Electric cars, Emperor's new clothes???

[GeoffL]

Piffle backed by meaningless graphs. That chart is of the maximum temperature in July and August in the US. Not a meaningful measure by any stretch of the imagination. There is every likelihood that climate change will reduce peak summer temperatures by increasingly unstable weather.
People who use such ludicrously selected data to support their case are demonstrating its weakness, not its strength.
I'm not a climate scientist. I have to defer to people who have real expertise in the field. I know enough to recognise false arguments, piled on misleadingly selected data to attempt to prove the untrue.
Yes, there are many many people making millions out of fossil fuels, and they are investing some of that into promoting the twaddle you are parroting.
That doesn't make it true.

Piffle backed by meaningless twaddle! Pretty much like the 'hockey stick' created by alarmists, who massively overemphasised bristle-cone data. As you say, people who use such ludicrously selected data to support their case are demonstrating its weakness, not its strength. Note that I made the same point as you -- that the data Heidi Cullen presented to support her alarmist case was ludicrously selected, thus demonstrating its weakness. Please check out the YT video I linked; you'll note that Cullen had used a carefully selected portion of the data shown in the graph I posted to make her false claims.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I recognise neo-religion when I see it and have a healthy-enough scepticism to check on claims on both sides: You might want to do the same ...

 

[in h]

I have

Piffle backed by meaningless twaddle! Pretty much like the 'hockey stick' created by alarmists, who massively overemphasised bristle-cone data. As you say, people who use such ludicrously selected data to support their case are demonstrating its weakness, not its strength. Note that I made the same point as you -- that the data Heidi Cullen presented to support her alarmist case was ludicrously selected, thus demonstrating its weakness. Please check out the YT video I linked; you'll note that Cullen had used a carefully selected portion of the data shown in the graph I posted to make her false claims.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I recognise neo-religion when I see it and have a healthy-enough scepticism to check on claims on both sides: You might want to do the same ...

I have checked for myself. That's why I'm saying you are wrong.
Follow the money.

 

[2cv]

Even in relatively recent years there have been lots of scares that have proved to be unfounded. I saw this today, maybe a grain of truth at least in it.

 

[GeoffL]

I have

I have checked for myself. That's why I'm saying you are wrong.
Follow the money.

I did. I searched for "climate change follow the money" and discovered just how lucrative the "climate change industry" is now. For example, an article from 2018, includes:

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.

Another article from the same search includes:

Whatever one may believe about the dangers of CO2 and risks of global warming creating a global catastrophe of 1.5 to 2 degree Celsius average temperature rise in the next roughly 12 years, it is worth noting who is promoting the current flood of propaganda and climate activism.

... and continues with some very interesting facts and naming a lot of very powerful people and organisations who benefit from continuing the AGW myth.

And another article contains:

In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.

Yep, follow the money.

 

[in h]

Yep, follow the money.

For me, research is more than 90% thought applied to data that I discover and check.
Your idea of research seems to be a matter of Googling for confirmation of your existing prejudices.
That's how we reach opposing conclusions.

 

[2cv]

For me, research is more than 90% thought applied to data that I discover and check.
Your idea of research seems to be a matter of Googling for confirmation of your existing prejudices.
That's how we reach opposing conclusions.

Sorry to be such an inferior being

 

[in h]

Sorry to be such an inferior being

Not inferior, just misled.

 

[Deleted member 5608]

Re the image above, which I note was written by somebody who doesn‘t even know the difference between ”your” and “you’re”...

There’s also the possibility, of course, that those predicted scenarios - much more debatable at the time than climate change is now - were averted, at least to some degree, by the prompt application of regulation and taxation. I wonder if such people would be happier if they had been taxed and the predictions had still come true? Or would that still be evidence of a different government conspiracy?

OK, I’m outta here, as the saying goes. Time will tell the truth. Happy new year everybody!

 

[GeoffL]

For me, research is more than 90% thought applied to data that I discover and check.
Your idea of research seems to be a matter of Googling for confirmation of your existing prejudices.
That's how we reach opposing conclusions.

Actually, I'd already done the research and (as I noted earlier in the thread) had come to the conclusion that nearly all the money goes to the alarmist side. The Internet search (done using DuckDuckGo via a VPN to avoid filter bubbles) was to ensure I hadn't missed anything. For info, the only money I could see going to the sceptic side was from the statement that, "while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda." However, even that's dried up on the sceptic side as the energy industry can longer be seen to fund climate scepticism, and the sceptics cannot afford to be seen accepting such funding.

TBH, your idea of research seems to be a matter of spouting your own existing prejudices unsupported by facts or reference. OTOH, I've cited several facts and references throughout this thread. That's how we reach opposing conclusions.

 

[Deleted member 5608]

Sorry - when I said 'I'm outta here', I thought I had posted this... then found it in another tab! This really is my swan song, however

Geoff, I'm afraid the problem is one of role reversal: I don't see you as, say, valiantly proposing the Einsteinian view in a traditional Newtonian world, I'm afraid. I see it the other way around. The results of new climate science are replacing the old understanding, and many people (myself included, though I'm far from an expert) have reluctantly been persuaded by the weight of the new evidence and so have moved from the traditional position held in the past.

