Scientist Who Rejects Warming Is Named to EPA Advisory Board

Scientist Who Rejects Warming Is Named to EPA Advisory Board

Finally some balance!

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

MitchP85D | February 1, 2019

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!

SCCRENDO | February 1, 2019

The Trump Crime syndicate continues to destroy the EPA. ITMFA

Darthamerica | February 1, 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.

SO | February 1, 2019

Ah yes. Proof. Something the President seems to require little of when making claims.

SO | February 1, 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.

SO | February 1, 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 all.

Are you? I mean seriously. Are you really surprised?

SCCRENDO | February 1, 2019

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!!!

kcheng | February 1, 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.

RedShift | February 1, 2019

Hooray for the death of common sense and wisdom.

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.

Darthamerica | February 1, 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...

SCCRENDO | February 1, 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.

Darthamerica | February 2, 2019

@SCC all of that vitriol and you can't find one statement of mine that isn't verified fact.

SO | February 2, 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.

Darthamerica | February 2, 2019

@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.

Darthamerica | February 2, 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?

Darthamerica | February 2, 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.

jimglas | February 2, 2019

Troll flagged
you do understand that nobody reads your trolling anymore?

kcheng | February 2, 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}

Mike83 | February 2, 2019

Opinions vary.

SCCRENDO | February 2, 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.

Darthamerica | February 2, 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.

SCCRENDO | February 2, 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.

SO | February 2, 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.

Darthamerica | February 2, 2019

@SO let's see, setting AGW aside, what goals do you want to agree on?

SO | February 2, 2019

1. Fumes from car and truck exhaust is not good. People smell those at street level. I don’t know if any coal plant that you can smell at ground level.

2. Reducing oil consumption so that the Middle East would receive less money. (Especially for terrorism even though they already have more than enough money.). Yes, we produce a lot of oil here but still is a global commodity. Also Saudi Arabia owns the largest refinery in the US.

kcheng | February 2, 2019

"SCCRENDO | February 2, 2019
@kcheng. ... 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."

Wow, you have a direct brain feed to "many" of the others in this forum? You are making this far too complicated. I only asked if an "off-topic" forum could be created, so that direct Tesla threads can be in the Tesla forum, without having to wade thru all the indirect Tesla threads on climate change and the EPA. Most people here are looking for info and answers about our Teslas, not trying to convince the Trolls about climate change. Trolls are a lost cause and should be ignored. You're not going to convince them of anything. People should know that by now.

Don't worry about me, I promise not to intrude upon any of your climate change threads, I only asked why there wasn't another forum for it.

Darthamerica | February 2, 2019

@SO agree on #1 but will add that technology is in use and available that minimize the harmful fumes from modern ICE vehicles. A lot of older vehicles still exists but as they go EOL and get replaced by cleaner ICEV and BEVs it only gets better. #2 is a lot more complicated than that. Oil comes from a lot of places besides the Middle East and there are no wars. Oil is a beneficial for modern life and will be with us for centuries. Even if it wasn't, we'd still fight over land and other natural resources. War is a necessary part of life for almost all species. We just happen to know how to make nuclear weapons. So I disagree that reducing oil consumption solves anything related to our topics. That is as long as it remains the most efficient way to make energy.

A combination of nuclear power for grid scale and local alternatives like home solar could help reduce oil consumption. But the cost and technology aren't yet at a point to make it favorable.

SCCRENDO | February 2, 2019

@SO. Your goals are what most of us want here. Although I disagree that AGW is not entirely proven. The data is pretty solid. The exact time frames may be the subject of debate and variability.

SO | February 2, 2019

@SC - you and I may agree that AGW is convincing enough for us. But common ground must be sought in order to achieve goals. Too many people just “shut down” as soon as climate change is mentioned. I think we have discussed this before and you are right, more people are slowly coming to that conclusion.

Mike83 | February 2, 2019

The missing big elephant in the room is that fossil fuel interest fuel Climate Change denial due to the excessive subsidies they get AFTER already raking in tens of billions of dollars. Scientists agree fossil fuel burning is the cause. The only debate is from selfish interests.

SO | February 2, 2019

@darth - oil coming from lots of places does not matter. The point is that the product is still being purchased from the Middle East. They are a supplier and people are buying from them.

There are no wars in the middle east over oil? We are still in Iraq. That was started because we wanted Saddam out.....after we put him in there of course. I don’t think we would have committed as many resources to Middle East “stability” if they had nothing but sand to offer.

Yes.... oil is beneficial and yes it is still used in manufacturing. I should have clarified. I don’t expect oil to go to zero.....ever (unless biofuels improve). But as of now, 70% of the oil consumed is just for transportation. If that could be reduced way down, that is MUCH less oil consumed.

You are a big proponent of nuclear. To me, the risks and left over waste products simply are not. I’d rather see an area twice the size of a nuclear facility filled with solar, than a nuclear facility.

War is not done just for the hell of it. And I’m not saying all wars would end. Humans fight over Kardashian crap. But removing a reason for war, is a good thing. And the Middle East has been extremely costly in terms of money and humans.

Republicans tout their support for the military. And that’s great. But if we can reduce a situation of them not going in the first place, that’s a win and MUCH better than just “thanking them for their service”.

SO | February 2, 2019

Oh, and in regards to better emissions onnewer vehicles, yes. Much better. But still could kill you and certainly not good to breathe in.

