always knew global warming was a hoax
Why has the warming trend slowed? According to Dr. Banjo in Melbourne, it's because climate change is a myth.
Do climate scientists agree? Of course not. (And, by the way, we lied about the extent of the slowing.)
Where did the heat go? The ocean. Everyone can see it's the ocean. But I haven't hit my word count, so let's say the sun is dimmer.
Why would that happen? Well, there's the normal solar cycle that's expected and corrected for, or there's the good old Faustian bargain that's been debunked a thousand times.
What does the future hold? ¡Fuego!
The skeptics' favorite scientist: Remember that Faustian bargain I mentioned? Meet Dr. Faust, here on the Charles, to tell you how Mephistopheles will sort it all out.
Quote: LowPingBoyWhen governments, agencies, foundations, etc. quit throwing money at it. It's not about the science; all about the grants. Negative findings do not get published nor do grants get renewed. No publications, no grant money, no tenure. And, in the PC atmosphere of nearly all major academic institutions, to challenge the "settled science" of GW or CC or whatever is cause for ridicule and an invitation to take it elsewhere.
You nailed it!
Quote: onenickelmiracleMakes more sense to not do what cannot be undone. Obviously an economy based on waste is unsustainable. We buy products which don't last and use energy we have no plans to live without a replacement for them.
A... not so fast. For starters, we could, techinically, if we really wanted to, reprocess our vast trash stock piles and turn them back into a combination of oil, methane, carbon, and some other useable chemicals. Now regarding our energy sources: We won't be running out of any of them anytime soon. For starters, oil, which many people have mistakenly referred to as a fosil fuel, is actually part of a geothermic process, much like methane. True, there can be biotic sources, but real geologists will tell you otherwise. The presence of huge amounts of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is cited[1] as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons without biology.[2] Another inexhaustable energy source is nuclear.
Doom and gloom didn't sell well back in 1977 and it doesn't sell well today. Today, our country is on the cutting edge with research. Take a road trip across the US and you'll find vast wind farms. Don't worry, we're on the right track. The world will be just fine.Quote: onenickelmiracleBeing totally screwed in decades is good enough reason regardless of whether or not the environment is being harmed.
-Keyser
Quote: NareedThey had to rebrand it, after all, as "Climate Change," because climate does nothing but change. it's cold, Climate Change. it's hot, Climate Change. There are too many hurricanes, Climate Change. There are too few hurricanes, Climate Change. There's a tsunami, Climate Change; even though tsunamis are seismic rather than meteorological, but who knows how nuclear power affects the movements of the Earth's crust over the mantle, so, Climate Change!
It's not a hoax. It's a scam. It brings in money for research and power for bureucrats. Next thing you know a gas we all exhale and that plants need in order to exist, will be classified as a pollutant by some government agency. Oh, wait....
Well, a tax on breathing should help drive up the debt, I mean, drive up the deficit, I mean, keep spending high, I mean, bring spending to new heights, I mean a politician is incapable of cutting a dime.
99% of scientists concur it is real. But we should ignore that and listen to the guy who can't spell bureaucrat.
Quote: boymimboYeah, that's it, because when you break ice, it never forms again. I hate to tell you this, but the freezing point of ocean water is around -2 degrees celcius. When the sea is colder than that, it's ice. When it's warmer, it's water.
LOL. No. They broke the ice. What youre suggesting is that it somehow would fix itself if it were cold. Ludicrous!
Quote: KeyserA... not so fast. For starters, we could, techinically, if we really wanted to, reprocess our vast trash stock piles and turn them back into a combination of oil, methane, carbon, and some other useable chemicals.
For someone so quick to be suckered in by creationist propaganda (see following), you seem to rather underestimate the hurdles put up by the second law of thermodynamics.
Quote: KeyserNow regarding our energy sources: We won't be running out of any of them anytime soon. For starters, oil, which many people have mistakenly referred to as a fosil fuel, is actually part of a geothermic process, much like methane. True, there can be biotic sources, but real geologists will tell you otherwise.
