Further proof global warming is a hoax!

[healthmyths]

irony.

According to Ideological denial is related to what has been called implicatory denial. According to Cohen (2001), there are three states of denial: literal (sheer refusal to accept evidence), interpretative (denial based on the interpretation of evidence) and implicatory (denial based on the change/response that acceptance would necessitate). With implicatory denial, what is denied or minimized are “the psychological, political, or moral implications that conventionally follow” (Cohen 2001:8 in Noorgard, 2006: 374).

THINKClima - Ideological denial

www.upf.edu

Ok... "political"... that's it!!

 

[healthmyths]

"Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do.
A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories.
They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action"

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Man-Made Climate Change Does not Exist!

https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/666002/21b43e1b155051227ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf

Now my unscientific opinion is based on information like the below..NOTE..NOTE: The below supports man-made climate change!
But read carefully the below because it proves there is NO man made caused global warming change!

But the pace of the recent temperature spike has been markedly faster — taking place over 150 years, with the majority happening over just the past few decades. At that same time, the sun's output has been going in the opposite direction, diverging from the direction in temperature. As this NASA graph shows, solar irradiance is down slightly from a peak in the 1950s.

10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says

Misconceptions and outright misinformation have gotten out of hand. Here's what you need to know.

www.cbsnews.com

If you want I'll explain in answering your question how climate change is NOT caused by man-made activities.
And I'll prove it!

 

[Lesh]

50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society

Weathermen

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

‘Monster profits’ for energy giants reveal a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence​

Last year’s combined $200bn profit for the ‘big five’ oil and gas companies brings little hope of driving down emissions
[âMonster profitsâ for energy giants reveal a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence]​

The West's top energy firms raked in a combined record profit of $200 billion in 2022.

A dispassionate recognition of profit as a motive for the refusal to honestly confront global warming is needed, but even the fossil fuel cartel is no longer in denial.

The ideological oiks who can't handle the truth are a different problem, but this incorrigible, whiny, discredited ilk is inconsequential.

All major institutions in the United States have accepted the reality, as have virtually all nations on earth.

The West's top energy firms raked in a combined record profit of $200 billion in 2022.

Is there anything Biden can't fuck up?

 

[OKTexas]

Mankind survived when there were crocodiles in NY?
When was that?
:^)
`

What difference does that make, it just proves it's been warmer than it is now So all these A-holes that are saying it's never been this warm, are liars.

.

 

[OKTexas]

‘Monster profits’ for energy giants reveal a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence​

Last year’s combined $200bn profit for the ‘big five’ oil and gas companies brings little hope of driving down emissions
[âMonster profitsâ for energy giants reveal a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence]​

The West's top energy firms raked in a combined record profit of $200 billion in 2022.

A dispassionate recognition of profit as a motive for the refusal to honestly confront global warming is needed, but even the fossil fuel cartel is no longer in denial.

The ideological oiks who can't handle the truth are a different problem, but this incorrigible, whiny, discredited ilk is inconsequential.

All major institutions in the United States have accepted the reality, as have virtually all nations on earth.

​

​

​

If anyone was truly interested in cutting emissions, we'd be building more dams and nuclear power plants. Those are the cleanest most renewable energy sources known to man. Oh, BTW, other countries are making much larger profits than US oil companies. They get the same price and their overhead is much less.

.

 

[Crick]

If anyone was truly interested in cutting emissions, we'd be building more dams and nuclear power plants. Those are the cleanest most renewable energy sources known to man. Oh, BTW, other countries are making much larger profits than US oil companies. They get the same price and their overhead is much less..

The logic applied in both these comments are the same logic that can be found in any grade school playground: a false dichotomy and "you first". Grow your thinking dude. Look at the science first, then think about what needs to be done.

 

[schmidlap]

If anyone was truly interested in cutting emissions, we'd be building more dams and nuclear power plants. Those are the cleanest most renewable energy
sources known to man. Oh, BTW, other countries are making much larger profits than US oil companies. They get the same price and their overhead is much less.

.

You don't appear to have any credible citations to support your hyper-partisan opinion.

Inevitably, Republicans are finally, begrudgingly, adopting at least a half-assed acknowledgement of reality:

... (Gov. Rick) Scott had been famous for forbidding the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to use the words "climate change" and "global warming" in any official communication, but DeSantis took a different approach. Wasting no time, he signed an executive order during his first week in office addressing a series of environmental issues and appointing a chief science officer to "prioritize scientific data, research, monitoring, and analysis. He also announced the creation of the Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection to help communities deal with rising sea levels.​

​

The change in tone from the Scott administration to the DeSantis governorship would appear that Florida, a state highly susceptible to the impacts of global warming, might have a conservative leader ready to move past climate denial and ready to take legitimate action.​

​

While the Scott administration refused to even mention the words "climate change," DeSantis has also had public moments distancing himself from the issue, dodging a question from a reporter in December 2021 when asked what his administration is doing to fight climate change, the governor replied, "We're not doing any left-wing stuff."​

