"When President Obama launched today’s worldwide gush of green-energy subsidies in 2009, his allies in Congress added financing for a National Academy of Sciences study, which would later conclude, at a length of 198 pages, that such subsidies were a “poor tool for reducing greenhouse gases and achieving climate-change objectives.”
FJB doubled down and is fucking even more shit up.
"With deployments goosed by Obama-like handouts around the world, wind and solar still accounted for less than 2.4% of humanity’s total energy consumption. Their annual increase was still a small fraction of the annual increase in fossil-fuel consumption. They remain functionally additive to humanity’s energy budget, rather than displacing coal or oil on a global basis."
Let's turn the AC up a notch and just learn to live in a little warmer world, k?
There are 50 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted.
Fuck this country. How bout that.
Right now, we are as poor as Ethiopia. House poor, nevertheless, poor.
Political lawyers fucked it up. Why are all politicians lawyers anyway? Why is that a prerequisite?
We all know lawyers are scumbags right? As long as have licenses thieves making all the rules, we will always be in a world of shit.
EBOLISH THE IRS. EBOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
FJB. FDJT. FGBD FRDeshithead
There is NO worse way to solve the problem than tearing up the earth for EV's.
Typical stupid fucking Prog solution.
AND, even they know it...........more delusion
How do you spell .....oh, it's abolish not ebolish?
They both kind of mean the same.
You die from one and the other you kill it. See, not so stooopit after all
love the idiots singing the hymn of global warming and climate change
go to their fb page and you notice they are traveling all over the globe by jet airlines every other week... fukn hypocrites
if your gonna go with that agenda at least live your life accordingly instead of preaching to others.
idiots think cow farts are changing the climate, total idiots.
@GBD, you myopic dumb fuck. That is why Telsa has a market capitalization exceeding all other car companies combined. Rather than endlessly posting and hanging out on HX, you and your alter ego Seymour should actually get real jobs.
Ya gotta luv Squat, lol
Because Tesla is wildly over-valued because they're really in the business of selling carbon offsets, not cars..........Squat totally demolished my argument that EV's are a stupid way of fighting climate change.
Obviously, Squat is smarter than the National Academy of Sciences
These are things that the government fixed when listening to the scientists. We have yet to allow the experts to implement changes to combat climate change. We just all sit back do nothing and say a prayer like mass shootings.
"We have yet to allow the experts to implement changes to combat climate change. We just all sit back do nothing and say a prayer like mass shootings."
Holy fuck! Is this guy actually challenging the Dood for dumbest fuck on HX?
It's nip and tuck here, lol.
Oh yeah, we just need to unleash the "experts"......the experts have been saying for more than 20 years to use "carbon pricing". Did FJB do that in the Inflation Reduction Act???? You seen a Dem or Rep vote for it yet???
We have yet to allow the 'experts' to implement changes to combat global warming...
I sure hope these 'experts' are smarter than the 'experts' who told us NOT to use ivermectin for COVID, it was a Pandemic of the unvaccinated, and we need to lock down at all costs.
Seems someone is already hot off the presses with a book which attributes the Maui fires to global warming.
There's also conspiracy theorists questioning the aftermath of the fire. Not going to feed that too much other than to say the origin of the fires seems suspect to some.
The whole point of this blog is NOT to deny climate change or anything.
It's to point out that Progressives ALWAYS do the dumbest thing they possibly can to enrich their friends and further destroy both the environment and the economy.
The Inflation Reduction Act was touted at $700 billion but turns out, according to OMB, will likely be closer to $2.8 trillion by pushing all the stupid EV crap...........AND, will actually INCREASE carbon usage.
Fucking dumb as fuck.
Just look at what Rod posts every time and you know that their brains are boiled cauliflower.
I coordinated a series of public presentations by climate scientists in 2003 & 2004. Pretty much every one of them had the same error in their presentations about the impact of climate change. One predicted a great western mega drought that would encompass portions of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington. Another predicted extreme weather events that would include stronger storms, extended heat waves, and disruption of the Jet Stream. A guy from Scripps Institute of Oceanography said we would see rapid melting of glaciers and polar ice. Another said to expect more wildfires, larger wildfires, and a longer fire season. One researcher predicted over $200 billion on damage annually related to climate change.
The one mistake they all made was predicting that these things would all start happening by 2035. Just about everything they predicted is already happening.
“The Inflation Reduction Act was touted at $700 billion but turns out, according to OMB, will likely be closer to $2.8 trillion by pushing all the stupid EV crap...........AND, will actually INCREASE carbon usage. “
Just pains me that I have to respond to this dipshit.
EV cars carbon footprint is at least half from a traditional combustion engine car. More than 2/3 of a gas SUV or truck. Yes the way we produce electricity matters. Shit the down the god damn coal plants. We can’t keep producing electricity like this.
EVs in the long run will be good for the climate but we need change in the energy producing sector too. This is putting fried chicken and cheese on top of your salad.
You cannot say the lettuce is bad for you. Eliminate the bad part of the salad.
Electric buses get billions in federal aid. A top maker just went bankrupt.
Proterra helped to kickstart the transition to battery-powered buses, but as federal aid arrives, the company has struggled with inflation and supply-chain disruptions
It might seem like a great time to be in the battery-powered bus business: Transit agencies across the country are switching to the pricey, zero-emission models, and the Biden administration is pouring billions of dollars into the effort, aiming to get polluting diesel engines off the street.
Anybody thinking about where they're gonna dispose of all the batteries??
