How to argue with a global warming "skeptic"

science
#861

yes

no, infact I’m not judging the book, but the article posted above and its author.

#862

Well, it’s not like he’s trying to hustle his new book, after all. At any rate, not to worry. Readers of Vox have their “climate team” to rely on. And don’t worry, links to Vox content are done purely for similarly selfless reasons. :pray:

(By the way, Vox’s climate team has done a lot of great work on the tools we have to limit climate change. You can read more …)

#863
#864
#865
#866

"He perpetrated his fraud largely by failing to show up at the EPA for months at a time, including one 18-month stretch starting in June 2011 when he did “absolutely no work,”

wtf, hahahahaha, he didn’t work for 18 months in a row and no one noticed? how’s that even possible xD

“Beale, an NYU grad with a masters from Princeton, was earning a salary and bonuses of $206,000 a year”

So during those 18 months he looted 300000+$ of taxpayers money just for being alive…and no one in the whole agency noticed?? And he randomly claimed he was a CIA agent and everyone was like:“Yeah, sure, cool!” ??? HOW.

Then in 2012, after still being on the payroll 6 WHOLE MONTHS after his retirement party:“I thought he had already retired”

JUST. This would be a great plot for a comedy movie.

2 Likes
#867

They must not do much work to not notice. We should def give these people more money to save us from the end of the world.

#868

Yes pay yer taxes minions.

#869

I would be happy to put solar panels for energy instead of giving taxes to these retards. But of course the same gov makes me pay money for being on the grid even if I’m completely self sustaining in the US.

#870

I love the “logic” of climate change deniers. So this one guy being a fraud apparently casts doubt on the whole theory of human-caused global warming and the thousands of pieces of research on which it is based. Reminds me of this quote:

“The climate scientists have to be right 100% of the time… or their .01% error becomes Glaciergate, and they are frauds. By contrast, the deniers only have to be right .01% of the time for their narrative to be effective.”

Johann Hari

1 Like
#871

This article is a good read. I haven’t read all of it yet, nor do I agree with all of their assumptions that we could have stopped it at 1.5C (China and India and Asia’s rise…How to stop them emitting so much CO2 exactly), but I was pretty shocked that there was so much consensus in the late 1970s/ early 1980s that this was a big problem and well telegraphed to top of US govt. Also that it hadn’t become politicised yet.

#872

You are essentially saying the whole market should be completely deregulated as long as it is carbon neutral right ?
It makes sense in theory (although I have seen that there are complaints from power companies that say they can’t afford to keep maintaining the whole grid or back up power in such a situation and that changing the grid is very expensive ).

How would this work for a washing machine ?

How would it work for an industrial plant ?

#873

Sorry for the late response. Been off-grid for a while.

Not exactly. I’m saying solar, wind etc are fundamentally incompatible with the loads that we designed to be fuelled from coal and gas power plants.

Even the grid itself is ill-suited to the task of distributing power from renewable sources to consumers.

Solar energy is somewhere between one-tenth and one-half the price of the equivalent in fossil fuel, if the load is well-matched. If it isn’t, it appears much less cost-effective.

The goal, then, should be to achieve load matching. It’s not actually possible to do that without a complete infrastructure re-think, but demand billing is the cheapest, simplest way of getting you halfway there with the existing infrastructure.

The basic principle is to have your energy consumption driven by billing information from the power company.

Consider a fictitious microstate which is powered entirely from solar and has only a smallish battery capacity. Clearly, you would want consumers using as much energy as possible on sunny days (to ensure the panels are working at their maximum power point) and as little as possible at 3am (when PV output is zero and batteries are at low capacity).

What you do is this. Every home has a smart meter that receives current prices and projected future prices from the power company. PV output is quite easy to estimate over a future 24-hour window. Prices vary from minute to minute. A washing machine would contain some intelligence that (a) notifies the user of an estimated wash time with an anticipated low price, enabling you to load it up and (b) starts up automatically at your desired price point - of course, you could manually override the start time if the price never actually goes low enough.

Different consumers would have different personal priorities for washing clothes (and other uses of energy), so you wouldn’t get a sudden glut of appliances all switching on at the same time.

Remember, a household has many sorts of appliances. Aircon, for example, is inherently well-matched to PV output: all that’s required is for aircon units to be intelligent enough to crank their power output up or down according to power availability (as indicated by prices).

On very sunny days, prices might actually drop close to zero in order to squeeze the last bit of efficiency out of the PV arrays.

In the middle of the night, prices would rise enormously: only the people who really, really want to do their washing at 3am would accept paying $0.30/kWh.

Uber do something very similar with their trip prices, for similar reasons.

There are all sorts of ways The Market would adapt around this billing model. For example you’re probably familiar with storage heaters, which store energy when it’s cheap and release it (as heat) when it’s expensive. You could do the same thing with “coolth” in hot countries, storing energy as ice during the daytime and then releasing it at night. Ice-based aircon was very common during the early 20th century, and the technology could be easily revived.

Depends what it is. Some types of factory will have no option but to just pay whatever - but the point here is that the system as a whole will be so heavily optimized that the average price will be competitive with fossil fuels, or possibly lower.

Those factories which are able to crank their energy use up and down - for example, chemical plants which could theoretically adjust their batch sizes or holding times - would be able to introduce price/throughput tradeoffs and save some money.

4 Likes
#874

This is not posted to argue for or against the issue , but it is quite an interesting piece that looks at the issue from a different perspective . It covers other issues also but anyway , consider …or not :smile:

2 Likes
#875

Fred Smith would love this one:

I’m really not sure what to make of this.

The whole thing has apparently been kicked off by some kids who think it’s time to “do something” about Climate Change. Yeah, well, it was time to do that (arguably) 50 years ago or more, and nobody has yet come up with a viable something to actually do. It’s nice, in a way, to see schoolkids challenging authority, but their goals seem hazy at best, and there’s a big fug of victimhood over the whole thing.

AGW is really just one aspect of a whole slew of dysfunctional cultural memes - eg., the idea that man is of necessity engaged in an ongoing battle with nature - and it’s impossible to dissect out “climate change” as a clearly-defined problem which can be addressed by putting some solar panels on your Design and Technology project or writing an essay on the evils of fracking.

I suspect these kids are going to grow up into carbon copies of their elders, holding endless meetings and writing earnest reports about how Something Must Be Done and we should Think of the Children. But nobody will emerge - no business leader, no politician - who stands up and says, well people, here’s what we’re going to do about Climate Change, and it’s going to be fun, and we’re going to make a shitload of money from it.

3 Likes
#876

Issues around climate change are covered in both science and geography lessons in secondary school up to the age of 16, but students have said they want more.

Should have replied “fine, you will all be required to learn the calculus, formula and equations for proving and demonstrating the extent to which a gas acts as a warming (or cooling) gas”

1 Like
#877

I’m still waiting for all climate change to wipe out the retards. Still waiting for ocean levels to rise and submerge those climate alarmist sjws over at California. But it still hasn’t happened.

1 Like
#878

Oh man I need to read this . :sunglasses:

#879

Thanks interesting post.

#880

It’s probably been mentioned, but all this talk of climate change in the US from the green new dealers seems to never mention China and India. Of course, progressives don’t know or care about foreign policy (and the Dem candidates are displaying that daily on their campaign trails), but it’s still curious that all this anti-industry rhetoric is not aimed at a country like China, which produces more pollution than the US and EU combined. All the “change” seems to be aimed at the American people themselves.

It’s almost as if climate change is being pushed so that certain groups, like the UN, EU, Big Tech and “Progressives”, can benefit from it by enacting more policies to control what people can do.

3 Likes