JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Just read the paper and learn something for once.

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76

"This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate. "

Jay, this research team is from University of California...you have already paid for this research with your own California tax money. Now, do yourself a favor and get your money's worth from your own university.

Are you happy with how the State of California is using your money, to overturn that nonsense about CO2 causing climate change?  You should get a laugh out of that state of affairs.

And thank the Governor of California for helping debunk the climate change nonsense, he has done a good job here.

My degree is from UC Santa Cruz. But the paper is not from the UC. He is a professor emeritus now, he taught while I was there, which means he can still use the title. Check his resume, he retired 20 years ago.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

My degree is from UC Santa Cruz. But the paper is not from the UC. He is a professor emeritus now, he taught while I was there, which means he can still use the title. Check his resume, he retired 20 years ago.

A Professor Emeritus is still associated with their university, and they still do research under grants. Did you not know that?

The Professor Emeritus that I know still have offices at their universities. They are listed in the university publications. They still teach.

And they produce great work.

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76

"This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate. "

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Professor Emeritus is still associated with the university, and they still do research under grants. Did you not know that?

There is no evidence that this research was done with any involvement of UC or funding. Further though as I pointed out, this paper doesn't negate the current climate policy. Remember, here in California we didn't start this whole anti fossil fuel thing because of climate change, we started it because of our bad air quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There is no evidence that this research was done with any involvement of UC or funding. Further though as I pointed out, this paper doesn't negate the current climate policy. Remember, here in California we didn't start this whole anti fossil fuel thing because of climate change, we started it because of our bad air quality.

I know that, but toxic air is different from an anti-CO2 campaign. You need some research showing that CO2 is responsible for climate change, and this professor has exploded that absurd idea.

There are many other scientists who attribute climate change exclusively to solar variables, as this California professor does.

Of course this paper negates the current climate policy, which is based on CO2 control and reduction. You should acknowledge that, Jay.

"This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate. "

"Our study provides a theoretically-unified explanation of contemporary global warming and other climate milestones based on natural climate cycles driven by the Sun."

Biden is imitating old King Canute, who ordered the tidal movements to stop controlling the seashore water levels.

Not possible.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I know that, but toxic air is different from an anti-CO2 campaign. You need some research showing that CO2 is responsible for climate change, and this professor has exploded that absurd idea.

There are many other scientists who attribute climate change exclusively to solar variables, as this California professor does.

Of course this paper negates the current climate policy, which is based on CO2 control and reduction. You should acknowledge that, Jay.

"This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate. "

"Our study provides a theoretically-unified explanation of contemporary global warming and other climate milestones based on natural climate cycles driven by the Sun."

You provided links to two papers from him. You are here citing the 2017 paper. Earlier I cited his conclusions from the 2020 paper in relevant part:

Limits on anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain necessary and appropriate until it can be shown conclusively that ocean acidification from atmospheric CO2 did not cause past mass extinctions [7] and poses no comparable future risk.

What you just aren't getting is that just because CO2 may not be the cause of the climate change doesn't mean there aren't reasons to stay with the current policy. And absolutely nothing has even come close to suggesting that returning to pre industrialo CO2 levels is actually harmful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You provided links to two papers from him. You are here citing the 2017 paper. Earlier I cited his conclusions from the 2020 paper in relevant part:

Limits on anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain necessary and appropriate until it can be shown conclusively that ocean acidification from atmospheric CO2 did not cause past mass extinctions [7] and poses no comparable future risk.

What you just aren't getting is that just because CO2 may not be the cause of the climate change doesn't mean there aren't reasons to stay with the current policy. And absolutely nothing has even come close to suggesting that returning to pre industrialo CO2 levels is actually harmful.

You are quoting a passage addressing ocean biodiversity and fish populations, which is suggested might be a problem from CO2. 

That is not the issue here, which is does CO2 drive climate change and global temperature. These papers are concentrated on the latter questions, which are at the heart of current liberal climate policy, to reduce atmospheric CO2 in order to stop and reverse global warming. 