We have that trillion dollar cave in the Nevada desert that was supposed to store nuclear waste. Looks like that is not happening. Store all the bad shit there.
Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a Hoax
Here to much to read;
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.
Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations aren't based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen wrote.None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.
All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.
Climate models such as the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. To illustrate his point, he presented the EPA with a table showing the difference between those models' predictions and the observed data.
Slope Font Rectangle Line Parallel
Modeled climate predictions (average shown by red line) versus actual observations (source: J.R. Christy, Univ. of Alabama; KNMI Climate Explorer)
That was already an embarrassment in the 90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy, he said. I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.
He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.
Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what's called the major questions doctrine, that the EPA doesn't have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous effect on Americans without clear direction from Congress. However, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen have taken a different tack, arguing that because the EPA regulations are arbitrary and capricious,they fail a test laid out in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
Time and again, courts have applied State Farms principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion, they wrote.
According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzens testimony, 600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.
They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher temperatures and levels of CO2 than are observed today, with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are at a low point historically.
Font Rectangle Slope Parallel Pattern
This chart shows CO2 levels (blue) and temperatures (red) over time, indicating little correlation and current levels of both at historic lows. (Source: Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras by Dr. C. R. Scotese; Earth's Climate: Past and Future by Mark Peganini; Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleocene, Science magazine vol. 309.)
The often highly emphasized 140 [parts per million] increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth,they wrote.
The scientists' testimony to the EPA also stated that the agency's emissions rules fail to consider that CO2 and fossil fuels are essential to life on earth, particularly human life.
Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas, they wrote. Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and a benign warming in temperature.
Rectangle Slope Plot Font Parallel
Synthetic fertilizers (dotted line) have increased crop yields dramatically since their introduction. (Source: crop yields from USDA; fertilizer usage from Food Agriculture Organization).
More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more plant growth and higher farming yields, they said. Synthetic fertilizers, which are derivatives of natural gas, are responsible for nearly half the worlds food production today. Net zero goals would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 40 gigatons per year, reducing the food supply proportionally, according to the scientists.
Product Slope Font Line Rectangle
The world's population is increasingly dependent on synthetic fertilizers, a derivative of fossil fuels. (Source: ourworldindata.org)
In addition to disregarding the benefits of CO2, they stated, the EPAs emission rules and the global warming narrative that has been used to justify them are based on flawed data.
In addition to teaching physics at Princeton, Mr. Happers decades of work in physics have focused on atmospheric radiation and atmospheric turbulence, and his inventions have been used by astronomers and in national defense.
Radiation in the atmosphere is my specialty, Mr. Happer said, and I know more about it than, I would guess, any climate scientists.
His expertise involves much of the same physics thats involved in climate, and none of it is very alarming, he said.
The global warming narrative argues that as people burn fossil fuels, they emit higher concentrations of carbon dioxide into the earths atmosphere, which creates a greenhouse effect, trapping the suns radiation and warming the earth.
But one aspect of CO2 emissions that global warming models fail to take into account, according to Mr. Happer, is a phenomenon called saturation, or the diminishing effect of CO2 in the atmosphere at higher concentrations.
At the current concentrations of CO2, around 400 parts per million, it decreases the radiation to space by about 30 percent, compared to what you would have if you took it all away, he said. So thats enough to cause quite a bit of warming of the earth, and thank God for that; it helps make the earth habitable, along with the effects of water vapor and clouds.
But if you could double the amount of CO2 from 400 to 800, and that will take a long time, the amount that you decrease radiation to space is only 1 percent. Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space. Thats whats called saturation, and its been well-known for a century.
Rectangle Slope Plot Font Parallel
The "greenhouse effect" of additional CO2 doesn't increase in proportion to the amount of CO2 added (source: William Happer).
In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations. In some cases, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the climate change narrative.
The most striking example of that is the temperature record, Mr. Happer said. If you look at the temperature records that were published 20 years ago, they showed very clearly that in the United States by far the warmest years we had were during the mid-1930s.
AFMadness, your source is The Epoch Times. They regularly promote conspiracy theories including anti-vax, QAnon and the lies of a stolen election in 2020.
Interesting, which media outlet is unbiased ? The Epoch Times was the first to say the virus came from a lab in Wuhan.
The same lab that Wuhan-based virologist Shi Zhengli was working.
Shi Zhengli has identified dozens of deadly SARS-like viruses in bat caves, and she warns there are more out there. Did she help engineer the virus?
Professors from Princeton and MIT just might have some credibility ?
The virologist, Shi Zhengli, said in a rare interview that speculation about her lab in Wuhan was baseless. But China’s habitual secrecy makes her claims hard to validate.
"Just pains me that I have to respond to this dipshit."
Wouldn't it be better if you didn't embarrass yourself by posting at all???
All you did was give us YOUR opinion on what EV's will do with NO analysis by any outside reputable source...........essentially creating, in your words, a very large shit sandwich.......with extra shit.
Bottom line, as usual, is a Progressive (that's you) is delusional in thinking that EV's will be anything but a fractional rounding error in the decarbonization effort.......in other words, you present quite clearly as the "dipshit" in this discussion.
Try and do some independent thinking, look at the data and don't be quite so partisan. We appear to have an issue hear that could be solved..........but not by tearing up the planet looking for resources that our imbecilic Administration immediately places off limits if it happens to be located in the US........making us EVEN more dependent on outside bad actors.
This is NOT rocket science, so be a good Prog...............eat your shit sandwich, then come back when you got your head straight.
).gif)
