To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!
See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!
Mitch just wants me to be on a polarized political side so that its easy to dismiss anything i say because who would want to have a rational conversation when you can politicize the argument and discredit anything i say based on a pseudo title/label given to me based on absolutely nothing that i've actually said.
FACT; the ice melt run off in Greenland is NOW where they thought it MIGHT be in the yer 2070. FACT: thousands of people died last year, drowning, in catastrophic weather events with flooding. Time to change. DONE.
Dropped in for a look; I see the same "Ooh, look! Mitch is a Climate Denier" crapola in full flourish. Also observing an unending plethora of cognitive dissonance on the part of the usual suspects.
Get a life! Hug your kids. After all, we have only 11+ years left on Earth with them according to the climate fanatics & fear mongers in the People's Demokratik Republik of Kollyfornya, the future tourist crater known as D.C. and other choice areas of concentrated and unabashed Leftardia.
Below, posted here for your delectation. Given the title, only Mitch will peruse the article, the rest of you being too busy trying to extinguish the fires on your heads using non-aerosol based retardants,
Who Is Winning The Climate Wars?
Francis MentonNovember 22, 2019
If you get most of your news passively by just reading what comes up in some kind of Facebook or Google feed or equivalent, you probably have the impression that the Climate Wars are over and the Climate Campaigners have swept the field of battle. In my case, I certainly don’t rely on those kinds of toxic sources of information, but I do regularly monitor many of the media sources in the “mainstream” category — the New York Times, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, the Economist, Politico, and several of the television networks like CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN. All of those (and plenty more) have clearly put an absolute ban on any news or information that would cast even the slightest negative light on the proposition that there is an imminent “climate crisis” that must be solved by government transformation of the world economy.
I’ll give a couple of examples of the lengths to which this has gone. Back in September, mentally unstable Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, whose only qualification was her ignorant passion for climate extremism, got the platform of the UN “Climate Action Summit” for a big speech. Excerpt:
You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!
You would think that sane people would want to stay as far from Greta as possible lest they get accused of child abuse. But instead, Greta is feted as a heroine. In October something called the Nordic Council awarded young Greta its 2019 Environmental Award. (It seems that she has rejected the award, thus claiming for herself an even higher level of holiness among true believers.)
Meanwhile, over in Germany, a German think tank called the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE in the German acronym) planned to hold a climate conference this past weekend at a hotel called the NH in Munich. From NoTricksZone November 19:
According to EIKE spokesman, Prof. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, “a left-green mob” pressured the hotel management of the NH Congress Center in Munich (Aschheim) “to illegally cancel the accommodation contract”.
Apparently, the unforgivable sin of EIKE was allowing some scientists from the skeptic camp to appear and speak at their conference. EIKE went to court to try to get an injunction against the last-minute cancelation of their contract, but the German court upheld the cancelation on the ground that “security” concerns trumped free speech. NTZ indicates in an update that the conference was able to find an alternative location at the last minute and to proceed; but of course, the last-minute change of venue and secret location were huge negatives in trying to get any publicity for the conference.
So the very last vestiges of dissent are in the process of getting stamped out. Surely then, the transformation of the world economy and of its use of energy cannot be stopped.
Actually, out there in the world, reality continues to trump hysteria. Do you remember reports from a couple of years ago that China was ceasing to develop fossil fuel power and was becoming a “climate leader” by going all in for trendy renewables wind and solar? Well, that was to fool the dopes. Just this month, something called Global Energy Monitor is out with a new report on what’s going on on the ground in China. Bottom line: 148 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity under active construction or with construction being resumed after suspension. The Global Energy Monitor people (who seem to be associated with the End Coal campaign) could not be more horrified:
[A] permitting spree [from 2014 to 2016] brought a cohort of 245 GW of new projects nearly equivalent to the U.S. coal fleet (254 GW) into the developmental pipeline, inflating what was already an overbuilt coal power fleet, with the average running hours for China’s coal plants hovering around 50% since 2015. Today, 147.7 GW of coal plants are either under active construction or under suspension and likely to be revived—an amount nearly equal to the existing coal power capacity of the European Union (150 GW). . . . Coal and power industry groups are proposing the central government increase total coal power capacity by 20 to 40% to between 1,200 and 1,400 GW as part of China’s 2035 infrastructure plan.
