Climate Hypocrisy
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
It may be a mandatory implementation, but what's to stop people from unplugging when it's fully charged?
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut 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 are not 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 stated. “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,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.
www.theepochtimes.com
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 are not 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 stated. “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,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.
Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’
Two climate scientists say new EPA rules to cut CO2 emissions “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”
Biden Says ‘In Practice’ He’s Declared a National Climate Emergency
This potential massive overreach and abuse of government power would have no scientific foundation, given that global warming and increased carbon dioxide emissions do not endanger the nation or the world and that they have not been and will not be harmful.
Biden continually refers to global warming and increased carbon dioxide emissions as an “existential threat.” But as recently pointed out by Steven Koonin, New York University physicist and undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy during the Obama administration, Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers recently admitted that the warming of the planet and increased CO2 emissions will have at most “only minimal effect” on long-term economic growth.
The scientific facts instead show that global warming and increased CO2 emissions over the past century not only have not caused harm but that they have saved and will continue to save millions of lives and otherwise be beneficial.
In May 2015, the British medical journal the Lancet published a study by 22 scientists from around the world. They examined “the largest dataset ever collected to assess temperature–health associations,” over 74 million deaths in 1985–2012 in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They found that cooler temperatures caused over 17 times more deaths than warmer temperatures.
In July 2021, the Lancet published another study that similarly reported that cooler temperatures killed nine times more people than warmer temperatures.
Whether it’s nine times or 17 times more, these studies show that as the planet has warmed by 1.05 degrees Celsius on average since 1880 (as calculated by NASA), warmer temperatures have been saving millions of lives.
It is these kinds of facts that in 2017 led more than 300 scientists, including Richard Lindzen of MIT and William Happer of Princeton, to sign a statement attesting that a quarter century of observations “show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign.” The CO2 that each of us exhales with every breath “is not a pollutant,” they stated. “To the contrary, there is clear evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful to food crops and other plants that nourish all life. It is plant food, not poison.”
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
Wasn't the "mini ice age" during that time? So of course, the temp could only have gone up from there. But it was so depressed that a rise would bring temps back up to "normal", if you can even define normal anymore.
Edit: Little Ice Age was from 1300 to about 1850, and dropped the global temps by as much as 2*C. Far more than the 1*C rise, and was thought to have been caused by volcanic and atmospheric changes.
Last edited:
When the Chesapeake froze over, you'd have thought there were Wooly Mammoths on their way to Washington from all the hysteria on the news.
Images Of The Chesapeake On Ice
Images of the Chesapeake on Ice | Chesapeake Bay Magazine
For some of us, the recent deep freeze is an opportunity to observe nature as we rarely get to see it. For others, like Maryland’s Natural Resources Police and the U.S. Coast Guard, it’s a threat to…
chesapeakebaymagazine.com
Can the Chesapeake Bay ever freeze over?
It can and it has. In fact, the Chesapeake Bay has been documented as freezing over in winter months a good seven times since 1780 says Chesapeake Bay Magazine. The last time the surface of the Bay froze over was in the brutal winter of 1976-77, when roughly 85 percent of the Bay and its rivers and streams formed ice.
Top Five Things You Always Wondered About Bay Winters
Just how exactly do things change on the Bay during the winter season, and more importantly, why? Here are answers to some of those burning questions you’ve always had but never asked about wintertime on the Chesapeake.
www.cbf.org
Letting Grizzlies Terrorize Ranchers Is Climate Crazies’ Next Anti-Civilization Crusade
A Grisly Threat
However remarkable, the grizzly comeback presents a threat to livestock and humans. In 2021, Montana paid out $340,000 to compensate ranchers for livestock kills, mostly from grizzlies, up from $261,000 in 2019, according to High Country News. In Wyoming, state officials reported that captures and relocations of problematic bears almost doubled from 2020 to 2021. The bears’ recovery has created a nuisance for rural landowners now dealing with grizzlies encroaching on their land and ravaging livestock.Mary Thoman and her family have been ranching in southwestern Wyoming for decades. Six years ago, Thoman and her team sold off grazing allotments in the Bridger-Teton National Forest over myriad issues related to the grizzlies. When asked what kinds of problems she faced with grizzlies, Thoman was almost overwhelmed, “I can’t even begin to tell you.” Put simply, “it was a nightmare.”
“When we were in the forest it was every night,” she said, that she saw grizzly activity threaten livestock. One of Thoman’s herders was even attacked at night. He survived, she said, while qualifying the experience as “traumatic.”
