GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

This is a risky business, if you pull too much CO2 out of the atmosphere, you risk reducing agricultural productivity and creating famines in many parts of the world. This is like drinking a glass of acidic brew, you do not know the results until it is into your system.

Well this is how fast the transition is happening. By the end of the decade Elon is going to be sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere at an industrial scale. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well this is how fast the transition is happening. By the end of the decade Elon is going to be sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere at an industrial scale. 

And perhaps you would still be emitting your CO2 for him to suck up!!! Maybe someone should give the idea to the climate emergency, climate change prophetic Democrats to tax people for CO2 emitted by every individual and then charge Elon to suck it up and then give $$$ back to each individual in proportion to their emitted CO2 volume.

😁

[surrept33 + 609]

30 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

And perhaps you would still be emitting your CO2 for him to suck up!!! Maybe someone should give the idea to the climate emergency, climate change prophetic Democrats to tax people for CO2 emitted by every individual and then charge Elon to suck it up and then give $$$ back to each individual in proportion to their emitted CO2 volume.

😁

replace 'Democrats' with 'people', 'individual' with 'carbon emitter', and 'Elon' with 'anyone' and you generally got an idea of a carbon dividend.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act-of-2021/

It's more progressive than a straight up regressive carbon tax, which is pigouvian:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N6S5_8nzgOwJ:https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2017/08/19/pigouvian-taxes+&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

5 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Solar and Sewage Treatment. Better together.

Going forward, you are calling for many acres of panels, I understand.  That occupies a lot of land.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

As to the CA subsidies what it has gotten us is a BEV maret share of 6% and growing (up from 2% in 4 years), a great start to cleaning our smoggy air. And if you think 6% doesn't sound like much then that means we also didn't spend much on the subsidies because they only apply to those 6% of purchases. And half of those subsidies are income driven and I bet the number of people who have used them is asymptotic to zero.

Tesla isn't eligible for the federal  tax credits (says so right at the top of the graphic) but if you count tax credits as welfare then you best be careful because the oil industry gets a lot of tax credits and deductions.

However if Biden gets his full EV rebate funding then we will certainly have a wild show to watch! 

You will eventually have to forbid internal combustion engines by government fiat to reduce their numbers for the Paris Climate commitments. Big Brother has taken over Washington.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So where is this new school of climatology research centered? Can you provide some links to where this new climatology is being tested? I've lost track of whatever links you provided before. 

Because when I search the topic all I find is absolute conformity of research that CO2 is a major cause of climate change. Such as:

After 40 years, researchers finally see Earth’s climate destiny more clearly

By Paul VoosenJul. 22, 2020 , 10:00 AM

It seems like such a simple question: How hot is Earth going to get? Yet for 40 years, climate scientists have repeated the same unsatisfying answer: If humans double atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) from preindustrial levels, the planet will eventually warm between 1.5°C and 4.5°C—a temperature range that encompasses everything from a merely troubling rise to a catastrophic one.

Now, in a landmark effort, a team of 25 scientists has significantly narrowed the bounds on this critical factor, known as climate sensitivity. The assessment, conducted under the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and publishing this week in Reviews of Geophysics, relies on three strands of evidence: trends indicated by contemporary warming, the latest understanding of the feedback effects that can slow or accelerate climate change, and lessons from ancient climates. They support a likely warming range of between 2.6°C and 3.9°C, says Steven Sherwood, one of the study’s lead authors and a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales. “This is the number that really controls how bad global warming is going to be.”

The new study is the payoff of decades of advances in climate science, says James Hansen, the famed retired NASA climate scientist who helped craft the first sensitivity range in 1979. “It is an impressive, comprehensive study, and I am not just saying that because I agree with the result. Whoever shepherded this deserves our gratitude.”

I gave you the links more than once...what is the problem?

The information from you above is just the same old same old, models which exclude solar variables and attribute solar influence to CO2 through misspecification. You understand specification error in statistical models?

[surrept33 + 609]

24 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You will eventually have to forbid internal combustion engines by government fiat to reduce their numbers for the Paris Climate commitments. Big Brother has taken over Washington.

Action on climate change/the environment is generally popular among Americans. Inaction is unpopular.

There are partisan splits, but there are also large intergenerational shifts among Republicans:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/21/how-americans-see-climate-change-and-the-environment-in-7-charts/

I doubt the directional trend is going to change. Just project a vector forward 5, 10, 20 years forward. That's the timescale, especially with a microscope on ESG goals, most companies also look at.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

16 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

Action on climate change/the environment is generally popular among Americans. Inaction is unpopular.

There are partisan splits, but there are also large intergenerational shifts among Republicans:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/21/how-americans-see-climate-change-and-the-environment-in-7-charts/

I doubt the directional trend is going to change. Just project a vector forward 5, 10, 20 years forward. That's the timescale, especially with a microscope on ESG goals, most companies also look at.