These "real geologists" ("real" from certain people always seems to mean "baselessly opposed to mainstream view I refuse to believe on X") were first Soviet propagandists fighting over Western Asia, then fundies using their "research" as a bucket to bail out the sea of evidence against their position. Processes by which abiotic methane and petroleum could form are known, but it's not known whether these actually occur naturally on Earth, and all known wells of the latter are believed to be biotic by all but a few kooks (and whether abiotic methane exists on Earth is in some dispute - extremophiles are responsible for at least some of what's thought by some to be abiotic). In any case, consider that you're hoping essentially the same process as geothermal energy, which we're using and which isn't sufficing, will power a reaction that will renew the oil enough to suffice (granted, if it were really happening, it would give us access to slightly more geothermic activity, but it would still have to be close enough for the oil to be accessible).
Quote: KeyserThe presence of huge amounts of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is cited[1] as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons without biology.[2]
Source, the prestigious Journal of Typo. I'm not going to fight this, though, because the fact that abiotic methane can exist isn't in dispute.
Quote: KeyserAnother inexhaustable energy source is nuclear.
It's a good idea, but it's not really correct to call it "inexhaustible" (much less "inexhaustable"); we're already at the point where uranium-235 isn't really viable to use anymore, and even the depleted uranium we have access to is finite.
Quote: KeyserDoom and gloom didn't sell well back in 1977 and it doesn't sell well today.
And yet, your entire thesis is dependent on it being "sold."
Quote: KeyserToday, our country is on the cutting edge with research.
Because the scientists aren't listening to you.
However, in the universe that I currently reside, I'm getting bombarded with snow, again.
Whatever happened to the scientist's prediction-
"Soon, snow will be a thing of the past."
Quote: Dalex64Why don't you just say: it gets cold at night therefore global warming isn't real. It makes just as much sense.
Hahhahahah
The claims he made in that "documentary" are laughable.
Quote: HowManyI challenge the "warmers" to watch Al Gore's flick today.
The claims he made in that "documentary" are laughable.
Silly me I forgot that a nonscientific documentary by a non-scientist making some off predictions somehow invalidates all the science showing warming done by thousands of climate scientist.
Quote: TwirdmanSilly me I forgot that a nonscientific documentary by a non-scientist making some off predictions somehow invalidates all the science showing warming done by thousands of climate scientist.
Call your deluded theories SCIENCE with a capital S then ridicule anyone who dares question them.
The Climate Chicken Little's cluck that "Miami Beach is gonna sink in 20 years!!!"
The problem? They've been saying it for 20 years and the Atlantic hasn't advanced one damn inch.
Quote: TwirdmanSilly me I forgot that a nonscientific documentary by a non-scientist making some off predictions somehow invalidates all the science showing warming done by thousands of climate scientist.
Dude, 99% of climate scientists are wrong. Don't you know anything? And vaccines cause autism. And personally, I question whoever invented gravity...I'm not sure it's real. I mean planes fly don't they? Gravity says they would fall. And don't get me started on evolution! Despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary, clearly the earth was created 5,000 years ago and man co-existed with dinosaurs...how can you possibly argue with that? Carbon dating is a trick by Satan.
Quote: TwirdmanSilly me I forgot that a nonscientific documentary by a non-scientist making some off predictions somehow invalidates all the science showing warming done by thousands of climate scientist.
Altered data, and/or ignored data that contradicts an agenda.
Is this what "science" is in 2015?
It's true- check it out.
I have two issues with most of the hype of global warming: models that predict change yet can't come close to reproducing natural variability particularly with regards to the oceans and predictions of doom and gloom. For the most part a little warming is extremely beneficial for mankind. Cold wet weather is what leads to disease, crop failures, deaths, etc.
A lot of climate science is making models that rely on other models to predict something. That's means any little mistake is multiplied and amplified.