Darthamerica | February 2, 2019

@SO I've fought in those wars so let me tell you that it's not really about the oil. It's about control of the energy market and influence. If no oil was ever bought from the Middle East again we'd just fight elsewhere. It's influence and the Middle East is much like then places in 1984 where it was informally agreed to have the fighting take place. In many ways Cold War 1 and Cold War 2.0 overlap. Even the players are the same! And it's overlapping Cold War 3.0 as well(Asia). I also must tell you that unfortunately some wars are sometimes fought for the sake of it. But these are wars in name only. They aren't existential threats and who wins or loses doesn't really matter. Think of them like a continuous Superbowl with deadly violence.

In any case your 2nd point is A LOT more complicated.

Darthamerica | February 2, 2019

@SO yes can kill you the way any toxic gas can in enough concentration. As long as that's not the case in the open air then I don't think that's a valid point considering that no one is against the standards that have cleaned up American city air for the last 20 years. Since we are on the subject of pollution, the issue with BEVs is NOX and SOX during battery production. These are much higher than ICEVs. This is actual poison and it's not captured by vehicle emission control systems or even regulated well.

SO | February 2, 2019

Most people don’t live near battery plants. Many do however live near car exhaust.

Thank you for your service. Right now energy does mean power. That needs to change.

Darthamerica | February 2, 2019

@SO it would be a good change except the technology isn't there yet. Considering our use of technologies is increasing I'm not sure it can change. We are quite ravenous consumers of energy...

mbirnie51 | February 2, 2019

@Darth: There are 10 scientists that support and believe climate change to each 1 that are deniers/skeptics. Not to mention the DOD and NSA have stated for many years in thier "threat" reports that climate change is one of the top threats to the security of the USA and all other countries. You're flagged and now no longer readable!!

SO | February 2, 2019

@Darth - yes we are. Perhaps one day....

Darthamerica | February 2, 2019

@mb get real. Government agencies echo the will of the POTUS as you have no doubt noticed. Also notice that it says "climate change" and not "man made climate change". There is a difference that seems to confuse most of you.

dmm1240 | February 2, 2019

"@SO it would be a good change except the technology isn't there yet. Considering our use of technologies is increasing I'm not sure it can change. We are quite ravenous consumers of energy..."

While it is true that the US consumes around 18% of the world's electricity output and that electricity consumption grew steadily between 1975-2005, it is also true that US electricity consumption has been static since then between 3800-3900 kilowatt hours between 2005-2017. The current trend is electricity consumption is DECLINING.

US oil consumption peaked at ~21 million barrels per day in the mid 2000s, but has since declined to slightly less than 20 million barrels a day.

And the technology is there. Tesla is busy installing battery packs around the world — along with other companies — that replace ultra expensive peaker plants.

As for renewables...

Eighteen percent of all electricity in the United States was produced by renewable sources in 2017, including solar, wind, and hydroelectric dams. That’s up from 15% in 2016, with the shift driven by new solar and wind projects, the end of droughts in the West, and a dip in the share of natural gas generation. Meanwhile, both greenhouse gas emissions from power generation and consumer spending on power declined.

Renewables’ share of U.S. energy consumption has now doubled since 2008, as coal’s share crashed in the same period from 48% to 30%. And while the Trump administration has signaled a desire to cut funding for renewable energy and efficiency programs, the trends seem set to continue thanks to market forces.

Solar and wind projects made up roughly 62% of new power construction in 2017, as their cost continues to plummet. And 2.9 gigawatts of new renewable energy projects were initiated last year, while 12.5 gigawatts worth of coal plants are set to shut down in 2018 – also part of an accelerating trend. Thanks to that shift, the solar and wind industries are creating jobs faster than the rest of the economy.

The findings come from the 2018 Sustainable Energy in America Factbook, produced each year by the Business Council for Sustainable Energy and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Efficiency was another big takeaway from the report. While the U.S. economy has continued a healthy expansion, total U.S. energy consumption actually declined in 2017 by 0.2%, illustrating the economy’s ability to do more while consuming less power.
- Source Fortune Magazine article

You either need to do some reading or STFU.

SCCRENDO | February 2, 2019

Well said guys. Although I suspect you are wasting your time with Darth. He won’t listen to the facts that don’t suit him. He still repeats the lie that EVs are more polluting than ICE vehicles. But good luck anyway.

SCCRENDO | February 2, 2019

Hey Russian troll. I think you are the one who is confused between climate change and man made climate change. The global warming since the industrial revolution and that as been accelerating over the last 30 years is not natural. It is man made.

Darthamerica | February 2, 2019

@SCC ok if you say so. I'm not convinced by the measurements and even less by you.

Mike83 | February 2, 2019

dm1240 +1000

Tesla-David | February 2, 2019

@dmm1240 +10000 well said
STFU especially our Russian troll

MitchP85D | February 2, 2019

Let's go back to the main subject on this thread: Dr. John Christy

Hey SCCRENDODO, aren't you the one who touts the American Meteorological Society?

In 1996, Christy and Spencer "were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society."

Christy has also been a Lead Author (2001) for the IPCC.

Impressive credentials. I am glad he is advising the EPA!

Mike83 | February 2, 2019
MitchP85D | February 2, 2019

Hey ozone hole mike, I don't worship anybody. But you worship the idea of human-caused global warming!

SCCRENDO | February 2, 2019

The appointment of Christie to the EPA say ITMFA