Dream on...you need Big Brother to get that wild agenda pushed through.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

57 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I gave you the links more than once...what is the problem?

The information from you above is just the same old same old, models which exclude solar variables and attribute solar influence to CO2 through misspecification. You understand specification error in statistical models?

That paper you cited? That's it? Ok I went and found it just for grins.

 That paper did not conclude anything like you think it did. It simply moved some thinking along. Nothing in it was groundbreaking such that it would suddenly change the established science nor is there any evidence that it intended to. 

It made no mention of solar variables, solar influence or the need to keep increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. It made no groundbreaking conclusion at all it just suggested more work be done. Here is what one of the coauthors said about it:

"NASA satellites have been observing increased green cover on land, which is thought to be due to intensive agriculture to feed growing populations and ambitious tree-planting programs (he didn't attribute the greening to increased CO2)– for example, the so-called “Green Great Wall” in China.

“These programs have been quite successful in ameliorating land degradation and enhancing carbon storage,” (note that the enhanced carbon storage did not come from there being more carbon in the atmosphere) said coauthor Prof. Shilong Piao of the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at Peking University.

The vegetation cooling effect is large from the energy dissipation perspective, but only about 10%-20% compared to the pace of global warming. The cooling effect from greening is less significant in tropical forests with high leaf areas.

“This is a warning sign about climate change. We should be cautious that the rain forests, which are at the forefront of the fight against global warming, are reaching the limits of their capacity to absorb carbon and cool the surface.” commented Dr. Rama Nemani, from NASA’s Ames Research Center." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming

According to this co author the paper actually supports the need to reduce carbon output because the plants actually reach a limit of carbon absorption and cooling. 

You are absolutely delusional if you think this will have any affect whatsoever on the established climate change science.

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Dream on...you need Big Brother to get that wild agenda pushed through.

Also known as the democratically elected government. 

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Also known as the democratically elected government. 

Big Brother needed to get that wild agenda done...otherwise known as executive decrees. Only one party uses those desperate ploys.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

50 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

That paper you cited? That's it? Ok I went and found it just for grins.

 That paper did not conclude anything like you think it did. It simply moved some thinking along. Nothing in it was groundbreaking such that it would suddenly change the established science nor is there any evidence that it intended to. 

It made no mention of solar variables, solar influence or the need to keep increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. It made no groundbreaking conclusion at all it just suggested more work be done. Here is what one of the coauthors said about it:

"NASA satellites have been observing increased green cover on land, which is thought to be due to intensive agriculture to feed growing populations and ambitious tree-planting programs (he didn't attribute the greening to increased CO2)– for example, the so-called “Green Great Wall” in China.

“These programs have been quite successful in ameliorating land degradation and enhancing carbon storage,” (note that the enhanced carbon storage did not come from there being more carbon in the atmosphere) said coauthor Prof. Shilong Piao of the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at Peking University.

The vegetation cooling effect is large from the energy dissipation perspective, but only about 10%-20% compared to the pace of global warming. The cooling effect from greening is less significant in tropical forests with high leaf areas.

“This is a warning sign about climate change. We should be cautious that the rain forests, which are at the forefront of the fight against global warming, are reaching the limits of their capacity to absorb carbon and cool the surface.” commented Dr. Rama Nemani, from NASA’s Ames Research Center." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming

According to this co author the paper actually supports the need to reduce carbon output because the plants actually reach a limit of carbon absorption and cooling. 

You are absolutely delusional if you think this will have any affect whatsoever on the established climate change science.

 

Jay, did you miss the discussion earlier? Check the top of Page 66 on the thread about Texas, where some of the articles are cited, such as this one.

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

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

Looks like I have to cite these articles again here.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Big Brother needed to get that wild agenda done...otherwise known as executive decrees. Only one party uses those desperate ploys.

With silly statements like that you will never graduate your high school government class.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

With silly statements like that you will never graduate your high school government class.

You prefer "executive orders"? Same difference, a dictator by any other name is a dictator. Only one party uses dictatorial orders.

Here is another article to show you how it should be done.

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 April 27, 2021 by Ecocharger

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

4 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

And perhaps you would still be emitting your CO2 for him to suck up!!! Maybe someone should give the idea to the climate emergency, climate change prophetic Democrats to tax people for CO2 emitted by every individual and then charge Elon to suck it up and then give $$$ back to each individual in proportion to their emitted CO2 volume.

😁

 

4 hours ago, surrept33 said:

replace 'Democrats' with 'people', 'individual' with 'carbon emitter', and 'Elon' with 'anyone' and you generally got an idea of a carbon dividend.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act-of-2021/

It's more progressive than a straight up regressive carbon tax, which is pigouvian:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N6S5_8nzgOwJ:https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2017/08/19/pigouvian-taxes+&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The sarcasm missed you by 10 years or 12 years? isnt that how much time is left per climate change experts and climate change bible thumpers, before everyone perishes? LOL

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well this is how fast the transition is happening. By the end of the decade Elon is going to be sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere at an industrial scale. 