A lot of the peer reviewed climate science is junk with climate scientists trying to do statistics instead of relying on statisticians.
I don't doubt at all that the earth has warmed. I believe man has contributed to that warming. What I'm VERY skeptical about is claims about the future and all of the dire consequences.
Quote: HowManyIf a Climatologist isn't on board with "Man Made Global Warming" he (or she) will lose their government grants.
It's true- check it out.
I do climate science. That's the field I am actively engaged in research in, and if I could show that global warming was not happening and was not predominately caused by humans, I'd be famous and win a nobel.
The approach in grant writing is to say something is important but so uncertain that we need more study. The incentive for an individual is to overturn current thinking.
The fact is that global warming is happening, and can be attributed with high confidence to extra CO2 in the atmosphere. The physics underlying the problem is over 100 years old and is on the same footing as any other scientific principle. Although the atmosphere is complex (like the study of stars and black holes and everything else) we actually do know some stuff.
Quote: cmc0605I do climate science. That's the field I am actively engaged in research in, and if I could show that global warming was not happening and was not predominately caused by humans, I'd be famous and win a nobel.
I'm generally sympathetic to the theory of climate change. Your professional field involves thousands of scientists working at hundreds of universities across dozens of languages, and for them to all be organized into a giant conspiracy/hoax is difficult for me to swallow. It's much more likely that the Earth is warming.
Nevertheless I have questions. Here are four:
1) Apparently the planet has warmed by about 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. To the layman, this seems a rather small, insignificant change. Why should we worry about a rise of just 0.7 degrees?
2) As the Earth warms, we've been told to brace ourselves for more (tropical) storms of greater intensity. But the past few hurricane seasons have been noticeably quiet in North America. Is there a relationship between climate change and storm frequency/strength?
3) What's the biggest worry (for humans)? That the ice caps will melt and the coasts will flood? That tropical diseases (malaria, etc.) will spread? Droughts? Agriculture disaster/famine?
4) Do you ever have any doubts that perhaps the current temperature rise is merely a coincidence? Temps go up, temps go down, maybe it's all just part of the natural cycle?
Quote: bobsimsThe Climate Chicken Little's cluck that "Miami Beach is gonna sink in 20 years!!!"
The problem? They've been saying it for 20 years and the Atlantic hasn't advanced one damn inch.
That's not really true. Sea level rise at Virginia Key, just south of South Beach, has been recorded.
http://grist.org/cities/miami-sea-level-rise-climate-change/
And ask the US Navy about the Norfolk Navy Yard and what they're having to do there.
He appeared in the documentary "The Coming Ice Age" 1978. He said, "We are entering another an ice age. It will happen within our lifetime."
He later became Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, and the he said, "Global Warming is the biggest threat to mankind."
Of course, Mr Schneider won't change his mind again - he's dead.
Quote: harvson3That's not really true. Sea level rise at Virginia Key, just south of South Beach, has been recorded.
http://grist.org/cities/miami-sea-level-rise-climate-change/
I just personally know too many people who began going to Miami Beach in the 50's and when you ask them if the ocean has moved up they laugh in your face and look at you like you're on dope. I myself can attest to 40 plus years.
Wake me up when Collins Ave. is under water. Doubt it will be in the next thousand years.
Quote: cmc0605I do climate science. That's the field I am actively engaged in research in, and if I could show that global warming was not happening and was not predominately caused by humans, I'd be famous and win a nobel.
The approach in grant writing is to say something is important but so uncertain that we need more study. The incentive for an individual is to overturn current thinking.
The fact is that global warming is happening, and can be attributed with high confidence to extra CO2 in the atmosphere. The physics underlying the problem is over 100 years old and is on the same footing as any other scientific principle. Although the atmosphere is complex (like the study of stars and black holes and everything else) we actually do know some stuff.
