General

Scientist Who Rejects Warming Is Named to EPA Advisory Board

edited November -1 in General
Finally some balance!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientist-who-rejects-warming-is-named-to-epa-advisory-board/

Having BOTH sides of the debate is a good thing for us all.
«1

Comments

  • edited November -1
    Now, isn't that a hoot! I can't think of a better scientist to have on the EPA Advisory Board than Dr. John Christy! You can tell Scientific American is pissed off about it by their over-generalized and false statements about Christy. I wonder if Gavin Schmidt will confront Christy? Probably not. He'll run off with his tail in between his legs like he did from Spencer!
  • edited February 2019
    The Trump Crime syndicate continues to destroy the EPA. ITMFA
  • edited February 2019
    @Mitch it's good to see the zealots getting a taste of checks and balances. Now they will have to prove rather than assert their hypothesis as true.
  • SOSO
    edited November -1
    Ah yes. Proof. Something the President seems to require little of when making claims.
  • SOSO
    edited February 2019
    Based on who was appointed head of the EPA, I wouldn’t be surprised if a flat earther or space is fake nut is appointed to head up NASA.

    To somehow count this appointment to the board as a win, is laughable.
  • SOSO
    edited February 2019
    The GOP care about money. Period. And to try to convince the world to continue with practices that help ensure money over environment is not surprising......at all.

    Are you? I mean seriously. Are you really surprised?
  • edited November -1
    Hooray for balance
    Hooray for the EPA being destroyed
    Hooray for filthy air
    Hooray for toxic food and water.
    Hooray for the Trump crime syndicate
    Texas A&M weather school dropout flagged!!!
    Idiot!!!!
  • edited February 2019
    Is it really necessary to have a half dozen threads on environmental issues on a car forum? Not to mention the political ones. Usually, there's an "off-topic" forum for those threads.

    Can one be created?

    Does it matter, of course, it pushes legit Tesla related threads off the first page of threads.
  • edited February 2019
    Hooray for the death of common sense and wisdom.
  • edited February 2019
    @kcheng. It is necessary to have climate change threads on a Tesla forum. If you read them you would understand why. There have been a few good long running threads. But like you who is offended by important discussions we have trolls who are actively trying to destroy the threads rather than just ignore or complain like you. They spam the threads and when this strategy proves ineffective they start their own. Their are many threads for you to contribute to or ignore but we would greatly appreciate if you stop trying to moderate us.
  • edited February 2019
    Keep in mind this all started when some of you tried to argue that BEVs and Model S in particular does not cause CO2 emissions comparable or greater than some ICE vehicles throughout its operational life. Denial like that is hard to ignore...
  • edited February 2019
    Yes the Russian troll is correct that his stupid unsubstantiated statement above is what started it. We were quick to point out with evidence that his statement was utter crap. And instead of educating himself he has been trolling relentlessly ever since. If he actually understood what he was talking about and took a look at the science and had valid scientific counterpoints it might be an interesting discussion. But continually posting false contrary statements is purely an attempt at dishonest trolling. A quick example would be the idiotic statements that he started this thread with.
  • edited November -1
    @SCC all of that vitriol and you can't find one statement of mine that isn't verified fact.
  • SOSO
    edited February 2019
    @Darth - I do agree that you provide facts. But when your facts are accurate only when contorted to the level of a pretzel playing the game twister, they are almost worthless and not truly applicable on a large scale.
  • edited November -1
    @SO nothing was contorted. The issue is the others take what I say personal to a level bordering on irrational. When I participated in the debate about emissions of CO2. My only point was that transportation has no way to meaningfully reduce it because it last so long. It doesn't matter if you emit it more slowly why operating a vehicle, in this case during charging, if you cause several years worth of it during manufacture, and if over the whole life of the vehicle your grand total is more and it last hundreds to thousands of years in the atmosphere. In summary ZERO EMISSIONS is more clever marketing vs real solution to AGW alarmist perceived problem. Even solar doesn't help because of the battery production process. The huge release during battery production actually puts you closer to the alleged point of no return as the rate of battery production increases. For that statement of fact I'm accused of being a Russian?!? Seriously does that qualify as rational conclusion to you?

    Setting aside the fact that I do not accept or reject AGW, we don't know based on observed measurements, I'm still looking at the problem statement from an engineering perspective. To solve the transportation contribution to the alleged problem, you've got to clean up battery production emissions to not exceed ICEV production AND you have to charge from a source that doesn't emit. Why is that such a hard conclusion to reach or controversy?

    The problem on the boards is that many of the posters are actually zealots or misinformed fanboys, not engineers and/or scientist. Thusly they drag the level of debate down to the lowest common denominator with their denial of facts, silly flagging and ad hominem.
  • edited February 2019
    @SO with regard to the "pretzel". We are discussing climate. Climate is a chaotic system that operates on timeframes in the billions of years. Some of the AGW alarmist have oversimplified things to the point of category error. To make it worse they have a severe vocabulary limitation that contains only “flagged”, “idiot”, “troll” and “Russian”. Is that a formula for stimulating debate?
  • edited February 2019
    @SO With respect to AGW which is based solely on IPCC models and observations of WEATHER, measurements show that in spite of the increase in CO2 emissions, warming has actually slowed and/or stopped. Scientifically that invalidates the model based AGW hypothesis. Denying that is either a misunderstanding of how science works or an integrity issue. In the latter case where most politicians are concerned the motive is taxation. That's why they call it the Paris Climate Agreement and not a treaty because Congress wouldn't approve a treaty. Yet through abuse of power previous administrations have pushed anyway. The rational next step here is more research into what we got wrong in the models. Not proposing economically disastrous legislation based on demonstrably false premise. That's why the people impacted by this attempted regulation stood up and rebuked it in Nov 2016. The immediate and obvious threat to them is not climate, it's putting food on their plates. It's immoral to ask them to risk their livelihood for a problem you can't prove exist when you do not even have a solution.