At 1400 GW of coal power capacity, China would be closing in on 6 times U.S. coal power capacity. Why again are we bothering with this whole decarbonization thing? (H/t Global Warming Policy Foundation)
And over in Germany, the fantasy that wind power can be competitive with fossil fuel power also keeps running into the wall of the real world. Der Spiegel reported on November 19 that the end of certain subsidies, along with opposition from local environmentalists who don’t want forests of ugly wind turbines in their localities, has put the German (and European) wind industry in “free fall”:
The manufacturers of turbines and solar panels are dropping like flies, as subsidies are rolled back across Europe. So-called ‘green’ jobs are a case of easy come, easy go. The wind and solar ‘industries’ that gave birth to those jobs simply can’t survive without massive and endless subsidies, which means their days are numbered. With the axe being taken to subsidies across the globe, their ultimate demise is a matter of when, not if. The wind back in subsidies across Europe has all but destroyed the wind industry: in Germany this year a trifling 35 onshore wind turbines have been erected, so far. Twelve countries in the European Union (EU) failed to install “a single wind turbine” last year.
Meanwhile, fracking in the U.S. continues to keep supplies of oil and gas plentiful, and prices reasonable. Petrostates like Russia, Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia are on the run. So who is really winning the climate wars?
Keep driving up the demand for oil by buying products that use oil and you can be sure that companies will continue to drill for oil.
A pop in from our pseudo Hadron Collider. A quark with an extra degree of spin. A true scientific Hadron Collider would provide some facts rather than a long essay of BS.
@andy. Have you not learned? These bozos give people labels and then criticize people for not fitting their label.On the other hand HADRON COLLIDER gave himself a deceiving label. His label completely contradicts his beliefs and rhetoric.
Well Andy, I might as well put it to you this way. As a pro-America libertarian, I see the world through the lens of freedom. Being American has a lot to do with that. We have a constitution that our genius Founding Fathers put together. And this constitution put restrictions on government over the individual. This allows the individual to prosper. Multiply that factor by millions of individuals, and it is a small wonder why America became the most powerful nation on earth.
From that perspective, I see a lot of folks in America who want to expand the power of government over the individual. Instead of allowing millions of individuals to freely make their own choices in the marketplace, those of a totalitarian mindset want to impose their belief system onto others, and make those choices for the individual American.
I predict BEVs will eventually replace ICE in the future. But the primary difference between a libertarian like myself and a totalitarian like SCCRENDODO, is that I prefer that BEV replaces ICE via free-market competition. Those who think like SCCRENDODO want to short-circuit the process, and eliminate the competition (ICE) by government force. I find this to be counter-productive and harmful to the individual by limiting their choices, thus their freedom. And not only that, it will also harm the product (BEV) that you totalitarian types prefer.
So there you go Andy. That is where I stand. I hope I am clear. I can't really tell where you stand Andy. You are about as clear as mud. And if you don't want to make it clear where you stand, that is fine. That is your right as an American. But I do like to challenge the ideas of people. And that may seem offensive to some, and causes a lot of false assumptions by those whom I challenge.
Our weathermoron tries to label others. But even his own label is false. A true libertarian wouldn't take FEMA welfare cheese. He denies climate change but is okay living in a flood zone because the government has his back. This is a an extreme example of hypocrisy
Mitch; with the exceptions of rail, ships, and planes the ICE is dead. Even the GE motors in rail engines are KERs based.
WTH is this divisive crap in a Tesla forum? Oh yeah, to dissuade humans from coming back and learning about great things of Tesla and Space X!!