But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and see what the next few decades show.

In the meantime, even if it does prove to be one gigantic mistake, I still think that the process of trying to clean up our energy generation and usage has brought huge advantages. More diversity in the sources of power; more use of wind, wave and solar; dramatic reductions in the number of annual deaths in coal mines; huge improvements in battery technology and other storage; and the resulting potential for significant reductions in particulate pollution, now that we also understand its dangers so much more.

And, of course, last but not least, the development of vehicles which are cleaner, quieter, more flexible, more reliable and more fun. I certainly have no desire to go back... which brings us back to the topic of the thread, and my longer post on the subject way back on page 1!

Right, that's it - happy 2020, everyone! May this year be cleaner, quieter, more flexible, more reliable and more fun for you too!

 

[2cv]

Sorry - when I said 'I'm outta here', I thought I had posted this... then found it in another tab! This really is my swan song, however

Geoff, I'm afraid the problem is one of role reversal: I don't see you as, say, valiantly proposing the Einsteinian view in a traditional Newtonian world, I'm afraid. I see it the other way around. The results of new climate science are replacing the old understanding, and many people (myself included, though I'm far from an expert) have reluctantly been persuaded by the weight of the new evidence and so have moved from the traditional position held in the past.

But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and see what the next few decades show.

In the meantime, even if it does prove to be one gigantic mistake, I still think that the process of trying to clean up our energy generation and usage has brought huge advantages. More diversity in the sources of power; more use of wind, wave and solar; dramatic reductions in the number of annual deaths in coal mines; huge improvements in battery technology and other storage; and the resulting potential for significant reductions in particulate pollution, now that we also understand its dangers so much more.

And, of course, last but not least, the development of vehicles which are cleaner, quieter, more flexible, more reliable and more fun. I certainly have no desire to go back... which brings us back to the topic of the thread, and my longer post on the subject way back on page 1!

Right, that's it - happy 2020, everyone! May this year be cleaner, quieter, more flexible, more reliable and more fun for you too!

Some governments may see these advantages as being a reduction in the influence of middle east oil producers. Possibly a reason to push the idea that recent climate change is influenced by human activity. Who knows?

 

[trevskoda]

One thing about electric cars is in town its easy to get knocked down as they sneak up on older deaf folk,good side is the silence at night in built up housing estates rather than the blurp blurp of kids in go faster big bore exhaust cars.

 

[davef]

MMGW is a new religion. Those who use science and observations to deconstruct it are regarded as heretics and attacked as such. It is difficult to have a sensible argument with a fundamental born again Christian or Muslim - or a believer of MMGW as their belief system is under attack. Under this new religion, self-flagellation is the order of the day. It and Extinction Rebellion are basically new death cults.
As Jordan Peterson has said " there are no atheists. There are only people who know, and dont know, what God they serve."
We are actually in a very stable climate period, and carbon dioxide is at a historically low level and the earth would be better if there was a higher concentration of this plant food....
Listen to the howls of rage from the believers.....

 

[Deleted member 5499]

Don't knock it till you've try'd it. My most liked thing in winter is getting in to warm and defrosted car . Try setting the trip meter every day or week and see how many times you do more than 100 miles.

 

[in h]

Actually, I'd already done the research and (as I noted earlier in the thread) had come to the conclusion that nearly all the money goes to the alarmist side. The Internet search (done using DuckDuckGo via a VPN to avoid filter bubbles) was to ensure I hadn't missed anything. For info, the only money I could see going to the sceptic side was from the statement that, "while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda." However, even that's dried up on the sceptic side as the energy industry can longer be seen to fund climate scepticism, and the sceptics cannot afford to be seen accepting such funding.

TBH, your idea of research seems to be a matter of spouting your own existing prejudices unsupported by facts or reference. OTOH, I've cited several facts and references throughout this thread. That's how we reach opposing conclusions.

Your ludicrous attempt to justify your beliefs reminds me of the comments made about this animation about the relationship between CO2 and temperature, posted on Facebook. There are so many people who simply don't get it. Ignoring facts really doesn't make them go away.

https://www.facebook.com/176084152419221/posts/3113459125348361

 

[GeoffL]

MMGW is a new religion. Those who use science and observations to deconstruct it are regarded as heretics and attacked as such. It is difficult to have a sensible argument with a fundamental born again Christian or Muslim - or a believer of MMGW as their belief system is under attack. Under this new religion, self-flagellation is the order of the day. It and Extinction Rebellion are basically new death cults.
As Jordan Peterson has said " there are no atheists. There are only people who know, and dont know, what God they serve."
We are actually in a very stable climate period, and carbon dioxide is at a historically low level and the earth would be better if there was a higher concentration of this plant food....
Listen to the howls of rage from the believers.....

You are so right. Listen to the howls of rage from believers as they deem the presentation of facts as, "ludicrous attempts to justify beliefs"; who accuse those who question their beliefs of ignoring the facts they haven't presented while simultaneously ignoring every fact that doesn't support their ideology.

 

[2cv]

What we were told in the 1970s

 

[trevskoda]

I remember being told in the seventys that petrol/oil would run out in ten years or so,all that happened was a large price hike.