OK. Kindly explain to me, if the science "over 100 years old" why as a boy in the 70's I saw the "scientific consensus" on TV, books, newsmagazines and Nat. Geographic that there was a "Coming Ice Age"?
http://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
(Here's another article, published yesterday, about the same phenomenon in the northeast: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150224/ncomms7346/full/ncomms7346.html)
Your answer is that you know some people who know things about Miami Beach, and because a significant rise hasn't yet happened, then it's not going to happen.
I'm not convinced by anecdotes and logical fallacies.
Quote: bobsimsOK. Kindly explain to me, if the science "over 100 years old" why as a boy in the 70's I saw the "scientific consensus" on TV, books, newsmagazines and Nat. Geographic that there was a "Coming Ice Age"?
http://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
The vast majority of scientific research in the 1970s predicted a warming climate.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Quote: renoI'm generally sympathetic to the theory of climate change. Your professional field involves thousands of scientists working at hundreds of universities across dozens of languages, and for them to all be organized into a giant conspiracy/hoax is difficult for me to swallow. It's much more likely that the Earth is warming.
Nevertheless I have questions. Here are four:
1) Apparently the planet has warmed by about 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. To the layman, this seems a rather small, insignificant change. Why should we worry about a rise of just 0.7 degrees?
2) As the Earth warms, we've been told to brace ourselves for more (tropical) storms of greater intensity. But the past few hurricane seasons have been noticeably quiet in North America. Is there a relationship between climate change and storm frequency/strength?
3) What's the biggest worry (for humans)? That the ice caps will melt and the coasts will flood? That tropical diseases (malaria, etc.) will spread? Droughts? Agriculture disaster/famine?
4) Do you ever have any doubts that perhaps the current temperature rise is merely a coincidence? Temps go up, temps go down, maybe it's all just part of the natural cycle?
Hi, thanks for the good questions.
On (1), I like to think of climate change problems in "ice age units" (after this good cartoon)...the point being that "global average temperature" (which is admittedly a rather obscure concept until you think about this stuff for too long) actually does not change very much, which contrasts with our intuition with respect to daily weather for example. 4-5 Celsius (multiply these numbers by 1.8 to get Fahrenheit) degrees colder is roughly the last ice age. 5 degrees warmer is roughly the Cretaceous or Eocene (many tens of millions of years ago) when you don't have much polar ice at all. These numbers get inflated by a factor of two or three in continental interiors and polar regions.
There's certainly been some better effort in recent years to make some contact with these sort of numbers and things we care about, for example the increased frequency of what would currently be a 2 or 3 standard deviation anomaly at some location (e.g., a heat wave). Much of what we actually care about is related to precipitation as well, not just temperature, and we know of several robust responses in the hydrologic cycle that matter. It's not the end of humanity of course, but when you move the climate of New York to something like that of Georgia, or melt enough sea ice to change geopolitical dynamics, or turn the climate we've experienced for over 10,000 years (since agriculture and civilized society) into something like that of what Earth had 3 million years ago, then it's socio-politically relevant and relevant for other species that are sensitive to climate. The claim I make (and I suspect most people thinking about this clearly) is that we ought to actually care about that and make choices based on sound science and risk management, not dismiss it with wishful thinking or act like the world is ending tomorrow.
On (2), the current thinking is typically that tropical storms get a bit less frequent in a warmer tropical atmospheric environment but the strongest storms get a bit stronger. There's still some debate on this though, and detection in observations is difficult because the year-to-year variability is much larger than the expected trend. In gambling language, looking at tropical cyclone trends over a few years (and in one locale) is like claiming to have established the expected return for a player in blackjack by analyzing 10 hands. This is in contrast to the global-mean temperature trend, for example, which is well outside the expected range of natural variability. Personally, I don't view tropical cyclone changes as the most robust or most serious issue in climate change, and certainly the basic framework for what we know about why climate is changing can be decoupled from the question of how tropical cyclones will change.
