fuels.

LA unfortunately suffers geography that traps that pollution.

[TailingsPond + 461]

@Eyes Wide Open how is your speaker of the house prediction going?

The cult retreats to the shadows...

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

@Eyes Wide Open how is your speaker of the house prediction going?

The cult retreats to the shadows...

Trump backed McCarthy so Trump lost 3 more elections today.

[Polyphia + 67]

On 12/29/2022 at 11:41 PM, Ecocharger said:

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.

The "blog site" isn't just someone named "Ecocharger" spewing unsupported claims and gaslighting people about various aspects of climate change. Many of the team members who put together the content at skepticalscience are renowned scientists who are directly doing research on the topic. In addition, there are many (climate) scientists who endorse the site and use it to help inform others (for example, teachers share it with their students). And while part of it is in blog format, the arguments they share to address climate change myths are EVIDENCE-BASED. They actually use the voluminous research at their disposal to dispel the myths. For example, for their argument against the "CO2 increase lags temperature increase proves CO2 increase does not cause temperature change" proposal is outlined at three different levels, Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced, and the reader can choose which level to read based on how deep of an argument they want. Go to the "Advanced" explanation, and you will see the extensive research that is cited for their argument (https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-advanced.htm).

The article you chose about particulate levels doesn't negate the research about greenhouse gases and their relation to climate change--both exist, and I alluded to that in a previous post. Some particulates shield the earth from warming, while others increase the warming effects. The article you posted focuses on the change in the number of cyclones/hurricanes that may be impacted by reduced particulate levels. Hopefully, you reached the end of the article and read the final paragraph:

"Murakami added that the projection for the next decades is that human-caused particulate air pollution will remain stable in the North Atlantic and that increased greenhouse gases will become a more significant influence on tropical cyclones. The projection is for fewer numbers of tropical cyclones, but those that occur are likely to be more intense."

Also, the article says nothing about a "perfect correlation between the reduction of particulates and the global warming of the last few decades."

Solar cycles have an impact on earth temperature change, but they can't explain the recent (large) changes in earth's temperature. Go to skepticalscience for an evidence-based debunking of that myth, too. 

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Trump backed McCarthy so Trump lost 3 more elections today.

 

14 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

@Eyes Wide Open how is your speaker of the house prediction going?

The cult retreats to the shadows...

 

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Trump backed McCarthy so Trump lost 3 more elections today.

Did I not tell you the next 6 month's would be drama...It would seem a refresh is in order here..in the mean time sit back,grab your popcorn and enjoy the experience of watching a country re establish its core principles. 

What's the Difference Between a Democracy and a Republic?

https://people.howstuffworks.com/democracy-vs-republic.htm

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

17 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

If you look at fuel prices around the globe you will see many nations already pay a lot more -and do not have revolts- and they also have higher standards of living. 

FYI the USA is not even in the top ten on standard of living and has had a recent attempt to overthrow the gov't despite cheap gas.

Perhaps there is more to life than driving? 

Depends on the criteria used....I think that for Americans the family ICE vehicle is an essential reality and any attempt to abolish them would provoke a Democrat rebellion, consigning Biden & Co. to the ash heap of history along with Lenin and Stalin.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

4 hours ago, Polyphia said:

The "blog site" isn't just someone named "Ecocharger" spewing unsupported claims and gaslighting people about various aspects of climate change. Many of the team members who put together the content at skepticalscience are renowned scientists who are directly doing research on the topic. In addition, there are many (climate) scientists who endorse the site and use it to help inform others (for example, teachers share it with their students). And while part of it is in blog format, the arguments they share to address climate change myths are EVIDENCE-BASED. They actually use the voluminous research at their disposal to dispel the myths. For example, for their argument against the "CO2 increase lags temperature increase proves CO2 increase does not cause temperature change" proposal is outlined at three different levels, Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced, and the reader can choose which level to read based on how deep of an argument they want. Go to the "Advanced" explanation, and you will see the extensive research that is cited for their argument (https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-advanced.htm).

The article you chose about particulate levels doesn't negate the research about greenhouse gases and their relation to climate change--both exist, and I alluded to that in a previous post. Some particulates shield the earth from warming, while others increase the warming effects. The article you posted focuses on the change in the number of cyclones/hurricanes that may be impacted by reduced particulate levels. Hopefully, you reached the end of the article and read the final paragraph:

"Murakami added that the projection for the next decades is that human-caused particulate air pollution will remain stable in the North Atlantic and that increased greenhouse gases will become a more significant influence on tropical cyclones. The projection is for fewer numbers of tropical cyclones, but those that occur are likely to be more intense."

