Time to Pull the Plug on EV’s

[otto105]

Science is political to you. I get that.

I'm not trying to use it to control the economy. That's on you.

Have you stopped producing CO2 yet?

Dude, what control are you referring too? Reducing pollution to save the environment so human's can survive in it is control? Buying solar electricity instead coal produced is control?

AGW is a communist plot to you?

 

[ding]

In 1970's Mobil conducted research on the burning of fossils and it's impact on climate. They determined that result would be AGW.

Correlation does not prove causation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not cause by CO2 or orbital forcing. Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

 

[otto105]

Correlation does not prove causation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not cause by CO2 or orbital forcing. Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

Can you point to one single scientific organization which backs your un-named couple of oil field consultants position that AGW is not occurring because of human pollution.

 

[ding]

Can you point to one single scientific organization which backs your un-named couple of oil field consultants position that AGW is not occurring because of human pollution.

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

Other reviews and articles over this period have either been undecided, or else argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change.

For example:
Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dude, what control are you referring too? Reducing pollution to save the environment so human's can survive in it is control? Buying solar electricity instead coal produced is control?

AGW is a communist plot to you?

Dude, what control are you referring too?

Dude, like outlawing internal combustion engines, dude.

Reducing pollution to save the environment so human's can survive in it is control?

We reduced pollution like a mutha fucka.
You twats are whining about CO2.

Buying solar electricity instead coal produced is control?

Nah, just stupid and expensive.

AGW is a communist plot to you?

Watermelon plot.

Are you endorsing more nuclear power plants, to charge the increasing number of EVs?

 

[otto105]

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

Other reviews and articles over this period have either been undecided, or else argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change.

For example:
Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020).

None of these articles and/or papers (peer reviewed?) would cause a scientific organization to back your view that human caused AGW is not occurring.

Why is that?

 

[ding]

None of these articles and/or papers (peer reviewed?) which would cause a scientific organization to back you view that human caused AGW is not occurring.

Why is that?

They were all peer reviewed and published. Try again.

 

[ding]

None of these articles and/or papers (peer reviewed?) which would cause a scientific organization to back you view that human caused AGW is not occurring.

Why is that?

You want to believe that the science is settled but science is never really settled. Science is always open to challenge.

Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in the various IPCC statements because of three reasons:

1. Climate change and solar variability are both multifaceted concepts. As Pittock (1983) noted, historically, many of the studies of Sun/climate relationships have provided results that are ambiguous and open to interpretation in either way (Pittock 1983).
2. Dissenting scientific results which might potentially interfere with political goals are unwelcome.
3. The primary goal of the IPCC is to “speak with one voice for climate science” (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019).

 

[otto105]

They were all peer reviewed and published. Try again.

Sure, so why does no scientific organization back the view that human caused AGW is not happening?

 

[ding]

Sure, so why does no scientific organization back the view that human caused AGW is not happening?

First of the IPCC is not a scientific organization. We know this because they don't include dissenting opinions in their reports.

To answer you question... Money. They only have a job if they can manufacture a crisis. Within 10 years everything you believe will be proven wrong when temperatures and sea levels do not rise as predicted.

 

[otto105]

First of the IPCC is not a scientific organization. We know this because they don't include dissenting opinions in their reports.

To answer you question... Money. They only have a job if they can manufacture a crisis. Within 10 years everything you believe will be proven wrong when temperatures and sea levels do not rise as predicted.

They are in fact a scientific organization which follows the facts to come to a conclusion. Their conclusion is that human caused AGW is happening and that the evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to challenge it's conclusion.

 

[ding]

They are in fact a scientific organization which follows the facts to come to a conclusion. Their conclusion is that human caused AGW is happening and that the evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to challenge it's conclusion.

No. They aren't a scientific organization. If they were a scientific organization their reports would include dissenting opinions.

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

 

[otto105]

No. They aren't a scientific organization. If they were a scientific organization their reports would include dissenting opinions.

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

Why should it contain "dissenting opinions"? The report should only deal in facts. And those facts do not support your position on AGW.

And that paper you partially sourced is bullshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why should it contain "dissenting opinions"?

Da, comrade!

Why indeed?

 

[ding]

Why should it contain "dissenting opinions"? The report should only deal in facts. And those facts do not support your position on AGW.

And that paper you partially sourced is bullshit.

I addressed that in post #332.

Would it be too much to ask for you to tell me why you believe the paper I supposedly partially sourced is bullshit? Because I don't believe you have actually read any of it. Which makes it really hard to dispute what was written.

 

[otto105]

I addressed that in post #332.

Would it be too much to ask for you to tell me why you believe the paper I supposedly partially sourced is bullshit? Because I don't believe you have actually read any of it. Which makes it really hard to dispute what was written.

Because it doesn’t prove what you think that it does.

 

[ding]

Because it doesn’t prove what you think that it does.

What do you think I think it proves?

 

[otto105]

What do you think I think it proves?

It proves that you can find a study about a consensus denier.

 

[ding]

It proves that you can find a study about a consensus denier.

No. That's not what I think it proves. I think it proves that the IPCC is a political organization with political objectives. They suppress dissenting opinions.

 

[otto105]

No. That's not what I think it proves. I think it proves that the IPCC is a political organization with political objectives. They suppress dissenting opinions.

Again, put forth an argument not a political statement.