Where have you been , Jay? These are the current policy issues for addressing global warming, and provide the basis for the assault on the oil industry and internal combustion engines. This paper shows that the current climate change policy is based on false understanding of the causes, that the global warming/cooling changes are Sun-driven, not CO2 driven.

That you think your group can get any comfort from these two papers is wild.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ecocharger said:

You are quoting a passage addressing ocean biodiversity and fish populations, which is suggested might be a problem from CO2. 

That is not the issue here, which is does CO2 drive climate change and global temperature. These papers are concentrated on the latter questions, which are at the heart of current liberal climate policy, to reduce atmospheric CO2 in order to stop and reverse global warming. 

Where have you been , Jay? These are the current policy issues for addressing global warming, and provide the basis for the assault on the oil industry and internal combustion engines. This paper shows that the current climate change policy is based on false understanding of the causes, that the global warming/cooling changes are Sun-driven, not CO2 driven.

Huh? It is absolutely the issue.  The heart of the liberal climate policy is the health of the earth in all its facets. It makes no difference if CO2 has no affect on the climate if instead it causes a mass extinction in the oceans.  Either way it is a danger to humanity and needs to be controlled. 

Maybe I was wrong, maybe you are only in junior high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Huh? It is absolutely the issue.  The heart of the liberal climate policy is the health of the earth in all its facets. It makes no difference if CO2 has no affect on the climate if instead it causes a mass extinction in the oceans.  Either way it is a danger to humanity and needs to be controlled. 

Maybe I was wrong, maybe you are only in junior high.

Baloney, you know that the issue behind Biden's climate policy is the reduction of atmospheric CO2 in order to deal with global warming. Fish populations are not addressed in any pronouncement from the White House on climate change. And no, Jay, these research papers do not make any claims about ocean populations, only that further research should determine IF there might be some danger. And these papers show that the current policy is based on a false understanding of the causes of global temperature change, which are Sun-driven, not CO2-driven...you still refuse to acknowledge what is in these papers?  You really do have an agenda bias here.

But thanks again to your alma mater and the California university system for producing these central research papers for understanding global temperature, you should be proud of University of California for providing such support to those of us who think rationally in this critical debating period. Thanks again, buddy for your well-spent tax dollars, and thank the Governor.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Baloney, you know that the issue behind Biden's climate policy is the reduction of atmospheric CO2 in order to deal with global warming. And these papers show that this is based on a false understanding of the causes of global temperature change, which are Sun-driven, not CO2-driven...you still refuse to acknowledge what is in these papers?  You really do have an agenda bias here.

But thanks again to your alma mater and the California university system for producing these central research papers for understanding global temperature, you should be proud of University of California for providing such support in this critical debating period. Thanks again, buddy.

My agenda is biased toward the author's conclusion in his most recent paper that CO2 controls are needed. Your ignoring that is what shows your agenda bias, just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

My agenda is biased toward the author's conclusion in his most recent paper that CO2 controls are needed. Your ignoring that is what shows your agenda bias, just sayin'.

You are again avoiding the central issue...just sayin'. But you know what is at stake here in terms of current policy.

And again, these papers make no claims about ocean populations, only that further research should examine the possible extent of CO2 involvement. That is clearly a side issue, the main issue is should we reduce CO2 in order to combat global warming.

The answer is clearly NO on that score, as you are certainly aware now that I have given you these links.

Again, thanks for your hard-earned tax dollars to support this fundamental research, and thank the Governor of California who runs the education system of your great state. Thank you, California.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ecocharger said:

You are again avoiding the central issue...just sayin'. But you know what is at stake here in terms of current policy.

And again, these papers make no claims about ocean populations, only that further research should examine the issue of CO2 involvement. That is clearly a side issue, the main issue is should be reduce CO2 in order to combat global warming.

The answer is clearly NO on that score, as you are certainly aware now that I have given you these links.

Again, thanks for your hard-earned tax dollars to support this fundamental research, and thank the Governor.