Also, the article says nothing about a "perfect correlation between the reduction of particulates and the global warming of the last few decades."

Solar cycles have an impact on earth temperature change, but they can't explain the recent (large) changes in earth's temperature. Go to skepticalscience for an evidence-based debunking of that myth, too. 

 

I pointed out to you some problems with your blog site, and that there was no response from your supposed experts. You just ignored the point, as expected. The change in temperature curves when CO2 levels are at extremes violates the CO2 theory. Why would temperature decline when CO2 levels are extremely elevated? That is enough to disprove the CO2 theory. Your experts just ignored the issue when it was raised in that blog site.

No, that particulate article discusses warming effects from the reduction of particulates. How could you miss that?

"Over the last 40 years, Europe and North America have been leaders in reducing particulate air pollution from industry, autos, energy and other sources. The increasing absence of human-caused air pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, estimated to be a 50-percent drop in concentration from 1980 to 2020, has led to surface warming over the tropical Atlantic Ocean, which contributes to more frequent tropical cyclones. Without significant amounts of particulate pollution to reflect sunlight, the ocean absorbs more heat and warms faster. A warming Atlantic Ocean has been a key ingredient to a 33-percent increase in the number of tropical cyclones during this 40-year period, Murakami said. "

And the lag between the CO2 and temperature curves does indicate that the causation flow must be the reverse of the standard CO2 theory, your blog site did not answer that. Those "points" you link above do not address the problem directly, just rehash the old saw about CO2. The historic trends are clearly indicative of the lag between Temperature and CO2 showing that temperature is the dependent variable in the relationship, there is no doubt about that.

The solar cycle  causation of earth temperature is well established by many studies not mentioned in your blogs. These are fundamental relationships which do not change structurally over time.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,063]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Trump backed McCarthy so Trump lost 3 more elections today.

groundhog day........You can be assured the low IQ republicans will just keep doing the same........

Trump loses vote after vote after vote after vote.........

[notsonice + 1,063]

2 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

 

 

Did I not tell you the next 6 month's would be drama...It would seem a refresh is in order here..in the mean time sit back,grab your popcorn and enjoy the experience of watching a country re establish its core principles. 

What's the Difference Between a Democracy and a Republic?

https://people.howstuffworks.com/democracy-vs-republic.htm

 

GOP a party of Drama Queens and do nothing idiots...Which one are You?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

On 12/31/2021 at 8:46 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Something wicked comes your way.... The Audicty of Free Will....Happy New Year!

 

But you promised us Trump! He can't even get McCarthy elected Speaker.

Time to change MAGA to MALSA  =  Make America a Laughing Stock Again

or

MACA = Make America Clown Again

Edited January 5, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Polyphia + 67]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

I pointed out to you some problems with your blog site, and that there was no response from your supposed experts. You just ignored the point, as expected. The change in temperature curves when CO2 levels are at extremes violates the CO2 theory. Why would temperature decline when CO2 levels are extremely elevated? That is enough to disprove the CO2 theory. Your experts just ignored the issue when it was raised in that blog site.

No, that particulate article discusses warming effects from the reduction of particulates. How could you miss that?

"Over the last 40 years, Europe and North America have been leaders in reducing particulate air pollution from industry, autos, energy and other sources. The increasing absence of human-caused air pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, estimated to be a 50-percent drop in concentration from 1980 to 2020, has led to surface warming over the tropical Atlantic Ocean, which contributes to more frequent tropical cyclones. Without significant amounts of particulate pollution to reflect sunlight, the ocean absorbs more heat and warms faster. A warming Atlantic Ocean has been a key ingredient to a 33-percent increase in the number of tropical cyclones during this 40-year period, Murakami said. "

And the lag between the CO2 and temperature curves does indicate that the causation flow must be the reverse of the standard CO2 theory, your blog site did not answer that. Those "points" you link above do not address the problem directly, just rehash the old saw about CO2. The historic trends are clearly indicative of the lag between Temperature and CO2 showing that temperature is the dependent variable in the relationship, there is no doubt about that.

