Fossil fuel industries have a large quiver full of strategies to lure us away from the truth

[jc456]

The government will not pay for my Tesla or my solar panels. They might chip in, but that is still a substantial out of pocket expense. I couldn't afford it. But I'm too old to get a thirty year loan.

If they chip in literally that’s paying you for it

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Let's see. 116 in Portland, Oregon in June of this year. 121 in Lytton, BC at the same time, the next day the whole village burned. Huge fires on every continent but Antarctica. Major flooding on every continent save Antarctica. Rain on the highest point of Greenland this year, first time in recorded history.

View attachment 542406

2020 ends earth’s warmest 10 years on record

The latest data confirms 2020 concludes the earth’s warmest 10-year period on record.

www.metoffice.gov.uk

And the worst is yet to come.

Where are the freezing temperatures of the 70s in this chart? Did you think we forgot the predictions of catastrophic global cooling? The chart is fake. Climate change is a hoax.

 

[jc456]

Where are the freezing temperatures of the 70s in this chart? Did you think we forgot the predictions of catastrophic global cooling? The chart is fake. Climate change is a hoax.

It is old socks

 

[elektra]

The Truth????

That creating, The Renewable Heavy Industry. The largest polluting toxic industry the World has ever built will save us??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For the umpteenth time, there are no proofs in the natural sciences.
There are, however, mountains of evidence accumulated by thousands and thousands of scientists from all over the world that support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. If you'd care to have a look, go to www.ipcc.ch and find "The Physical Science Basis" within each of the IPCC's Assessment Reports (that would be numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6).

IPCC? Why is that so familiar? Oh, yeah!

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

 

[surada]

I just told you that those EXXON documents turned out to be FAR more accurate than the IPCC after 30 years.. They were great science. And they had NOTHING invented in them to appeal to public fear like "all positive feedbacks", trigger temps, and accelerated nonsense of the CATASTROPHIC warming theorists.

SO WHERE WAS the LIE GoldiRocks??

Exxon has spent billions on research to reduce emissions... So has Saudi ARAMCO.

 

[ding]

Exxon has spent billions on research to reduce emissions... So has Saudi ARAMCO.

And yet they produce products that are intended to be burned.

 

[Crick]

The Truth????

That creating, The Renewable Heavy Industry. The largest polluting toxic industry the World has ever built will save us??

What does that have to do wth the climate science fool?

 

[elektra]

What does that have to do wth the climate science fool?

What impact on the climate does the world's largest heavy industry have? We are speaking of the climate, and you claim that the solution is to build more.

You are the fool, you promote the renewable heavy industry as a solution to your science.

I laugh at your science because when your science fails your scientific solution is, "build bigger", "build more".

 

[flacaltenn]

Exxon has spent billions on research to reduce emissions... So has Saudi ARAMCO.

Yeah they have. But THEIR emissions isn't the larger problem. We haven't built a new refinery in this country for about 60 years NOW -- and THERE is the larger emissions that COULD be fixed with newer technology.

Same thing with coal plants. Lack of maintenance to the scrubbing systems because to GET A PERMIT for maintenance -- you need to comply with the phony CO2 emissions standards that MIGHT BE MET with ADVANCED scrubbers required by the permit -- but no thinking person wants to INVEST THAT MUCH in an 60 or 90 yr old coal plant.

 

[Crick]

Yeah they have. But THEIR emissions isn't the larger problem. We haven't built a new refinery in this country for about 60 years NOW -- and THERE is the larger emissions that COULD be fixed with newer technology.

Same thing with coal plants. Lack of maintenance to the scrubbing systems because to GET A PERMIT for maintenance -- you need to comply with the phony CO2 emissions standards that MIGHT BE MET with ADVANCED scrubbers required by the permit -- but no thinking person wants to INVEST THAT MUCH in an 60 or 90 yr old coal plant.

1) Please explain in what way, you believe, CO2 emissions standards are "phony".
2) What do you believe should be done with aging coal fired plants that don't get needed maintenance?

 

[flacaltenn]

1) Please explain in what way, you believe, CO2 emissions standards are "phony".
2) What do you believe should be done with aging coal fired plants that don't get needed maintenance?