I think I've touched on (3) and there's a lot of literature on this. Ultimately, what you worry about depends on your location and values. In regions like that of the Sahel, which sit right on the northern edge of peaks in tropical rainfall, any tendency for that peak to move a bit south could cause massive drought and political unrest (as it did in the second half of the 20th century). Ice loss will affect people at the poles and on coastal regions, but probably not too much in Chicago. If you're in Russia, you're probably happy to get some warmer winters. A lot of things change though in the circulation and hydrology even if you warm the atmosphere uniformly by a few degrees , so those need to be monitored.
On (4), there's a lot of work on the attribution problem in climate. It does not rely explicitly on correlations between CO2 and global temperature. The simplest answer to your question would be simply to acknowledge the basic and well-understood physics that links global temperature changes to CO2. It would be nice to have an easy way to get around that (and I'd love to show it wrong) bu that is just not how our atmosphere works, or any other planetary atmosphere for that matter (Venus is a limiting case of an extreme CO2 greenhouse effect). The next part would be to engage in some detective work- there's actually only a few candidates that could fundamentally change Earth's energy balance in such a way as we've observed, for instance changes in solar activity, but then we have satellites that show no trend in solar output for well over 50 years. We also know of various "fingerprints" associated with enhanced solar activity- for example a warming everywhere in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 warms the surface and most of the atmospheric column, except near the top of the atmosphere which cools. That's what we observe and was a prediction going back to the 1960s. Other "big picture" predictions and some history of the problem are in this excellent AGU talk a few years ago.
It's easy to do lip service to the notion of "natural cycles" but whatever these cycles are, they need to obey the laws of physics. For example, any "cycle" that takes heat out of the ocean and warms the atmosphere needs to also show up as some cooling in the ocean. We actually don't see much evidence for unexplainable "cycles" in the modern or past climate record- there is internal variability (El Nino, etc) and "forced" variations (from volcanic eruptions, orbital changes, etc). These things have different associated timescales and different fingerprints/impacts, and despite the complexity and unknown problems in atmospheric dynamics, there is an elegant and emergent simplicity in the responses we see to these things that may not be intuitive.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565
Quote: PBguyI found this interesting and some of you may too:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565
Somebody needs to tell the investors spending billions in Miami construction that the Chicken Littles say they are going to sink any day now.
Quote: PBguyI found this interesting and some of you may too:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565
The very first sentence is an irritating strawman. Like astrophysics, geology, biology, etc no one says "climate science is settled." What people do say is that the basic physics required to understand why CO2 does, and will, make the planet warmer is in fact settled.
The rest just shows he has no understanding of the basic science, or at least is so poorly framed that the lay reader is left with the completely wrong impression. It is true, for instance, that "sub-grid" processes (e.g.. cloud microphysics) must be parametrized, but this is a distraction from the salient point.
Quote: cmc0605The very first sentence is an irritating strawman. Like astrophysics, geology, biology, etc no one says "climate science is settled." What people do say is that the basic physics required to understand why CO2 does, and will, make the planet warmer is in fact settled.
The rest just shows he has no understanding of the basic science, or at least is so poorly framed that the lay reader is left with the completely wrong impression. It is true, for instance, that "sub-grid" processes (e.g.. cloud microphysics) must be parametrized, but this is a distraction from the salient point.
In a news story about Al Gore's testimony in front of Congress in 2007, NPR wrote "The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers." But Al Gore didn't say that. It's not a quote. At best it's a summation of his remarks. Unfortunately it ends up being basically an urban legend that he said it.
Here's one example of the news covering the new paper: "Global warming is now slowing down the circulation of the oceans — with potentially dire consequences" http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/23/global-warming-is-now-slowing-down-the-circulation-of-the-oceans-with-potentially-dire-consequences/?tid=pm_business_pop
And another: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atlantic-circulation-weakens-compared-to-last-thousand-years/
This paper used computer models and proxies to determine the AMOC has slowed down. Only problem is that NASA claimed it had actually sped up slightly over the last 20 years or so:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/atlantic20100325.html
The difference is that NASA used actual measurements.