​

But DeSantis is doing some "stuff," such as signing a bill in 2022 that dedicates $640 million toward preparing communities for sea level rise, flooding and more intense storms.​

​

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, it is "extremely likely" that over 95% of human activity is the "dominant cause" of global warming, leading to climate change, resulting in more severe weather events.​

​

Signing the bill was "a bold first step for Florida in terms of sea level rise and flooding, for sure, but at the same time what it's missing is anything to actually reduce the cause of the problem -- which is greenhouse gas emissions," Jonathan Webber, deputy director of Florida Conservation Voters, told the Associated Press in 2021.​

​

... Cohen said that by investing in adaptation strategies, DeSantis is acknowledging that climate change is a reality, but to mitigate it would mean an investment in reducing Florida's emissions and positioning the state to enter the competitive race for clean energy alternatives.​

​

[DeSantis addresses climate change impacts but not the source, some say: ANALYSIS]​

​

​

DeDo Run Ron's "lie back and think of England" attitude toward Florida's ravaging by anthropogenic clime change is transparently feeble.

Here's how climate change intensifies hurricanes

 

[schmidlap]

The West's top energy firms raked in a combined record profit of $200 billion in 2022.

Is there anything Biden can't fuck up?

If you are critical of the President's refusal to nationalize multi-national corporations and curtail their unconscionable profits, how, precisely, do you propose he do that?

 

[EMH]

to nationalize

That is either communist or fascist.

Which one are you?

 

[healthmyths]

The logic applied in both these comments are the same logic that can be found in any grade school playground: a false dichotomy and "you first". Grow your thinking dude. Look at the science first, then think about what needs to be done.

OK I agree with you...look at the science first BUT the problem is these same "science based" aren't looking at the economic reality.
And that's because "science" believers have NO KNOWLEDGE of the economics involved. Here are FACTs regarding Electric Vehicles (EVs).

Where will the electricity come from if 80% of cars/trucks are EVs?
These 80% EVs will need 8,003,063,320,000 kWh to power the EVs.

EV Cars electricity requirements
The average EV car gets .25 kWh per mile. The average American driver drives 14,263 miles per year. There are 182 million drivers or a total drive miles of 2,603,853,280,000. At .25 kWh/mile that is a total of 650,963,320,000 kWh.

EV Trucks electricity requirements
If 80% of the 38.9 million trucks drive 100,000 miles and an EV truck gets 1.89 kWh the total kWh needed by trucks is 7,350,000,000,000 kWh,

Total electricity required for 80% EV cars/trucks
EV Cars : 650,963,320,000 kWh.
EV Trucks: 2,603,853,280,000 kWh.
Total : 8,000,963,320,000 kWh.
In the USA the 11,070 power plants generate annually 4,165,030,000,000 kWh Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
An average USA power plant generating 4,165,030,000,000 kWh divided by 11,070 plants or 376 million kWh per plant.
BUT....with EVs needing an additional 8,003,063,320,000 kWh for 80% EV cars and trucks, an additional 21,371 nuclear plants is needed.
Based on this link: https://www.synapse-energy.com/site....Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022_0.pdf,
the average nuclear plant costs $2,000,000/kWh or: $16,001,926,640,000,000 or "$16 quadrillion" ...The 129,930,000 households the utility companies WILL HAVE to come up with this $16 quadrillion from households directly or indirectly from raised prices.A 20 year per month cost directly or indirectly per household of $513,158/ month....!
IT is not possible FOLKS! We are being feed a bill of goods totally unneeded!
Now I'm going to shout folks!!!

 

[schmidlap]

That is either communist or fascist.

Which one are you?

You are clearly aggrieved by a world that respects the wealth of irrefutable data that confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change and its consequences.

Your refusal to acknowledge the science will not make it go away.

 

[dudmuck]

That is either communist or fascist.

Which one are you?

 

[dudmuck]

OK I agree with you...look at the science first BUT the problem is these same "science based" aren't looking at the economic reality.
And that's because "science" believers have NO KNOWLEDGE of the economics involved. Here are FACTs regarding Electric Vehicles (EVs).

Where will the electricity come from if 80% of cars/trucks are EVs?
These 80% EVs will need 8,003,063,320,000 kWh to power the EVs.

EV Cars electricity requirements
The average EV car gets .25 kWh per mile. The average American driver drives 14,263 miles per year. There are 182 million drivers or a total drive miles of 2,603,853,280,000. At .25 kWh/mile that is a total of 650,963,320,000 kWh.

EV Trucks electricity requirements
If 80% of the 38.9 million trucks drive 100,000 miles and an EV truck gets 1.89 kWh the total kWh needed by trucks is 7,350,000,000,000 kWh,

Total electricity required for 80% EV cars/trucks
EV Cars : 650,963,320,000 kWh.
EV Trucks: 2,603,853,280,000 kWh.
Total : 8,000,963,320,000 kWh.
In the USA the 11,070 power plants generate annually 4,165,030,000,000 kWh Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
An average USA power plant generating 4,165,030,000,000 kWh divided by 11,070 plants or 376 million kWh per plant.
BUT....with EVs needing an additional 8,003,063,320,000 kWh for 80% EV cars and trucks, an additional 21,371 nuclear plants is needed.
Based on this link: https://www.synapse-energy.com/site....Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022_0.pdf,
the average nuclear plant costs $2,000,000/kWh or: $16,001,926,640,000,000 or "$16 quadrillion" ...The 129,930,000 households the utility companies WILL HAVE to come up with this $16 quadrillion from households directly or indirectly from raised prices.A 20 year per month cost directly or indirectly per household of $513,158/ month....!
IT is not possible FOLKS! We are being feed a bill of goods totally unneeded!
Now I'm going to shout folks!!!