And sucking the life out of the planet...brilliant.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You prefer "executive orders"? Same difference, a dictator by any other name is a dictator. Only one party uses dictatorial orders.

Here is another article to show you how it should be done.

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. "

ugh, the republicans issue as many executive orders as democrats. In 4 years Trump issued 220 and in 8 years Obama issued 276. Try learning the actual facts: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

21 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

ugh, the republicans issue as many executive orders as democrats. In 4 years Trump issued 220 and in 8 years Obama issued 276. Try learning the actual facts: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

Many of Trump's orders were to overturn Obama's orders....you have to subtract that number from the Trump total.

Now, here are some other inconvenient facts which keep getting in the way of dictators.

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

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

The current craze by world leaders to control the sun is like the legendary King Canute who ordered the tides to stop creating water levels. That did not work, either.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Ecocharger

[surrept33 + 609]

 

15 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Many of Trump's orders were to overturn Obama's orders....you have to subtract that number from the Trump total.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/analyses/biden-action-the-first-100-days

Half of Biden's orders overturn Trump's orders.

These types of legislation are hardly wild. Many of our peer countries, whether it be the OECD (the developed world), or the G7, have similar legislation or are in the process of updating policies to meet climate related goals. 

Of course, there are many ways to do this, it's simply carrots and sticks. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

 

48 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, did you miss the discussion earlier? Check the top of Page 66 on the thread about Texas, where some of the articles are cited, such as this one.

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

Looks like I have to cite these articles again here.

You are lazy, first you can't be bothered to google an acronym, berate me for not spelling everything out to the general audience reader and now you complain about having to post your super duper earth shattering link again because you once posted it on page 66 of some other thread. You must be in high school.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[surrept33 + 609]

41 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

 

The sarcasm missed you by 10 years or 12 years? isnt that how much time is left per climate change experts and climate change bible thumpers, before everyone perishes? LOL

No, but time is interesting. I think the Stern argument makes sense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review#Summary_of_the_Review's_main_conclusions

The longer you wait, the harder it becomes, and the way the climate is theorized to evolve relative to how it works now, the uncertainty becomes worse and worse.

So it becomes a form of hyperbolic discounting. 

Just an analogy. What we were doing in effect made us collectively fat,  and that will give us a higher chance of cardiovascular disease sometime in the future. Since we know that exercise and a proper diet seems to work, let's try that. The best time to start? Now. When can we course correct? Whenever.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

19 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

 

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/analyses/biden-action-the-first-100-days

Half of Biden's orders overturn Trump's orders.

These types of legislation are hardly wild. Many of our peer countries, whether it be the OECD (the developed world), or the G7, have similar legislation or are in the process of updating policies to meet climate related goals. 

Of course, there are many ways to do this, it's simply carrots and sticks. 

You will need a Big Brother in Washington to regulate every tiny activity of the American family. Kiss freedom goodbye.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

27 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

You are lazy, first you can't be bothered to google an acronym, berate me for not spelling everything out to the general audience reader and now you complain about having to post your super duper earth shattering link again because you once posted it on page 66 of some other thread. You must be in high school.

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.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, did you miss the discussion earlier? Check the top of Page 66 on the thread about Texas, where some of the articles are cited, such as this one.

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

Looks like I have to cite these articles again here.

4.7. Implications for Climate Science and Policy

The two contrasting hypotheses—AGW and NGW—are not necessarily mutually exclusive, however, and the relative attribution from natural v. anthropogenic sources to the contemporary global warming signal remains to be quantified.

Possible risks of elevated CO₂ to biodiversity remain to be established and integrated into policy 

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.

_________

Your problem is that the paper nowhere says that more CO2 is better, it says more research is needed and suggests that we stay on current course. It nowhere says that returning the atmosphere to pre industrial CO2 levels is harmful.

Again, you are delusional if you think this paper will make any rapid difference in climate policy. It nowhere says that the current climate policy is problematic under any scenario.

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

4.7. Implications for Climate Science and Policy

The two contrasting hypotheses—AGW and NGW—are not necessarily mutually exclusive, however, and the relative attribution from natural v. anthropogenic sources to the contemporary global warming signal remains to be quantified.

Possible risks of elevated CO₂ to biodiversity remain to be established and integrated into policy 

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.

_________

Your problem is that the paper nowhere says that more CO2 is better, it says more research is needed and suggests that we stay on current course. It nowhere says that returning the atmosphere to pre industrial CO2 levels is harmful.

Again, you are delusional if you think this paper will make any rapid difference in climate policy. It nowhere says that the current climate policy is problematic under any scenario.

Jay, read the paper carefully,

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.