Worse than the bears, Thoman added, was the “bureaucracy.” The Forest Service began implementing constant rule changes delivered in the name of grizzly protection. Once Thoman complied with one order, she’d be hit with another, and then another and another, whether it had to do with fencing, food storage, and camp cleanliness. “Everything that we did voluntarily, they started making it a mandate.”
Thoman was even compelled to order GPS devices to prove she was compliant with the requirements to move fencing every night. The grizzly population in the national forest, she said, was “totally saturated.” Even though Thoman is no longer “surrounded by 10 grizzlies every night,” the bears have started moving south near where she lives in Sweetwater County.
Protections Remain
Last year, public comments recommended that officials with the National Park Service reintroduce wolves to Maryland and Virginia, states surrounding the District of Columbia, to control the local deer population. But, of course, officials from the park service, which is headquartered in D.C., dismissed the suggestion, citing risks to pets and children.While the Department of the Interior was quick to keep wolves out of Washington, the Biden administration has been slow to act on grizzlies terrorizing ranchers and livestock. The Fish and Wildlife Service began to review the endangered status of grizzlies in Wyoming and Montana two years into the administration.
In the meantime, radical environmentalists are engaged in a campaign to protect dangerous bears and let them multiply and spread across rural America. In May, a coalition of 31 conservation groups also sent letters to the Biden administration and congressional lawmakers urging federal officials to keep grizzlies listed as endangered.
“Long-term funding for electric fencing, carcass removal programs, range riders, and other measures can reduce depredation and protect livestock producers,” they wrote to the Interior secretary.
But in her interview with The Federalist, Thoman said efforts to comply with existing regulations by the Forest Service were “almost impossible.”
Despite reaching their bear recovery goals, congressional Democrats and allied environmental groups are fighting efforts to lift protections. Recent efforts to delist grizzlies have been blocked by serial litigation while Democrats continue to block delisting efforts on Capitol Hill. When the Trump administration tried to delist the bears in 2017, a federal judge blocked the move.
These 14 American Cities Have A ‘Target’ Of Banning Meat, Dairy, And Private Vehicles By 2030
Fourteen major American cities are part of a globalist climate organization known as the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group,” which has an “ambitious target” by the year 2030 of “0 kg [of] meat consumption,” “0 kg [of] dairy consumption,” “3 new clothing items per person per year,” “0 private vehicles” owned, and “1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person.”
C40’s dystopian goals can be found in its “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report, which was published in 2019 and reportedly reemphasized in 2023. The organization is headed and largely funded by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Nearly 100 cities across the world make up the organization, and its American members include Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.
Media coverage of C40 Cities’ goals has been relatively sparse. The few media personalities and news outlets who have discussed it have been heavily attacked by the corporate “fact-checkers.” In a “fact check” aimed at conservative commentator Glenn Beck, AFP Fact Check claimed that the banning of meat and dairy and limits on air travel and clothing consumption were actually “not policy recommendations.”
AFP quotes a paragraph from the original “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” report, which reads, “This report does not advocate for the wholesale adoption of these more ambitious targets in C40 cities; rather, they are included to provide a set of reference points that cities, and other actors, can reflect on when considering different emission-reduction alternatives and long-term urban visions.”
But this paragraph, likely included in the report as a liability in the case of pushback, seems to directly contradict the meaning of “target,” which in this context can be defined as a “desired goal.” The target of eliminating meat, dairy, and private vehicles by 2030 is “based on a future vision of resource-efficient production and extensive changes in consumer choices,” the report notes — something its authors clearly hope to bring about. If these were not their goals, they would not have labeled them “ambitious targets.”
The “fact-checker’s” insistence that C40 Cities’ explicitly stated climate goals are somehow insincere is even more unconvincing, given that we are watching them start to unfold right now. This year, in lockstep with C40 Cities’ 2030 aims, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that the city will place caps on the amount of meat and dairy served by city institutions, such as schools and prisons. Meanwhile, the U.K. has banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles after 2030, and France has banned short-haul flights “to cut carbon emissions.”
In 2020, the World Economic Forum (which promotes C40 Cities on its website) introduced “The Great Reset,” which seeks to use the Covid-19 pandemic as a point from which to launch a global reset of society to supposedly combat climate change. This reset, however, has far more to do with social control than it does with the climate. If globalist leaders truly cared about the environment, they wouldn’t be chartering private jets or owning massive, energy-consuming mansions on the coast in California, which, by climate fanatics’ own calculation, will soon be underwater.