The solar cycle  causation of earth temperature is well established by many studies not mentioned in your blogs. These are fundamental relationships which do not change structurally over time.

Your claim that CO2 increase lags temperature increase means that CO2 is the dependent variable in the relationship is most certainly in doubt. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is more complicated, and researchers have shown that the aforementioned lag would exist even when CO2/greenhouse gases are the main cause of the change in temperature (e.g., https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/231/1/012039/pdf). You obviously support the view that "chickens do not lay eggs because they have been observed to hatch from them."  

I agree with you that particulates and solar cycles are/can be part of the temperature/climate change story--the prevailing research shows that neither one of them is enough to explain the magnitude of the recent global change in temperature Greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, are a very large part of the story.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

4 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Your claim that CO2 increase lags temperature increase means that CO2 is the dependent variable in the relationship is most certainly in doubt. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is more complicated, and researchers have shown that the aforementioned lag would exist even when CO2/greenhouse gases are the main cause of the change in temperature (e.g., https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/231/1/012039/pdf). You obviously support the view that "chickens do not lay eggs because they have been observed to hatch from them."  

I agree with you that particulates and solar cycles are/can be part of the temperature/climate change story--the prevailing research shows that neither one of them is enough to explain the magnitude of the recent global change in temperature Greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, are a very large part of the story.

You cannot have it both ways, if you rely on statistical curves to demonstrate relationships, then the lag between Temperature change and CO2 change is significant, meaning that CO2 follows and is therefore dependent on temperature change. That is how statistical models work and define relationships. The attempt by CO2 theorists to talk their way out of this is laughable and shows a complete disregard for the rules of statistics and climate modeling. 

Your linked study is not a study at all but a hypothetical "what if" and even further restricted to the recent period of 1880-2012. That is not the time scale which historical models use, and the argument in this paper is not a  model of these factors in isolation showing the fundamental relationship. 

Interesting that your paper admits that  "the lag between changes in climate variables as a reliable indicator of cause-effect relationships in the system has not been questioned by the most of critics." In other words, there has been little challenge from any of your group to my contention here.

Yes, recent work shows that solar variables are the predominant determinants of earth temperature, I gave you the link to the recent studies proving that relationship. No one with any knowledge would be so silly as to challenge that, so no surprise that your clan has capitulated on this point. 

To claim that CO2 plays any role whatsoever in earth temperature change is a wild and scientifically unsupported belief.      The new theory of particulate change which I linked for you is probably more than sufficient to explain any deviation from expected trends based on solar factors.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Ecocharger

[RichieRich216 + 454]

All the greenies are high on drugs, The believe in unicorns! NOW the world can see the results of this stupid undertaking! Check any ware in the world and see what percentages everything has gone up!

Renewables is a joke, farce and a scam!

[turbguy + 1,391]

10 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

 

 

Did I not tell you the next 6 month's would be drama...It would seem a refresh is in order here..in the mean time sit back,grab your popcorn and enjoy the experience of watching a country re establish its core principles. 

What's the Difference Between a Democracy and a Republic?

https://people.howstuffworks.com/democracy-vs-republic.htm

 

What we are observing appears to be evidence of the formation of a new political party in the USA.

This IS reality theater drama!  Who would'a thought that the best coverage would be CSPAN?

Even Fox News can be entertaining...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hF5aw5K9-Q&feature=youtu.be

I have to order more Orville Redenbacher!

Edited January 5, 2023 by turbguy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

What we are observing appears to be evidence of the formation of a new political party in the USA.

This IS reality theater drama!  Who would'a thought that the best coverage would be CSPAN?

Even Fox News can be entertaining...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hF5aw5K9-Q&feature=youtu.be

I have to order more Orville Redenbacher!

This I will give you Turb, you have a smidge of intellectual honesty....actually more than a smidge. You once detailed the the true cost of wind generated power, that would be the cost of wind mails and batteries.

 

What we are witnessing in this Congress is a open and true debate put forward for the the American public. No more corporate socialism, take the time to view our foundations. The UK still holds on to to those foundations, our constitution was based off lively and robust debate. The UK parliament is a absolute shit show at times...Yet at the same time and same vein..The UK and the US have progressed the human experience to unparalleled levels..and unparalleled power. Frankly the two greatest powers this world has ever known.

