Climate Change Mega Thread

[ckil]

Charging A Tesla More Expensive Than Filling A Car With Gas

https://carbuzz.com/news/charging-a-tes ... r-with-gas

[alanjh595]

What is the appropriate amount of Carbon(ppm) in the atmosphere needed to shut-up the tree huggers?

What type/form of Carbon do you believe that they are protesting?

Is it, C, CO, or CO2? How are these molecules formed, and which ones are harmful, and why?

CO2....duh!

You have omitted the complete answer. There are no half points.

[ckil]

*removed*

[Jlabute]

Charging A Tesla More Expensive Than Filling A Car With Gas

https://carbuzz.com/news/charging-a-tes ... r-with-gas

Not only that, the new Tesla MODEL 3 which was supposed to be the entry level affordable EV, is now dead. After a few months, they probably couldn't afford to make them maybe due to a lack of government incentives or something.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/the-much-hyped-35000-tesla-model-3-is-dead/

[ckil]

Just wait for governments to cut incentives on EV's and to their makers to get the budget under control. Same for solar.

[alanjh595]

Just wait for governments to cut incentives on EV's and to their makers to get the budget under control. Same for solar.

And then what is going to happen?

[ckil]

What is the appropriate amount of Carbon(ppm) in the atmosphere needed to shut-up the tree huggers?

What type/form of Carbon do you believe that they are protesting?

Is it, C, CO, or CO2? How are these molecules formed, and which ones are harmful, and why?

CO2....duh!

You have omitted the complete answer. There are no half points.

Are you going to tell me that you believe the ultimate level of CO2 is? Clearly not because you do not know. I ask tree huggers this every time and not one can answer the question. All we know is this is not the first time in history that CO2 has hit 400ppm like today.

"The last time global carbon dioxide levels were consistently at or above 400 parts per million (ppm) was around four million years ago during a geological period known as the Pliocene Era (between 5.3 million and 2.6 million years ago). The world was about 3℃ warmer and sea levels were higher than today."

Guess what? Plant and animal life flourished. It was not until Carbon levels began to decline did glaciation begin and life began to slide.

Isn't it weird how CO2 is cyclical throughout history?

Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png

Today's grow houses use 900ppm to grow healthy plants. People work in 900pm without any harm. Please, ALAH, get off the bandwagon.

[ckil]

Just wait for governments to cut incentives on EV's and to their makers to get the budget under control. Same for solar.

And then what is going to happen?

lol figure it out.

[alanjh595]

Just wait for governments to cut incentives on EV's and to their makers to get the budget under control. Same for solar.

And then what is going to happen?

lol figure it out.

There is no way to figure out your opinion posts. No evidence to back them up, and I didn't know that they had the ability to accurately test and record, "(between 5.3 million and 2.6 million years ago)".

Maybe it is recorded in some cave art?

Go figure THAT out.

[ckil]

Just wait for governments to cut incentives on EV's and to their makers to get the budget under control. Same for solar.

And then what is going to happen?

lol figure it out.

There is no way to figure out your opinion posts. No evidence to back them up, and I didn't know that they had the ability to accurately test and record, "(between 5.3 million and 2.6 million years ago)".

Maybe it is recorded in some cave art?

Go figure THAT out.

Its called ice cores...lol! You are a simple man. Do some research for once. Oh wait...tree huggers are too simple to do so. They are handed their information and happy with it.

[Jlabute]

I found an interesting article about the father of atmospheric CO2 monitoring, Roger Revelle.

"Roger Revelle was an outstanding and famous oceanographer. He met Al Gore, in the late 1960s, when Gore was a student in one of his classes at Harvard University. Revelle was unsure about the eventual impact of human carbon dioxide emissions on climate, but he did show that all carbon dioxide emitted by man would not be absorbed by the oceans.

...

This meant that human emissions of carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere and that the CO2 atmospheric concentration would increase, probably causing Earth’s surface to warm at some unknown rate. This is not an alarming conclusion, as Revelle well knew, but Al Gore turned it into one."


Revelle and Singer have since passed away, and we are left with this legacy of theirs.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/LookBeforeYouLeap.pdf

Conclusion:
"“We can sum up our conclusions in a simple message: The scientific [basis] for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time. There is little risk in delaying policy responses to this century old problem since there is every expectation that scientific understanding will be substantially improved within the next decade.” (Singer, Revelle, & Starr, 1991)"


While Revelle was unsure if warming was a problem. Al Gore, who had little training in science, suffered no such doubts. He was sure that burning fossil fuels was causing carbon dioxide to rise to “dangerous” levels in the atmosphere and was convinced this was a problem for civilization through rising sea levels and extreme weather. There was no evidence to support these assumptions, but Al Gore didn’t need evidence, he could always rely on climate models and he did. Revelle distrusted the models.

Al Gore and Climate Change

In 1992, after Singer, Revelle and Starr published their Cosmos article, their statements caused Al Gore, who was running for Vice-President at the time, some problems. Gore had just published The Earth in the Balance (Gore, 1992) and in it he credited Revelle with discovering that human emissions of carbon dioxide were causing Earth to warm and this could be very dangerous. Yet, Singer, Revelle and Starr’s paper said:

"“Drastic, precipitous—and, especially, unilateral—steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent economic controls [on CO2 emissions] now would be economically devastating particularly for developing countries…” (Singer, Revelle, & Starr, 1991)"

They also quote Yale economist and Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus, who wrote:

“…those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the cost and benefits…” (Nordhaus W. , 1990)"

Up until today, and not much has changed since, there are those in the "Al Gore" camp, convinced without evidence that rising CO2 levels will cause an impending catastrophe, and many in the science camp who never believed that. All the while, as science discovers more about our atmospherics, we find climate is less and less sensitive to CO2, or already saturated.

https://www.cfact.org/2020/09/26/study-suggests-no-more-co2-warming/

[ckil]

Electric cars aren’t clean — and it’s time the industry is honest about it




https://thenextweb.com/shift/2020/11/19 ... -about-it/

[Glacier]

Exploitation of children is wrong... unless you exploit them for a just cause... https://financialpost.com/opinion/opini ... d-soldiers

[The Green Barbarian]

Exploitation of children is wrong... unless you exploit them for a just cause... https://financialpost.com/opinion/opini ... d-soldiers

Yeah this is totally disgusting. Shame on whomever is using these children for such a sick and gross cause.

[cyruslosco66]

Texas to be the leader in renewables .

https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-powe ... 1606579200