View attachment 789186

How much electricity would it take to power all cars if they were electric?

The US would need to produce 20-50% more electricity annually if all cars were electric vehicles.

usafacts.org

The typical tesla model 3 gets about four miles on a kilowatt-hour.

 

[healthmyths]

How much electricity would it take to power all cars if they were electric?

The US would need to produce 20-50% more electricity annually if all cars were electric vehicles.

usafacts.org

The typical tesla model 3 gets about four miles on a kilowatt-hour.

Which is what I wrote...The average EV car gets .25 kWh per mile.
Source: 2022 Tesla Model 3 RWD: 25 kWh/100 miles or 25 miles divided by 100 miles: .25 miles/mile.

Average Electric Car kWh Per Mile [Results From 231 EVs]

Find the average electric car kWh per 100 miles, along with the best and the worst. Plus see the costs, savings and how you can go greener.

ecocostsavings.com

Now again figure it out... YOUR article didn't describe TRUCKS!!!!
Trucks will be required to be EVs in California.
Separately, California in August moved to require all new light-duty cars and trucks sold in the state by 2035 to be either electric or plug-in electric hybrids.
Now again..
In 2021, nearly 166.1 million private and commercial trucks were registered in the United States. California and Texas were the states with the most trucks licensed, at 15.9 and 14.6 million trucks respectively.
California and Texas were the states with the most trucks licensed, at 15.9 and 14.6 million trucks respectively.May 11, 2023

Registered U.S. private and commercial trucks by state | Statista

In 2021, nearly 166.1 million private and commercial trucks were registered in the United States.

www.statista.com

So AGAIN if 80% of the 166 million private trucks or 132 million are EVs and each truck at 100,000 average miles per truck/ year
source:How Many Miles Do Truckers Drive a Year?

Each truck average 1.89 kWh per Mile Per Truck : Fact: Battery capacity and recharging needs for electric buses in city transit service (Journal Article) | OSTI.GOV
Lets do the math: 132 million trucks at 100,000 miles/year/truck equals 13,200,000,000,000 miles.
13,200,000,000,000 miles at 1.89 kWh per mile or 24,948,000,000,000 kWh and that's just EV Trucks!

OK... say my figures based on FACTS are 50% off... or 12,474,000,000,000 kWh which is at the current 4,165,030,000,000 kWh Total kWh electricity generated In USA in 2021 3 times MORE than the current total electricity generated by the current 11,070 power plants
if my figures are off by 50% source: Electricity generation, capacity, and sales in the United States - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

11,070 power plants generate 4,165,030,000,000 kWh or per power plant: 376,244,806 kWh each per year.
FACT: Electricity generation, capacity, and sales in the United States - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

So one new nuclear power plant will cost in construction $2,000/kW, not including financing costs to build for total of $752,489,612

https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022_0.pdf

FACT: One power plant at $752,489,612 will generate 376,244,806 kWh per year.
So how many more nuclear power plants will have to be built (if EVEN at a 50% error factor),JUST for EV trucks total usage of 12,474,000,000,000 kWh?

Divide 12,474,000,000,000 kWh by 376,244,806 kWh generated per power plant, or an additional 33,153 nuclear power plants have to be built!
33,153 NEW nuclear power plants at the cost of $752,489,612 EACH plant or total of $24,948,000,000,000!

Oh and by the way, it takes around 6 to 8 years to build a nuclear reactor.

https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1555_web.pdf

 

[Crick]

Is this a real picture of Charlie Kirk? How did his face get so small or the rest of his head so big? You could put a whole 'nother face on his forehead and one on each cheek. I think it's been tweaked. I just looked at a bunch of other photos of the fellow and he looks like this:

Now, don't get me wrong. I think he's a neo-nazi fascist idiot, but... you know.

 

[EMH]

You are clearly aggrieved by a world that respects the wealth of irrefutable data that confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change and its consequences.

Your refusal to acknowledge the science will not make it go away.

View attachment 789187​

This guy is a comedian...

"the science" is not science.

"the science" fudges data.

Science notices truth...

 

[EMH]

Like Charlie Kirk.

He could use a climate lecture here. He might actually understand it...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you are critical of the President's refusal to nationalize multi-national corporations and curtail their unconscionable profits, how, precisely, do you propose he do that?

Propose he do what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are clearly aggrieved by a world that respects the wealth of irrefutable data that confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change and its consequences.

Your refusal to acknowledge the science will not make it go away.

View attachment 789187​

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?