    Driving a Tesla or other BEV is only the end link in a very long chain that starts at how we produce energy for 7 billion souls and growing. One link back is battery production. Until that and previous links are solved, driving emissions are irrelevant. The only way humanity has right not to address the issue at scale is nuclear power. The other alternatives are only suitable at the local level because of energy density, diffuseness and intermittent availability. It's not practical from a cost perspective to extend those alternatives at scale beyond their local applications. But again before you do that the battery production emissions issues need to be solved for transportation to be a meaningful contributor.
  • edited February 2019
    Troll flagged
    you do understand that nobody reads your trolling anymore?
  • edited February 2019
    "SCCRENDO | February 1, 2019
    @kcheng. It is necessary to have climate change threads on a Tesla forum. If you read them you would understand why. There have been a few good long running threads. But like you who is offended by important discussions we have trolls who are actively trying to destroy the threads rather than just ignore or complain like you. They spam the threads and when this strategy proves ineffective they start their own. Their are many threads for you to contribute to or ignore but we would greatly appreciate if you stop trying to moderate us."

    Seriously? It's pretty standard practice to have an Off-Topic forum. And who decided it was "necessary"? Are you the forum moderator? I'm not at all "offended" by climate change threads. That's a straw man that you just made up. As I've posted before, I've built a passivhaus design for my home, and have done pro-bono projects for Conservation International and the NRDC. There's a time and place for everything, but a car forum for climate threads seems like a waste of your precious time. How many people are going to actually see your posts? When people search the internet for posts on climate change, do you think they're as likely to get search hits from a car forum or one dedicated to climate change?

    As for climate trolls, they wouldn't spam threads that didn't exist. It's your tread that draws them like flies.

    As for moderating, how am I doing that? I am just asking questions. You don't want to be moderated, and yet your comment itself is all about trying to control my comments. Hypocrisy. I can see why trolls spam your thread with your tolerant attitude. {sarcasm}
  • edited November -1
    Opinions vary.
  • edited February 2019
    @kcheng. The point is that it is not moderated. So we do self moderate. Many of us here are early adopters and bought Teslas primarily because of our commitment to advancing alternate fuels which fits in with the primary mission of Elon Musk and Tesla. So our opinion is that these threads are a vital part of the general discussion and are here to stay. So that is the answer to your question. However many of us feel that you were not just asking a simple question. You were subtly asking us to remove these threads to make you happy. This is an attempt at moderation. If you don’t approve of the subject what is to stop you from just ignoring. You have the freedom to start your own threads if you wish. If you were truly asking a question you have your answer

    @jimfglas. Darth has created himself a new echo chamber. We have refuted this for everyone to see. We can probably just ignore the thread from now on and let him keep ranting. Perhaps he can get the weathermoron to form a duet with him with occasional interjections from the @kchengs on the forum.
  • edited February 2019
    @SCC it's funny to see you declare yourself forum mod and say what should or shouldn't be ignored. Funnier than that is your claim that you have "refuted" anything. Clearly SO and I have different views on AGW but he's not claiming to have "refuted" anything. The reason is that I'm posting facts and then telling you how I interpret those facts. It's not possible to refute that. May have a different opinion however. By saying otherwise you're demonstrating collosal arrogance. I know you think you're saving the world but you're making yourself look like... I'll take the polite route, an unreasonable person.
  • edited February 2019
    @Russian troll. You need to learn the difference between a moderated forum and an unmoderated forum. An unmoderated forum is self moderated. The majority of the self moderators here believe your are an ignorant Russian troll.
  • SOSO
    edited February 2019
    @Darthamerica - the pretzel remark was in response to your comment: “Keep in mind this all started when some of you tried to argue that BEVs and Model S in particular does not cause CO2 emissions comparable or greater than some ICE vehicles throughout its operational life. Denial like that is hard to ignore...”

    As far as AGW, even my republican friends (who feel the same way as you do) can agree that pumping less toxins in the air and spending less on oil so the Middle East doesnt have as much money coming in, is a good thing.

    So whether you want to continue on your AGW rant (which NO ONE can ABSOLUTELY PROVE either way), that’s up to you. But we should at least be able to agree on the other points and so our goals should be aligned.

    If you want to pretend for one minute that your fear mongering of spending trillions on renewables is heresy while ignoring the trillions spent and lives lost on “protecting our interests” in the Middle East, that’s up to you. But I say, ENOUGH of the BS. The main goals should be aligned for different reasons.
  • edited February 2019
    @SO let's see, setting AGW aside, what goals do you want to agree on?
Sign In or Register to comment.