Who are you going to believe?
Mann and Rahmstorf paper: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2554.html
Quote: PBguyHere's the reality of climate science that most laymen never notice or realize: Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf just published a paper claiming the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has slowed dramatically. Climate models predicted it and Mann and Rahmstorf found it. It's being touted in lots of places since Mann has a well-oiled PR machine. Of course the implied blame is man.
Here's one example of the news covering the new paper: "Global warming is now slowing down the circulation of the oceans — with potentially dire consequences" http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/23/global-warming-is-now-slowing-down-the-circulation-of-the-oceans-with-potentially-dire-consequences/?tid=pm_business_pop
And another: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atlantic-circulation-weakens-compared-to-last-thousand-years/
This paper used computer models and proxies to determine the AMOC has slowed down. Only problem is that NASA claimed it had actually sped up slightly over the last 20 years or so:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/atlantic20100325.html
The difference is that NASA used actual measurements.
Who are you going to believe?
Mann and Rahmstorf paper: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2554.html
There's no "choosing" here. Not only did you not read the paper, but you couldn't even read the abstract either. They explicitly say that "Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partially recovered." This is discussed in the paper too.
I know some people really want to "challenge the orthodoxy" because it's the new cool thing, and Galileo, and "sanctity of science" and "cuz I'm an American" and all that...but you actually have to understand it first.
Quote: cmc0605There's no "choosing" here. Not only did you not read the paper, but you couldn't even read the abstract either. They explicitly say that "Since 1990 the AMOC seems to have partially recovered." This is discussed in the paper too.
I know some people really want to "challenge the orthodoxy" because it's the new cool thing, and Galileo, and "sanctity of science" and "cuz I'm an American" and all that...but you actually have to understand it first.
Do you believe corals are really proxies for the speed of the AMOC?
There are lots of other problems with this paper but hey it's getting the press they expected and they "validated" the models so it must be right!
Just don't look under the hood.
Yet time and again that idea is rejected by the Earth, at least in the sense that the Earth can't keep up.
Can you keep farming without crop rotation? Can people in Beijing pollute the air without cost? Did we not take the most populous bird in the U.S. and make it extinct (passenger pigeon.). Did we not reap the physical costs of strip mining and deforestation before doing land reclamation? Both looked more like nuclear attacks. Lakes have been so polluted they've caught on fire. Some of this we've fixed. But in other countries you can see results of water that is unsafe to swim in, and other failures of man.
So, can you frack without consequences (like earthquakes), and can you put more CO2 into the atmosphere without climate change? That's the current, our "free lunch" from the Earth that people want to believe is without significant costs.
Quote: rxwineSince this topic is often a political debate, one thing I notice is conservatives seeming to take the position that the Earth is the one thing where there is a "free lunch." In other words, you can take or do to the Earth without considering repercussions, except in the form of liberals coming up with fictional costs.
So, can you frack without consequences (like earthquakes), and can you put more CO2 into the atmosphere without climate change? That's the current, our "free lunch" from the Earth that people want to believe is without significant costs.
Actually, I can say the same thing about liberals.
Liberals want electric cars yet think the electricity comes from their wall outlet and ignore the collateral costs to their EV or hybrid, for example all the mining done to get the lead, lithium, and other items needed to make the battery pack. That windmills will not kill more birds. That when you ban a good pesticide you needed 1oz of you may have to replace it with another that requires 1lb for the same effect.
In my life I have found that the liberals who "love the earth" are the most clueless about how nature works. They go by what they have "learned" in books or media. Conservatives are more likely to have had a life or job that gives them practical experience. Maybe as a hunter or oil worker or farmer. In a sentence Conservatives understand that "caring for the earth" does not mean it must or even can be that the earth looks as if we were never here.
Quote: AZDuffmanLiberals want electric cars yet think the electricity comes from their wall outlet
You'd have a good argument if the U.S. electric grid was a static, unchanging thing. But the grid is changing fast, far faster than I ever would have predicted. U.S. wind power has doubled since 2009. Solar installations have quadrupled since 2010!