As the WEF plainly stated in a 2016 promotional video, by 2030 “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”
Right now, hedge funds and private billionaires are buying up residential homes and farmland all over the world. At the same time, unrealistic zero-emissions policies are impoverishing Westerners and annihilating the middle class, which is fueling reliance on centralized government. Such intentional steps backward also, ironically, harm the earth because wealthier nations are proven to have cleaner environments and put less strain on natural resources.
Climate activists are also advocating for “climate lockdowns,” in the same way there were Covid lockdowns. Ideas floated for a climate lockdown have ranged from shuttering people in their homes and restricting air travel to providing a Universal Basic Income and introducing a maximum income level.
Climate dystopianism doesn’t end there. WEF-linked “bioethicist” Dr. Matthew Liao has proposed the idea of scientists genetically modify humans to be allergic to meat. Liao has also discussed shrinking the physical size of humans via eugenics or hormone injections so they consume fewer resources.
Is climate change next excuse for not returning to workplace? One news outlet championed question
Business Insider interviewed a woman under the alias "Rachel," who told the outlet a job she voluntarily took is "forcing her" to appear in-office rather than work remotely. This "environmental impact of her new routine," the article reads, has made her resentful. The job requires her to commute to its Silver Spring, Maryland, office at least two days a week, purportedly 30 to 40 minutes each way.
"I get kind of furious when I drive to work and see the road choked with traffic," she told the outlet, saying it’s "incredibly harmful to the environment" and that offices "generate so much waste, like paper and plastic cups and utensils."
The piece goes on to describe the "commuting cost" and other negative environmental consequences often attributed to in-office work. At the end, Rachel said she believes "we go in [to work] because our CEO likes to have people to talk to."
Clem72
Well-Known Member
There's a 400w Renogy solar kit on sale on Amazon today for $50, comes with cables and a 30 amp controller. One of these, 8 of the 100w ecoworthy panels ($62 a piece) plus a deep discharge maint free battery (around $100 at walmart) and a 2kw inverter ($100) and you would have grid-free level 1 charging for for less than $1k. Doesn't sound like much, but if you drive like I do and average about 100 miles a week you might never have to pay for electricity for that EV. Provided there is sun.
These links show the full price, but if you click they will show the current sales price.
Amazon product
Amazon product
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
I built myself a solar charger and have about 1500w of panels with a 300Ah LiFePO4 battery. Not to mention that the Aptera has 700w of solar cells built into the roof, hood and tailgate for an estimated 40 miles/day charge, and they are indicating external solar panels will be able to be directly connected to the Aptera.
If and when I ever get one, I'll never have to charge it from the grid, except maybe on a trip longer than 400 miles, which is the expected range of the battery pac I have requested.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
That aptera seems to be quoting about 2x the normal mileage estimates per kwh of charge, but given the specifics of the car it's probably accurate. Unfortunately I have no frontage suitable for solar of any kind otherwise I would probably be off-grid right now. I priced out a 10kw DIY kit a few years ago and figured I could install everything for less than the cost to clear the trees to get light on the panels.
But someday I will move, and when I do I will have a detached garage that is off-grid and will trickle charge my chapo EV that is used for my minimal driving.
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
Primarily based on the wind resistance factors. It has a wind resistance profile so low that wind tunnel experts thought their equipment was malfunctioning.
And that's why I hope this car comes to fruition. It's not just an electric car. It uses environment-friendly components. Non-rust frame and body with a lifetime exceeding our children's children. Body wrap, no paint which is far better for the environment and much much lower cost to produce. Incredibly low wind resistance increasing the range dramatically. Right to Repair. And it looks like nothing else on the road.
LED lightbulbs may be hazardous to your health
LED bulbs differ from other lightbulbs in spectral composition. They emit brighter, bluer light in shorter wavelengths, into a smaller emission area. They also rapidly flicker on and off, which is referred to as temporal light modulation. For most people, this flickering is not consciously perceptible. But our brains notice it, which can result in headaches, eye strain, eye fatigue and decreased visual performance — without even realizing that these symptoms could be connected to the LED light near us.
Some research suggests that exposure to the blue light found in LEDs is phototoxic and can induce damage in retinal cells, which can lead to vision problems, speed up aging of our eyes and lead to macular degeneration.