 

Speaking of such matters I shall quote two highly intellectual individuals. 

Such is life.

I leave it with you.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

What we are observing appears to be evidence of the formation of a new political party in the USA.

This IS reality theater drama!  Who would'a thought that the best coverage would be CSPAN?

Even Fox News can be entertaining...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hF5aw5K9-Q&feature=youtu.be

I have to order more Orville Redenbacher!

Bobert interview tonight on Hannity was hilarious!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hF5aw5K9-Q

Edited January 5, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[specinho + 439]

14 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Your claim that CO2 increase lags temperature increase means that CO2 is the dependent variable in the relationship is most certainly in doubt. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is more complicated, and researchers have shown that the aforementioned lag would exist even when CO2/greenhouse gases are the main cause of the change in temperature (e.g., https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/231/1/012039/pdf). You obviously support the view that "chickens do not lay eggs because they have been observed to hatch from them."  

I agree with you that particulates and solar cycles are/can be part of the temperature/climate change story--the prevailing research shows that neither one of them is enough to explain the magnitude of the recent global change in temperature Greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, are a very large part of the story.

guess you might have a chance and want to test your correlation as soon as you can while the severe snow lasts in the US and EU........

For example, release much CO2 in the affected areas and measure if  the temperature increases with concentration of CO2.

If it does, you will melt the snow and save many from extreme cold weather........... a hero in the making............

 

if it doesn't...................say, try not to do it in enclosed space e.g. inside a house......

 

let us know how it goes soon..........

Edited January 5, 2023 by specinho

[turbguy + 1,391]

14 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

What we are witnessing in this Congress is a open and true debate put forward for the the American public. No more corporate socialism, take the time to view our foundations. The UK still holds on to to those foundations, our constitution was based off lively and robust debate. The UK parliament is a absolute shit show at times...Yet at the same time and same vein..The UK and the US have progressed the human experience to unparalleled levels..and unparalleled power. Frankly the two greatest powers this world has ever known.

What we are witnessing is ZERO debate.  If there's any debate, it ain't public.

It is "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results".

Otherwise, know as Insanity.

The eventual resolution could actually be very surprising.

When does the House finally move on to a hockey shoot-out??   /s

Edited January 5, 2023 by turbguy

[Ron Wagner + 642]

15 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

This I will give you Turb, you have a smidge of intellectual honesty....actually more than a smidge. You once detailed the the true cost of wind generated power, that would be the cost of wind mails and batteries.

 

What we are witnessing in this Congress is a open and true debate put forward for the the American public. No more corporate socialism, take the time to view our foundations. The UK still holds on to to those foundations, our constitution was based off lively and robust debate. The UK parliament is a absolute shit show at times...Yet at the same time and same vein..The UK and the US have progressed the human experience to unparalleled levels..and unparalleled power. Frankly the two greatest powers this world has ever known.

 

Speaking of such matters I shall quote two highly intellectual individuals. 

Su

ch is life.

I leave it with you.

 

15 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

The Parliament is very chaotic compared to our Congress. This leadership battle is a very rare occurrence. I support McCarthy but realize he is not as conservative as I would like. I would prefer Ron Johnson but he doesn]t even want the job! Most Republicans want to seize permanent control of Congress from RINO's. That is obviously a very difficult job. There are good reasons that most conservatives do not trust McCarthy but I think he will get the job due to realists like Mary Miller (my representative), M.T.G., and many others. 

This battle will be worth the wait and bring out the faults of the RINO's. They are part of what we call the UNIPARTY, made up of Democrats and RINO's. 

We must realize that British "Conservatives" are as liberal as American Democrats. They do have a few really good conservative voices that take them on when possible. We all saw how hard Brexit was, and how long it is taking to reach fulfillment. 

 

 

 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 1/3/2023 at 5:39 PM, Old-Ruffneck said:

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. 

I lived through the real smoggy era, before the vast improvements made to ICE vehicles. On the worst days outdoor activity would cause your lungs to hurt. More damage was possibly done to brains by all the leaded gasoline and later additives before ethanol was used in most areas. 

There is no reason that ICE vehicles should be outlawed at any point whatsoever unless miraculous technology of some other kind comes along. Natural gas is the best choice for trucks, if you want clean emissions. Green zealots are too uninformed and biased to realize that. It is being increasingly used for large ships however.