Dedicated to Darth. A thread for all the deniers to make their case and to stop spamming the other threads.

Dedicated to Darth. A thread for all the deniers to make their case and to stop spamming the other threads.

I hate to deny you guys the attention but you are stinking up our climate change threads. I have made you guys a special place to deny away. As this thread has been abandoned by the trolls in favor of spamming up climate change sites this thread now becomes a useful place to attack the trolls rather than adding to the FUD that they are trying to create on our sites.

Mike83 | December 23, 2018

Agree. They are spineless and can't come up with any peer reviewed data. They should start their own thread except most people know they are nuts.

Darthamerica | December 23, 2018

Thanks for the dedication but I can't take credit for something I didn't do. I don't "deny" climate change. The climate changes all of the time. What's I say is that we do not know what affect we have on climate because currently we do not know enough about it to accurately model such a complex system. This is why climate models are constantly being revised after real world measurements diverge from the predictions. Until we know more about it, I think we should be careful about trying to regulate it. This is because the regulations have negative consequences that need to be balanced with the benefits. Otherwise you will get unintended consequences like what is happening in Paris and worse. We need to first gain insight, then oversight and finally intelligently applied regulations.

I think climate science had become highly politicized by people seeking power and/or money. This is even more cause for caution.

I also do not think people understand that BEVs are not really that green from a CO2 perspective. The manufacturer of lithium ion batteries has significant CO2 emissions. Charging BEVs requires electricity that more often than not comes from fossil fuel based energy.

Lastly, if we assume the worse predictions are true, the technology to make change doesn't exist at the cost and performance necessary for implementation on a global scale. Because of this it is not possible to make abrupt policy changes without significant and deadly consequences. The best solutions should come from the free market economy in order to ensure the best and most compelling technologies come to market. Although Tesla has benefitted from government subsidies and tax kick backs, Tesla offers a genuinely good product. That is the best way to drive a market economy to change. Not by force.

Those are my positions and I'd appreciate intelligent responses that don't attack me as a person or call for me to be silenced. I mean singling me out with a dedicated thread intended to insult me is testament to how ungentlemanly people have been.

Mike83 | December 23, 2018

Since the deniers still have no concrete evidence but only BS opinions here are some funnies.

Darthamerica | December 23, 2018

So much for the debate being over:

For reasons previously mentioned.

greg | December 24, 2018

Had to chop into multiple posts due to Mollom.


You link to a 5 and half year old Senate hearing into some aspects of the Partisan debate and claim "the debate is not over"?

Not what I saw or heard at all. The testimony shown here all agreed - CO2 emissions are up, and it is having an effect.

Pielke said in effect "You can't yet see the [human caused] signal yet from the weather events, and it may take decades or centuries to become unequivocally clear. And don't base your search for such signals only on the extreme weather events."

Nothing controversial in that.

Except he didn't say, - that by the time the signal is clear - it will be way too late for humanity to escape the incoming tsunami. In the same way if you are on the sea shore, feel a strong earthquake, see the sea retreat but don't do anything until you see the "signal" of the incoming wave on the jorizon showing there is a definite tsunami coming ashore.

If we take your stated approach of:

"We need to first gain insight, then oversight and finally intelligently applied regulations"

With this sort of event, we might gain insight by hanging around on the beach til we're sure there is a tsunami.
But we would never have time to gain oversight or intelligently applied regulations..
You would simply be wiped out in short order.

Pielke also said - quite presciently as it has turned out, that the US is actually not prepared for any extreme weather events. And in fact right now [2013] for the impacts and consequences of even an historically recorded "normal" range of weather events. Let alone the increased frequency and higher intensity ones that increased sea levels, and global temperatures will naturally cause in the future.

And its all true, within what he was discussing - his own research. and yes, subsequent events since that testimony have proven just how unprepared the US has been. and continues to be for natural disasters..

The other witness dragged up a chart that compared present day temperature with Medieval and Roman Times to claim evidence of climate variability. So therefore we can't believe that the temperatures we see today are "abnormal" [and thus, by extension, are not overly, if at all, in any way caused by humans, as those historic events clearly were not human caused- in his words].

But Pielke and the other witness were as they both admitted "atmosphere" researchers/academics there are many different models and data sets and these models are like sewers - what you get out depends on what you put into them, hence their constant adjustment and range of results.

The Oceanic temperature and acidification data is more clear as to the presence of warming signals, not seen for a million or so years.