I know. Just gigging the fool a little is all. He's been told a thousand times that no one wants to ban gas/diesel guzzlers because it is truly unnecessary to do so. The transition has already begun. I personally would like to see it sped up as much as possible by reinstating the tax break for GM and Tesla for BEVs until around 2022-2024 to level the playing field for (gasp) two American companies for daring to be out front in the electric vehicle movement. Why should Mercedes, BMW and Nissan profit from being late to the party? As for adding charging stations, states/counties/cities could contract installation costs out to private concerns. Of course, some standards need to be set for plugs/adapters or it could get awfully complicated. Running a few extra power lines to a parking lot when a company is building an apartment/condominium complex where at your residence housing is impractical (i.e. a high rise) would be very cost effective.
i see the russian troll farm got new instructions
Did the government consult individual freedoms before enacting rules against having lead in products? How about the CFCs in aerosols? Its all the same concept, just a different implementation. Companies are still making cars and no one is stopping you. But if they are literally polluting the environment, then its not up to the individual free-market to decide whether or not poison is allowed to be dumped into the air that i breathe.
So China is closing in on 6 times US coal power capacity? I don't think this is information the mainstream news media wants to get out in public HC. How dare you reveal this in the Tesla Forum. That makes you a bad person, and you need to be squelched!
Libertarians see the world through the lens of a toddler screaming "Mine! Mine! Mine!" sitting on its pile of toys. It's nothing more than anarchy dressed up in a new outfit, that outfit being to champion being unobtrusive in an individual's private life, which btw (gasp) those dirty libruls also support.
PS Based on the library of his comments, Andy is clear to me. He's not as librul (shudder) as the typical denizen of this forum but is open to reason and logic (most welcome) -- unlike someone I won't name. Andy also capably defends his arguments and does not ignore, deflect and behaves as a world class Link Troll sending us off to dark corners of the internet to read the babblings of nut jobs, discredited ideologues and other assorted kooks; plus occasional credible web pages that say the opposite of what's claimed. A couple of pieces here and there do not a full puzzle make. Again, most welcome.
"Did the government consult individual freedoms before enacting rules against having lead in products? How about the CFCs in aerosols? Its all the same concept, just a different implementation."
@Andy. Absolutely! He fails to understand the Constitution he claims to revere. Heck, I've even quoted it to him here and he still doesn't get it. There would be no market without government! Government's task — as clearly stated in the Constitution — is to set the rules the world and to We'd be back to trading chickens for doctor visits otherwise. That didn't work all that well -- especially if you're the doctor and you're tired of chicken for dinner every night.
Here's the bulk of it right here:
8.1 The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
8.2 To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
8.3 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
8.4 To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
8.5 To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
8.6 To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Andy, the government worked with the chemical engineers of the petroleum industry. Ethyl gasoline was eliminated after extensive research and consultation with the chemical engineers. They worked together to achieve a goal that was beneficial to all. Lead compounds are poisonous. I learned that from my high school chemistry teacher in the early 1970s. Lead compounds and CO2 are completely different substances. It is an apple and orange comparison.
Wrong dim1240. Quite the contrary. I see the world through the lens of freedom. And I see the likes of YOU screaming, "mine, mine, mine." You totalitarian types want to confiscate from others what doesn't rightfully belong to you!
"Lead compounds and CO2 are completely different substances."
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Fully Halogenated Chlorofluoroalkanes are different substances. They are also banned by the U.S. government. PCBs are toxic to humans, animals and some plant and build up in the environment. Chlorofluoroalkanes, used in aerosol sprays and air conditioning units, attacked the ozone layer depleting it allowing harmful UV rays to reach the earth's surface. Those are different substances with different effects.
"But CO2 occurs naturally!" Yep, it does. It also has the unfortunate characteristic of creating a greenhouse effect when it makes up too high a percentage of the atmosphere. We're having to deal with some of those effects already with more to come.
Nope. You neither understand freedom or the cost to have it, weather moron. I truly feel sorry for you. And you're absolutely wrong about me and my beliefs. I do believe in the importance of community, the obligations of a citizen, the rule of law and the republic which you obviously don't.
CO2 is not the only element coming out of the exhaust of your ICEV. Perhaps you're a very uneducatedly loud opinion. Perhaps.
"Andy, the government worked with the chemical engineers of the petroleum industry. Ethyl gasoline was eliminated after extensive research and consultation with the chemical engineers. They worked together to achieve a goal that was beneficial to all. Lead compounds are poisonous. I learned that from my high school chemistry teacher in the early 1970s. Lead compounds and CO2 are completely different substances. It is an apple and orange comparison."