I'm not talking about hippies in Berkeley. The real revolutionaries are cattle ranchers in Texas. The state's initial pie-in-the-sky goal of 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy in 1999 was eventually increased to 10,000 megawatts by 2025. The state passed that milestone five years ago.
Quote: AZDuffmanLiberals [...] ignore the collateral costs to their EV or hybrid, for example all the mining done to get the lead, lithium, and other items needed to make the battery pack.
Do you have any data to back up this statement?
Nissan's own data comparing their Leaf to Nissan's gasoline vehicles (Versa, Altima, Maxima, etc) is pretty straightforward:
Even if we assume that Nissan is an unreliable source due to their bias for selling Leafs to stupid hippies, other researchers have come to the same conclusion:
Separately, the Automotive Science Group compared 1,300 car/truck models sold in the U.S. and Canada and determined that the Leaf had "the smallest life-cycle environmental footprint of any model year 2014 automobile available in the North American market (with minimum four person occupancy)."
Quote: renoYou'd have a good argument if the U.S. electric grid was a static, unchanging thing. But the grid is changing fast, far faster than I ever would have predicted. U.S. wind power has doubled since 2009. Solar installations have quadrupled since 2010!
The electrical grid has always been expanding. My point was not that it was not, my point was that liberals very often use a static analysis and look at just one dimension when they see a problem. Then when they pass some kind of law to solve it the law of unintended consequences bites them back.
Quote: AZDuffmanLiberals [...] ignore the collateral costs to their EV or hybrid, for example all the mining done to get the lead, lithium, and other items needed to make the battery pack.
Do you have any data to back up this statement?
Nissan's own data comparing their Leaf to Nissan's gasoline vehicles (Versa, Altima, Maxima, etc) is pretty straightforward:
This all assumes CO2 is a pollutant, which it is not. CO2 is plant food and a natural emission produced by every breathing thing on the planet. I do not care that the PC attitude is to say otherwise, BTW, so no need to tell me the EPA says that it is. The point of my statement is that the same liberal who is against a coal mine or digging up oil sands is perfectly happy to ignore all that must be done to get the rare earth metals for the batteries. Said rare earths come from China, who is not exactly the greatest protector of the environment.
Or they worry about lead in anything but are happy to ride around with it and cause the need for more production. I am serious, the whole thing is about buying an indulgence pass from their Church of Latter Day Anti-Global Warming Saints.
Quote: AZDuffman
This all assumes CO2 is a pollutant, which it is not. CO2 is plant food and a natural emission produced by every breathing thing on the planet. I do not care that the PC attitude is to say otherwise, BTW, so no need to tell me the EPA says that it is.
This is the kind of stupidity that only belongs on coal or gas company commercials. Just because CO2 is a plant food does not mean that too much of it won't cause harm to the planet. I mean seriously the poison is in the dosage. The planet needs some CO2 just like humans need some salt that does not mean the earth can absorb an infinite amount of CO2 anymore then humans can consume an infinite amount of salt. I mean you really cannot be stupid enough to believe that sentence is not completely moronic right?
Quote: TwirdmanThis is the kind of stupidity that only belongs on coal or gas company commercials. Just because CO2 is a plant food does not mean that too much of it won't cause harm to the planet. I mean seriously the poison is in the dosage. The planet needs some CO2 just like humans need some salt that does not mean the earth can absorb an infinite amount of CO2 anymore then humans can consume an infinite amount of salt. I mean you really cannot be stupid enough to believe that sentence is not completely moronic right?
Well, based on the name-calling I must be winning the discussion. And yet more proof that liberals look at most things just in one dimension.
An inconvenient truth is that 97% of CO2 is generated by non-human sources!
Are you really expecting me to believe that a 3% difference is going to Cause gasoline to be $9 and milk $12.99/gal each by June 8, 2015?