But as Sen. Whitehouse pointed out near the end, very reasonably. Everyone from the IPPC on down agrees that Sea levels are rising, and are now at levels not seen in many thousands of years. Humans without any argument, have extensively modified the environment by building houses, cities, flood protections and other structures that modify the interplay of sea, rivers and land.

This means that ANY - even "normal" weather events are far more extreme in their impacts and costs than the same events were decades or centuries ago.

So much for the "Debate being far from over".

The only debate is how much acceptance we take for setting our own destiny both in the present and future.

Right now, the market lead approach you favour, hasn't and continues not to work because the "market" is not being made to pay for all the externalities its blind following of "business at usual" at all costs has caused and continue to cause.

(part 1)

greg | December 24, 2018

Second part:

But putting all that aside you say that making and charging BEVs contributes significant CO2 emissions [compared to what? - Fossil Fuel powered vehicles?]. But that may well be true for the manufacturing process - depending on how the raw materials and sourced, processed, and assembled.

But when august bodies like the Union of Concerned Scientists conducted such analysis' several times over the last 5+ years - using a thorough like for like "well to wheels" approach, any BEV over its lifetime, will emit far less CO2 emissions - including those from manufacture AND disposal, even when that BEV is fuelled from a grid powered with electricity made from 100% Fossil Fuels [like Coal powered electricity].

Companies like Tesla. of course use 100% renewable energy during manufacture where possible, and those solar panels by the way more than cover their total embedded energy costs and emissions that occur during their manufacture. And do so within 6-18 months of use.
Leaving the rest of its productive life to offset many tonnes of CO2 emissions per panel.

In addition the UCS said that the present US electricity grid is getting cleaner and cleaner each and every year. So that the Average ICE vehicle would have to achieve a presently impractical economy rates of over 38 Miles Per Gallon to be less CO2 emitting than a BEV filled from the electricity of even the dirtiest (COS emission wise) grid.

Even Forbes admits this, they quoted this from UCS earlier this year:
"New data shows that in every corner of the United States, driving an EV produces significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than cars powered only by gasoline, regardless of the local power mix. Today, an average EV on the road in the U.S. has the same greenhouse-gas emissions as a car getting 80 miles per gallon (MPG). That’s up from 73 MPG in 2017, and far greater than the average gas-powered car available for sale in the U.S., which hit a record 24.7 MPG in 2016."

Source here:

So this BS about BEVs being part of the problem not part of the solution, is like many such statements around that are made by many climate change deniers - wishful thinking on their part to justify inaction. Not reality.

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

@Greg it's already too late to escape from any man made effects because man always affects his environment just by existing. We are at 400ppm and continuing to climb. We don't even contribute the majority of CO2, natural processes do. We don't control orbit, wobble and weather, nor can we. We cannot accurately model climate yet. We have many other inputs into the system such as deforestation and urbanization. We cannot move away from fossil fuels due to demand so it's a fantasy to dream of replacing it with dilute, intermittent more expensive sources in any reasonable timeframe. In brief we do not know if there's an existential issue and if there is how to solve it in a way where the cure isn't worse than the disease. Climate predictions have consistently been wrong. All of this and all proposed attempts to intervene such as the Paris agreement are only going to be effective at raising taxes and nothing else. Why would I agree to support that? This is why people who did support it quickly turn away from it as the USA did in 2016 and Paris is doing right now. If we just leave things alone and allow the free market economy and corporate governance to act on there own, we will get better results and less encroachment on our freedom. From a government oversight and regulation perspective we do not have the insight to make informed decisions. This is why the previous decisions have been misguided and rejected by the populations who have had it imposed on them.

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

@Greg yet the Sings actually measured energy consumption from a Model S and found that from an emissions perspective its not as optimistic as people think when connected to the grid. So much so that they charged an owner a tax to pay for it. Well to wheel emissions are far higher than what is advertised. This is just simply physics because you're still having to move mass. Moving mass requires energy. Energy on Earth comes overwhelmingly from fossil fuels. Technology that skips the natural process of turning solar energy to biology and then to chemical storage is not yet reliable or efficient enough to produce the overly optimistic picture painted by environmentalist.

Stop calling people deniers. The only deniers are those who aren't listening to reason. We all agree humans have impact on their environment. We do not agree with the unproven science that claims catastrophic climate change precisely because it is unproven.

For your reference:

Where BEV emissions come from in the USA:

sabbia | December 24, 2018

Darth is carelessly leaving clues that Darth is a foreign disrupter. Like Maria Butina working through the NRA to pit American against American, Darth is working through deniers to polarize and try to weaken American resolve.

Since this thread is not about climate science but dedicated to Darth's dirty tricks, I'll post here from time to time to display Darth's carelessness and clues. First, the background on why Darth has trouble with forming plurals in English.