But you have been touting this as groundbreaking research that will change the entire scientific world and climate policy debate in short order. That certainly is not going to happen when the author says we need to keep on the current course until massive new levels of research are undertaken and completed and found to show no harmful effects. That is many years, decades of research. The transition will be done by then. And again, absolutely nothing has shown that there are negative consequences from returning to pre industrial carbon levels. The policy decision is easy, full speed ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

But you have been touting this as groundbreaking research that will change the entire scientific world and climate policy debate in short order. That certainly is not going to happen when the author says we need to keep on the current course until massive new levels of research are undertaken and completed and found to show no harmful effects. That is many years, decades of research. The transition will be done by then. And again, absolutely nothing has shown that there are negative consequences from returning to pre industrial carbon levels. The policy decision is easy, full speed ahead.

Some joke, buddy. The central issue is, does CO2 drive global warming?  This great California study says NO!

Thank you, California! We will take that from here going forward.

Here is a recent Japanese study along the same lines.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There is no evidence that this research was done with any involvement of UC or funding. Further though as I pointed out, this paper doesn't negate the current climate policy. Remember, here in California we didn't start this whole anti fossil fuel thing because of climate change, we started it because of our bad air quality.

Jay now this is the heart of the issue. Pollution and air quality from ICE vehicles and fossil fuel power stations are undeniably the cause for many respiratory problems that people suffer with on a global scale in most industrialised nations. I am absolutely in agreement with you here. However @Ecocharger and the paper he keeps referring to https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76 is compelling. Why is it compelling? because of how accurate it is throughout history compared to climate change modelling predictions which frankly have been utterly woeful since their inception.

The 2 issues are totally separate for me. Should we go "greener" because the planet is on a runaway greenhouse gas explosion that would lead to the planet being uninhabitable in 10 years and sea levels are going to wash away coastal cities? NO! We should however go greener for the sake of our health and curb the astonishing rise in respiratory diseases throughout the industrialised world.

Edited by Rob Plant
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Jay now this is the heart of the issue. Pollution and air quality from ICE vehicles and fossil fuel power stations are undeniably the cause for many respiratory problems that people suffer with on a global scale in most industrialised nations. I am absolutely in agreement with you here. However @Ecocharger and the paper he keeps referring to https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76 is compelling. Why is it compelling? because of how accurate it is throughout history compared to climate change modelling predictions which frankly have been utterly woeful since their inception.

The 2 issues are totally separate for me. Should we go "greener" because the planet is on a runaway greenhouse gas explosion that would lead to the planet being uninhabitable in 10 years and sea levels are going to wash away coastal cities? NO! We should however go greener for the sake of our health and curb the astonishing rise in respiratory diseases throughout the industrialised world.

Unless we find a way to voluntarily get rid of 3-4 billion people arguing about the climate is wasted electricity. Helping the climate by moving to non FF energy will certainly clean our air up and promote healthier bodies. 85% now live in cities and towns and that trend is growing. Clean air, clean water and uncontaminated food should be our priority. 
In the process the climate will benefit of course in a major way. 
On the other hand I don’t like California mandates for electric cars unless the average guy can spend $6,000 and get an EV that lasts 5 years for an example. In general tech will give us opportunities to get greener but you can’t outrun tech and starve your population with ideology. You can’t do climate change and kill pollution without a balance that does not raise prices or for that matter choices. Otherwise the pitchforks will come out.

See Ward, I’m not as green as you promote. 😎

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Boat said:

Unless we find a way to voluntarily get rid of 3-4 billion people arguing about the climate is wasted electricity. Helping the climate by moving to non FF energy will certainly clean our air up and promote healthier bodies. 85% now live in cities and towns and that trend is growing. Clean air, clean water and uncontaminated food should be our priority. 
In the process the climate will benefit of course in a major way. 
On the other hand I don’t like California mandates for electric cars unless the average guy can spend $6,000 and get an EV that lasts 5 years for an example. In general tech will give us opportunities to get greener but you can’t outrun tech and starve your population with ideology. You can’t do climate change and kill pollution without a balance that does not raise prices or for that matter choices. Otherwise the pitchforks will come out.