Surprised that you have NO CLUE about #1. When the EPA declared that a gas coming out of your nose and mouth was a POLLUTANT in order to have the AUTHORITY to legislate CO2 from an agency level -- they OVERSTEPPED their bounds of their authority. CO2 is NOT "carbon". And CO2 is no more of a pollutant than water vapor (the predominant GH gas) is. Do they have the authority to regulate water vapor?

U.S. Supreme Court rules EPA overstepped in climate regulation

In a 6 to 3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court said the Environmental Protection Agency did not have authority to set limits on carbon emissions.

www.houstonchronicle.com

As for #2 -- I wouldn't be sad to stop generating electricity from coal. But MY approval is conditioned by the leftist eco nags overcoming their objections to a crash program to expand/extend the fielding of a MEANINGFUL number of reactor sites. You DONT DO THIS with no ACTUAL VIABLE REPLACEMENTS or with the falsely named "alternatives" of wind/solar.

Turns out even the godfather of GW -- James Hansen -- is a powerful advocate of that position and he has the SUPPORT of most of the REAL environmentalists (like myself) on the issue.

 

[Crick]

Surprised that you have NO CLUE about #1.

I have lots of clues. But when you put out an ambiguous statement I think the place to start is by asking you to clarify.

When the EPA declared that a gas coming out of your nose and mouth was a POLLUTANT in order to have the AUTHORITY to legislate CO2 from an agency level -- they OVERSTEPPED their bounds of their authority.

Does the EPA have the AUTHORITY to regulate where your urine and feces go? Yes. And why is that? Because your urine and feces represent a hazard to the health of others. So does carbon dioxide. And nothing in the EPA regs suggested that they wanted to regulate human respiration products. SCOTUS this past June also concluded that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide if Congress specifically gave them that authority, so it is not out of the question.

CO2 is NOT "carbon". And CO2 is no more of a pollutant than water vapor (the predominant GH gas) is. Do they have the authority to regulate water vapor?

CO2 is much more of a pollutant than is water vapor. CO2 does not precipitate under conditions on this planet. Water does. The lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere is in centuries. Water is days. But if someone came up with some process that could put significant amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere and keep it there, I would very much like the EPA to regulate it.

U.S. Supreme Court rules EPA overstepped in climate regulation

In a 6 to 3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court said the Environmental Protection Agency did not have authority to set limits on carbon emissions.

www.houstonchronicle.com

As for #2 -- I wouldn't be sad to stop generating electricity from coal. But MY approval is conditioned by the leftist eco nags overcoming their objections to a crash program to expand/extend the fielding of a MEANINGFUL number of reactor sites. You DONT DO THIS with no ACTUAL VIABLE REPLACEMENTS or with the falsely named "alternatives" of wind/solar.

Turns out even the godfather of GW -- James Hansen -- is a powerful advocate of that position and he has the SUPPORT of most of the REAL environmentalists (like myself) on the issue.

I also support an increase in nuclear power, but why make one dependent on the other? That looks quite a lot like shooting yourself in the foot out of spite. As long as the power demand is met by something that isn't worse than coal, coal plants should be shuttered.

 

[ding]

Does the EPA have the AUTHORITY to regulate where your urine and feces go? Yes.

Which congressional act authorized them to do that?

 

[ding]

CO2 is much more of a pollutant than is water vapor. CO2 does not precipitate under conditions on this planet. Water does. The lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere is in centuries. Water is days. But if someone came up with some process that could put significant amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere and keep it there, I would very much like the EPA to regulate it.

The EPA’s determination that CO2 is a pollutant was only done to piggyback on the Clean Air Act and do an end run around the constitution.

If you want a climate act, you actually have to pass a climate act.

 

[flacaltenn]

Does the EPA have the AUTHORITY to regulate where your urine and feces go? Yes. And why is that? Because your urine and feces represent a hazard to the health of others. So does carbon dioxide. And nothing in the EPA regs suggested that they wanted to regulate human respiration products. SCOTUS this past June also concluded that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide if Congress specifically gave them that authority, so it is not out of the question.