All this is, is the acceptance of a certain level of toxicity to allow automobiles to exist. We have a nontoxic solution right now that relies on an electrical infrastructure which over time can easily be converted away from fossil fuels. How do you get the ball rolling if you dont even put pressure on companies to change. Look at the quality of tap water, we accept the current quality of the tap water, but that doesnt mean its ok. The fact that ICEVs use hazardous materials and produce toxic exhaust is evidence in and of itself that the current transportation infrastructure that we have is unsustainable. There is only so much atmosphere to fill with toxic chemicals until it becomes a problem. Look at Los Angeles and Beijing. Do you want to wait for every city to become that toxic before having to take some kind of action? I dont. I require clean air for my health. Maybe its a different world for me and you.
SCCRENDODO, you have no idea what a true libertarian is, because the concept is so completely foreign to you. And there is a lot of literal truth in that statement by the way.
I can't help but notice how you keep knee-jerking back to the flood insurance issue when you can't debate ideas of freedom vs. tyranny. I bought whatever was available in the marketplace. If what I bought had an element of government in it, then so be it. I just made a pragmatic choice in life. I can't help but notice how that bugs the crap out of a self-righteous authoritarian bastard like yourself!
I am a generally ethical person. Being ethical comes #1 for me.
@weathermoron. I would suggest you have no idea what a libertarian is. Nor do you know what a Marxist, socialist or liberal is
Here's another quote from one of the framers of the Constitution. "Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?", Gouverneur Morris.
They knew what to worry about.
Tell me something, Mitch: Do you support Trump's border policy to lock up anyone attempting to cross the southern border whether to claim refugee status or just because?
If you do, then you're violating the official Libertarian platform that promotes open borders.
Here are some other ditties from the 2020 Libertarian Platform:
Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.
Sounds good, doesn't it? Only the Libertarians are having a fight over whether it means someone can sell themselves or a family member into slavery. That last sentence is a killer, literally. Suppose a company knowingly packages a product in a container that contains a carcinogen. Our government tests and bans such containers. There was one case in Maryland not too long ago. Under Libertarian rule, that baby crib that was knowingly made and marketed when the company knew it could strangle your child? Or that hip replacement that a company marketed that they knew was defective and would fail that your doctor unknowingly put in your body? That's all on you, baby. Your tough luck.
Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency. We are committed to ending government’s practice of spying on everyone. We support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, property, and communications. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records.
Another one that sounds good. We all support the 4th Amendment. But what about that terrorist cell that's plotting to blow you up when you go to a 4th of July parade? Or that gangster that's plotting to assassinate public officials who don't play ball with him and we're all left in the dark because the FBI can't obtain a warrant to tap his communications?
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.
So, that character who decided the AA kid in the hoodie was a threat because he was walking through an apartment complex was just fine in accosting and killing the kid based on nothing more than his profile?
2.1 Property and Contract
As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.
Well, that would end road building in America. Not another foot will ever be laid. Sure, abuse of eminent domain shouldn't be allowed. But then we do need a new road every now and then.
Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.
That is a flat out lie. Since EPA was formed, our air and water have gotten much cleaner. Don't tell me different, I lived in LA in 1980 where I'd walk out every morning to find 1/4" of soot on my car. Now? It's much cleaner. These guys are blowing soap bubbles.
2.4 Government Finance and Spending
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax, and oppose any increase on any tax for any reason. To the extent possible, we advocate that all public services be funded in a voluntary manner.
Putin would love this. These guys want to go back to the whiskey tax days. Uh huh.
2.7 Money and Financial Markets
We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated. Those who enjoy the possibility of profits must not impose risks of losses upon others, such as through government guarantees or bailouts. We support ending federal student loan guarantees and special treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy proceedings. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.
So, nobody but the rich go to college. Goldman Sachs is free to cook up any scheme they like to make bucks and if it endangers and crashes the economy too bad for us. Oh, and let's go back to the gold standard to boot.