See Ward, I’m not as green as you promote. 😎

Well the global population is widely predicted to begin decreasing significantly in about 50 years. The growth rate is decreasing rapidly as technology and access to information spreads around the world. 

California mandated that new cars will be zero emission in 2035. There will still be plenty of ICE on the road for years afterward. Today's new car market is tomorrow's used car market. By 2045 or so there will be good quality $6,000 used EVs for the average guy. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Thanks, Jay, for those great climate models developed by your alma mater in California...my congrats to the Governor of your great state for managing an educational system which has produced the final proof that CO2 is not the driving force for climate change, but that Solar variables are the explanation. 

Could you give him my personal regards along those lines? Thanks Jay, you're a generous warrior in defeat.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Jay now this is the heart of the issue. Pollution and air quality from ICE vehicles and fossil fuel power stations are undeniably the cause for many respiratory problems that people suffer with on a global scale in most industrialised nations. I am absolutely in agreement with you here. However @Ecocharger and the paper he keeps referring to https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76 is compelling. Why is it compelling? because of how accurate it is throughout history compared to climate change modelling predictions which frankly have been utterly woeful since their inception.

The 2 issues are totally separate for me. Should we go "greener" because the planet is on a runaway greenhouse gas explosion that would lead to the planet being uninhabitable in 10 years and sea levels are going to wash away coastal cities? NO! We should however go greener for the sake of our health and curb the astonishing rise in respiratory diseases throughout the industrialised world.

Thanks for the acknowledgement of the compelling nature of the new solar research, which has now changed the playing field.

Yes, of course toxic chemicals should be eliminated from ICE and other sources, which is now being done. Toxic emissions are now getting driven down to zero from tailpipes, and more improvement is forthcoming. Also, the  new coal-burning technologies have achieved near zero toxic emissions.

But claiming that CO2 was a "pollutant" was always an absurd allegation, we need CO2 to survive as a species. Perhaps some people believe that depopulation by way of starvation would solve all of our problems.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

 

But claiming that CO2 was a "pollutant" was always an absurd allegation, we need CO2 to survive as a species. Perhaps some people believe that depopulation by way of starvation would solve all of our problems.

You've still got that whole ocean acidification and mass extinction thing to deal with. Nothing like all the seafood dying to spread some starvation around.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Thanks for the acknowledgement of the compelling nature of the new solar research, which has now changed the playing field.

Yes, of course toxic chemicals should be eliminated from ICE and other sources, which is now being done. Toxic emissions are now getting driven down to zero from tailpipes, and more improvement is forthcoming. Also, the  new coal-burning technologies have achieved near zero toxic emissions.

But claiming that CO2 was a "pollutant" was always an absurd allegation, we need CO2 to survive as a species. Perhaps some people believe that depopulation by way of starvation would solve all of our problems.

we need CO2 to survive as a species? We need Oxygen to survive as a species unless you are a vegetable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2021 at 2:24 AM, JoMack said:

As Biden, the President of Climate Change, and Kerry, our fabulous Climate Czar, who just gave Japan the thumbs up to dump millions of tons of waste water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, who then flies off in his private jet to Martha's Vineyard, decide to create a massive legislative boondoggle called the Green New Deal.  Now, they are not alone, they have the full throated backing from a bartender from Westchester NY, a socialist from Vermont, and other liberal climatoligists who get on twitter and tell us definitely that we're all going to all die in 10 years if we don't comply.  So, all of the climate crew are preparing to bring America into the dark ages. We have the new DOE Grishom, ex-Michigan Gov. who didn't meet a pipeline she didn't want to expunge (and Whitmer has now taken up the mantel on Line 5), and then we have Haaland, head of DOI, who didn't meet a drilling rig she didn't want to burn to the ground.  So, we have a group of thugs, pushing their agenda, and with no solutions, objectives,  science, economics, or the actual future of the U.S. in mind, so they press ahead with a monumental agenda where no one wins, expect them.