Carbon Dioxide is NOT A POLLUTANT. NOT feces or urine. You exhale at about 8 times the atmospheric concentration. Nice try.

Yes -- Congress would have to BE THE MORONS that call CO2 "a pollutant". Or make the case that the EPA can decide how many cows are allowed or PEOPLE for that matter. Realize that TERMITES are the #2 CO2 polluting creatures besides US. Their output of CO2 is larger than a dozen Western countries.

CO2 is much more of a pollutant than is water vapor. CO2 does not precipitate under conditions on this planet. Water does. The lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere is in centuries. Water is days.

Water vapor, residency times aside counts for 70 or 80% of the greenhouse effect. ITS DOMINANT. And constantly there because of the larger volume of exchange. And an argument could be made that all those factory stacks -- which are INCREASINGLY mostly H2O vapor -- need to be controlled. Or that urban/suburban DEVELOPMENT which REDUCES the ground water storage and INCREASES evaporation similarly needs to be regulated "as a pollutant".

 

[Crick]

Carbon Dioxide is NOT A POLLUTANT.

Carbon dioxide produced at rates exceeding its consumption; at rates that lead to an increase in atmospheric levels, are a pollutant.

NOT feces or urine.

This is not a valid sentence. My point was that the government has the legal authority to regulate what happens to our biological waste products. CO2 is a biological waste product.

You exhale at about 8 times the atmospheric concentration. Nice try.

Nice try at what?

Yes -- Congress would have to BE THE MORONS that call CO2 "a pollutant". Or make the case that the EPA can decide how many cows are allowed or PEOPLE for that matter. Realize that TERMITES are the #2 CO2 polluting creatures besides US. Their output of CO2 is larger than a dozen Western countries.

I'm simply repeating what SCOTUS said - to point out that their decision was not based on any Constitutional finding re CO2, pollution and the EPA. I am not making the case that the EPA should be allowed to determine population limits making this a blatantly obvious strawman argument.

Water vapor, residency times aside counts for 70 or 80% of the greenhouse effect.
ITS DOMINANT. And constantly there because of the larger volume of exchange. And an argument could be made that all those factory stacks -- which are INCREASINGLY mostly H2O vapor -- need to be controlled. Or that urban/suburban DEVELOPMENT which REDUCES the ground water storage and INCREASES evaporation similarly needs to be regulated "as a pollutant".

I am not arguing the greenhouse forcing from water vapor. I am pointing out that as a precipitable component it's atmospheric levels cannot be altered by simply adding or removing it artificially. It is naturally regulated by global temperatures. So, H2O emissions do NOT need to be regulated. CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and polyfluorochlorocabons do.

 

[flacaltenn]

Carbon dioxide produced at rates exceeding its consumption; at rates that lead to an increase in atmospheric levels, are a pollutant.

Your body sheds it at 6 to 8 TIMES atmos conc. Ergo -- you are a pollutant.

This is not a valid sentence. My point was that the government has the legal authority to regulate what happens to our biological waste products. CO2 is a biological waste product.

Uhmmm NO !!!!! CO2 is not "biological" at all. Three grueling quarters of Organic Chemisty taught me that.

I am not arguing the greenhouse forcing from water vapor.

Then why did ya previously DISMISS my statement that water vapor by the SAME construct as CO2 -- should ALSO "be a pollutant?

Let's take your own statement from above and try my comparison.

Carbon dioxide produced at rates exceeding its consumption; at rates that lead to an increase in atmospheric levels, are a pollutant.

Water vapor produced at rates exceeding "its consumption" at rates that lead to an increase in atmospheric levels, are a pollutant.

And the examples I GAVE YOU before show man-made sources of INCREASED shedding of water vapor to the atmosphere.


By YOUR OWN definition -- there's really no difference. Other than similar volumes of man-made gas ---- WATER vapor will have a MUCH BIGGER short term effect. (months to a decade).

 

[skookerasbil]

Another dUd thread...

Nobody cares...



Leftist Germany Sees Green Push Wrecked by Russia Energy Shortages

 

[Crick]

Nobody cares...

I can fully understand how it looks like that from your point of view. Fortunately, your point of view is essentially unique.