Libertarians support the right of every person to earn an honest and peaceful living through the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services. Accordingly, we oppose occupational and other licensing laws that infringe on this right or treat it as a state-granted privilege. We encourage certifications by voluntary associations of professionals.
So, if I'm a plumber who gets fired then I can hang out a shingle over the garage and peddle myself as a doctor? Gee, that would work.
2.11 Labor Markets
Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.
Hello $2 an hour maximum wage. Can't get work for more? You loser.
See what I mean? A bunch of FOS idiots.
All of your points are silly, and thoughtless dim1240. You completely ignored that our court system is the arbiter of many of the conflicts you raised.
To answer your first question - yes, we should find out who is entering our country. We have enough criminals in our own country. I don't want America to be the dumping ground of other nations' criminals. Do you dim1240?
SCCRENDODO = Marxist, socialist liberal
Im not sure if its possible for someone to be all 3 of those.
Marxist is kind of the opposite of socialist. Kind of like comparing Stalin style government with that of Norway or Denmark.
Ron Paul was asked about Trump's Wall. Paul is opposed to the wall. He would rather cut off all government funds to illegal aliens. That would stop the incentive for them to come across in the first place. Think the democrats would call Paul a racist, sexist, homophobe for that? I'll let you all figure that one out on your own.
How would cutting funding to illegals stop incentives for people to come across the border legally?
I like Ayn Rand's take on communism and socialism -
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."
Andy, it wouldn't. Paul is opposed to Trump's Wall. And he was suggesting alternatives to the wall.
This is what you said:
"He would rather cut off all government funds to illegal aliens. That would stop the incentive for them to come across in the first place."
And you just said that cutting funding to illegals would not stop the incentive for them to come across the boarder legally. You just contradicted yourself. Please can you try again with that first statement and try to make it actually make sense.
That was Paul's idea Andy that it would be a disincentive for illegal aliens to come across the border. It would in part, but mostly no. Very difficult to actually quantify how many illegal crossing would be prevented if all welfare for illegals was stopped. In fact, that would be a difficult thing to do considering the apparatus of state and local governments providing assistance to the poor. That is why I support the wall.
The idea of not funding illegals should be supported nation wide. Why would anyone in this country give up portions of their paychecks for people who are here illegally. We all have to follow the rules, and being here against the rules and getting free money is absolute lunacy.
Well, I agree with you there Andy. But our welfare system is so vast, and integrated into all levels of government, it is basically impossible to prevent illegals from getting some form of assistance.
@weathermoron. You are the one who traffics in labels rather than facts. I wouldn't waste my term giving Rand Paul a label. But if he were in my district I definitely would not vote for him and for what he stands for
Your comparison of socialism vs communism through that quote is not completely accurate. The purpose of socialism is redistribution of wealth. Particularly taking from people who have alot and redistributing it down the pyramid so life for those at the bottom is not dirt. The difference between communism and socialism, is that communism requires the tyrannical government in order to work. Socialism is more of a modification of the current system, and does not require government to be tyrannical. How do i know this? Living proof of every disastrous 20th century government that went the path of tyranny. United States is more socialist than you think. It CAN get extreme obviously, but socialism has the benefit of having a actual government process before implementation, whereas communism already would have the tyrannical government.
We are getting off topic.
Hey badger, check out the 4th paragraph.
Greenland has added 25 mm to global sea level rise since 1840. That is a whopping 1 inch badger man. Is that something for you to get all agitated about?
Probably the most productive conversation i've ever had with you. Im out.
Hey SCCRENDODO, I mentioned RON Paul, not his son Rand. Rand is a U.S. senator from Kentucky. Not some district.
Hes responding to @weathermoron. Looks like it sticks!
Maybe we should prosecute those who employ undocumented immigrants
I doubt they would be coming here if they couldnt get a job
Ron Paul/Rand Paul. Same crap different day
ron was sane
@jimglas. It’s all relative
Hey jimmy, that idea of prosecuting employers for hiring illegals has been around a long time. That idea fell apart a long time ago when employers were sued for NOT hiring illegals, because that was racial discrimination!
So how in the hell can you prosecute employers for hiring illegals when they get sued for not hiring them?