In 4 months, the U.S. production has dropped over 2 million barrels and the climate wizards are demanding that the U.S. drop its emissions by 50% by 2030.  WHOA!  How is that going to work?  Doesn't matter, just gut up and do it.  Overhauling the electric grid?  1/2 million charging stations?  refitting millions of buildings, transitioning all federal vehicles to EVs, etc.  It's such a lofty goal, but while being in Texas in February, I know for certain, that even 4 days without power, heat, communication and black ice, car dead, it's a pretty scary ordeal, and that's just 4 days.  So, just wondering just a bit about solar and wind, no one seems to be considering the problem of the massive renewable capacity that will be required to supply energy to the nation.  Not only the grid, but the vast swaths of land with new infrastructure at the same time that politicians and landowners from California to Vermont are fighting against the encroachment of large-scale renewable energy projects.

New York is shutting down its last nuclear plant at Indian Point and Gov. (in big trouble) Cuomo won't allow drilling or pipelines, so this should be pretty interesting to watch next winter, L.A. County banned large wind turbines and San Bernardino Co, Humboldt County, and Santa Barbara County rejected new wind turbines in their communities.  So as California, the big kahuna of renewable energy, between 2013 and 2019 California added less than 200MW of new wind energy capacity.  California as we know, will do anything to get to their goal of 30% lower emissions this year, so it's not much of a challenge to find some of the projects they have promoted in order to reach that standard.  Below is Ivanpah, with 350,000 garage size heliostats (mirrors) with 3 459' boiling towers costing $2.2B, backed by the U.S. taxpayers.  The facility has had more problems than Biden's thought process and the beams from the sun blind pilots going into LAX, scorch birds out of the sky (called streamers) - not sparrows by the way, covers 4000 feet of land in the Mojave Desert which "was" protected for wind burrow and the desert tortoise (but, it's for the good of the environment you idiots), and its capacity for all its cost and environmental issues it generates 342MW of power.  That would be 140,000 homes.  Yup, what a great project, and let's mot forget Crescent Dunes, another solar project that went bankrupt last year.  

 

So, we are going into a big giant mass of insanity with the Biden Administration going back into the Iran Nuclear Deal and handing them bucks and China is paying Iran with their cryptocurrency to a million+ bbls of oil.  So, the energy sector along with the country is in big trouble, and it's been 4 months.  We see the oil price moving about $5 bucks up and down every couple of weeks, and it's unsettling with banks lending on environmental risk and social justice risk.  Before the "Woke" came into play between energy and the lenders, risk was based on the proven reserves, developed and undeveloped, and now, how the hell do you calculate social justice risk?  But, wait, Exxon, BP, Shell, Conoco has been fighting failing states like NY, MA, CT, DE (Biden's home town BTW) CA, etc. (blue=disaster), for climate change disinformation.  As Biden says "Wreaked Havoc on Our Climate"! So, the Majors are now folding to the woke crowd, climate change will be the breakthrough for huge legal class actions, and the big question after all is said and done, will America survive?

 

 

 

 

 

image.thumb.png.c37fd3d71cd4056812932a785053d2e5.png

I can’t believe people today are this Stupid with this Green Agenda, It’s all about the few who will profit the most by cutting America 🇺🇸 FOSSIL BALLS OFF, as the rest of the world won’t commit except the few that haven’t the ability to be Energy Independent….

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

 the rest of the world won’t commit except the few that haven’t the ability to be Energy Independent….

The vast majority of the world is not energy independent in a fossil regime. So you are saying most of the world will commit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as America’s on the hook to subsidize there Countries because of low economic living conditions! They want to be sucking on America’s tits for there own version of Social Justice/Security…..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You've still got that whole ocean acidification and mass extinction thing to deal with. Nothing like all the seafood dying to spread some starvation around.

Low CO2 means mass extinction for you and me, Jay. We know that lower CO2 in the atmosphere means less agricultural productivity and mass famines. We don't know if high CO2 means mass extinction for some marine critters, that is just a wild guess.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.