Light should allow our eyes to see visual images clearly. But LEDs can produce glare, which makes it more difficult for our eyes to see the objects around us, causing things to look blurry. Trying to refocus our eyes can cause discomfort and eye fatigue.
LEDs are all around us — from overhead lighting, to table lamps, to the backlighting on tablets and phones. Even a small amount of blue light from these sources in the evening can inhibit melatonin production and disrupt our circadian rhythm. Thousands of articles have examined the effect of light on circadian rhythm. LED exposure can delay or prevent us from falling asleep, and degrades the quality of our sleep.
The Energy Department’s rule also ignores other environmental impacts of LEDs. They contribute to greater light pollution, which negatively affects bird navigation, sea-turtle mating and the survival of beneficial insects that rely on nighttime darkness. Compared to compact fluorescent bulbs, LEDs are mercury free, but they do contain arsenic and lead, which researchers suggest carry a higher toxicity potential. LEDs also cause significantly more natural resource depletion than incandescent bulbs, leading some scientists to assert that we should reconsider labeling them as environmentally friendly.
This rule is not simply updating “outdated and wasteful technology,” but rather a decision that reflects a narrow focus on reducing energy consumption while disregarding the full scope of potential public health concerns. The Energy Department should consider revising the rule accordingly.
Button up Your Overcoat
By Tom AndersonThe idea that carbon dioxide (CO2) drives global warming or “climate change” now enjoys unquestioned authority and near universal approval. As burgeoning public policy, nationally and in some states, it is seeping into what once were private matters of choice (e.g., light bulbs, kitchen cooktops). Many scientists, primarily physicists, consider the belief pure supposition, however, and colossally off track.
John Stuart Mill observed in chapter six of his System of Logic, on ratiocination or logical thinking, that a doctrine may endure because inferences from it lead to ostensibly sound conclusions -- while belief in the doctrine’s truth may exist only by excluding evidence it is false.
Evidence is that CO2 is overall a coolant. First, it radiates incoming solar energy and outgoing terrestrial heat away to space. This is visible as cooling in satellite images not only of Earth but also of Mars and Venus, climate change’s orbiting poster child.
It is an “infrared radiation active” gas, absorbing and emitting radiant energy from the sun -- but not the entire spectrum. Like any molecule, it absorbs only “spectral bands” (beams) of solar energy (sunlight) that “resonate” with its “quantum number,” a measure of the energetic space between its nucleus and electron rings as developed by Max Planck and Albert Einstein in the early 20th Century.
John Stuart Mill observed in chapter six of his System of Logic, on ratiocination or logical thinking, that a doctrine may endure because inferences from it lead to ostensibly sound conclusions -- while belief in the doctrine’s truth may exist only by excluding evidence it is false.
Evidence is that CO2 is overall a coolant. First, it radiates incoming solar energy and outgoing terrestrial heat away to space. This is visible as cooling in satellite images not only of Earth but also of Mars and Venus, climate change’s orbiting poster child.
It is an “infrared radiation active” gas, absorbing and emitting radiant energy from the sun -- but not the entire spectrum. Like any molecule, it absorbs only “spectral bands” (beams) of solar energy (sunlight) that “resonate” with its “quantum number,” a measure of the energetic space between its nucleus and electron rings as developed by Max Planck and Albert Einstein in the early 20th Century.
Biden energy chief claims wiping out 60% of oil imports will help, not harm, energy security
One of the most common critiques of Biden’s green agenda is that it has thus far achieved the opposite of energy security. Regulators claimed in May that more than 66% of the country is vulnerable to summer blackouts because of “new environmental rules” cracking down on fossil fuels.
The regulators explained that the government is causing a spike in energy demand at a pace faster than renewables can match.
Widespread concerns about national security have also come into question under Biden’s transition, since much of the materials for renewables like wind and solar are sourced from China.
Center for Industrial Progress President and founder Alex Epstein wrote that "Joe Biden's escalating bans on domestic fossil fuel production, combined with mandates of unreliable solar and wind overwhelmingly produced by unreliable China, are an existential threat to our energy security and therefore our national security."
This isn’t the first time Granholm has made this claim. In April, she also stated of her trip to Japan that Biden’s green agenda will "address how the acceleration of the clean energy transition will help strengthen global energy security."
Her Tuesday remarks came just hours after Biden received a coalition letter urging Granholm to resign for what the groups claimed to be numerous ethics violations while in her position.