Using plurals properly in English is difficult for native Slavic language people.

The examples I give below come from googling "Slavic language plural."

"As the Russian language is based on the case system there are different plurals in each case."

"Plural nouns follow their expected cases in the case system. The main exception to this rule is when you are talking about exact quantities. When you refer to exact quantities (eg ‘10 roubles’) you normally use the genitive case."

There is even a difference when forming plurals when referring to animate vs inanimate nouns. "Inanimate nouns (not-alive) Same as the nominative plural.
Animate nouns (alive) : Same as the genitive plural."

sabbia | December 24, 2018

Broken up to avoid the post being too long and thanks to @Science for the linguistic analysis which I quote.

Here are some examples of foreign sounding sentences:

"The scientist doing the work admit this." Posted by Darth on December 19.

sabbia | December 24, 2018

From my December 17th post.

Darth. I have a question that I hope you will understand and not find indiscreet. You know that SCCRENDO is originally from South Africa. His views are welcome by just about everyone (Tilly Mitchell has had an absence of tolerance from time to time). He openly embraces his history and we welcome his comments. Ideas are ideas and they don't matter where they come from.

So, would you mind terribly if I ask if English is your mother tongue? There are lots of variations of English and this is not to cast aspersions on any of them. If you feel asking is an intrusion, then I'll respect your desire for privacy.

It's just that some of us are a bit on edge. We've been reading the news reports of foreign nationals trying to cause dissension and division in online social media. As the (Republican controlled) Senate has noted, just about every social media platform has been used. I also look at your postings and find that the mistakes are of a certain kind and probably not typos. Sorry if I'm out of line.

Of course, all voices are welcome....provided their purpose is not solely to sow dissension.

sabbia | December 24, 2018

Examples quoted from elsewhere.

Some of these quotes (from this thread) are typos. Some are foreign locutions.

"there is nothing to worry about except misguided policy at by people"

"concentrated on cities"

"The scientist doing the work admit this."

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

@sabbia "Some of us are on edge" is ridiculous. Anybody getting anxiety from participation in an open forum needs to see a doctor. This has been asked and answered before so you're wasting your time. I'm either a foreigner with bad English grammar according to you. Or I'm an American with bad English grammar according to you. You decide for yourself. Or maybe I'm comrade Vladimir Putin...muhahah!

YOU are trying to use a subtle ad hominem to cause people to fear me and get distracted. Knock it off and address the topic which so far no one can. Some free advice to those of you interested in science. Try not to get too attached to any scientific theory. They are constantly being proven and disproven. This is the way it is. When some long held belief is found to be incorrect that's ok.

I highly recommend that you read some literature to help you open your mind's eye. Try The Foundation Series, Animal Farm and 1984.

sabbia | December 24, 2018

As to seeing a doctor, I don't see him, but I correspond often with SCCRENDO.

SCCRENDO | December 24, 2018

Darth let us begin with your false statement that CO2 levels are nothing to do with man and cannot be impacted. I noticed no supporting data from you. But this would suggest you are wrong

SCCRENDO | December 24, 2018

@sabbia. I am not a psychiatrist and do not want to act like one. And I have never met you in person. But as a physician with decades of experience I do not detect any significant anxiety or psychiatric problem in you. You seem pretty level headed and unemotional in your writings. Of course if I am presented with contrary evidence by your psychiatrist I may need to change my opinion.

sabbia | December 24, 2018

Darth leaves clues about their attempts of disruption from a foreign source. They acknowledge syntactical errors but try to distract the clue that they use a foreign keyboard.

See Darth's post on December 20. It's on the thread "Climate Change Science is sound"
Note the quotation marks. The post contains the words "if you do not try"

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

@SCC I didn't say CO2 levels have nothing to do with man. You're either mistaken again or lying. I said I am not convinced man made CO2 will lead to catastrophic climate change. And there is no proof anywhere that it will. CO2 is a good and necessary part of Earth's ecosystem.

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

@sabbia you caught me. I do use a foreign keyboard... Made in China and designed in California lol

SCCRENDO | December 24, 2018

@Darth. There is no disagreement that CO2 is part of the earth's ecosystem. This is clearly explained in the links I posted above. What the links explain is that we have overwhelmed our natural buffers and it is the excess CO2 that is a problem. From what I understand you are claiming that the high CO2 levels are natural and there is not much we can do about it. The articles I linked seem to refute your contention and show how they can tell which CO2 is natural and which is due to man. The science looks pretty convincing to me. You have not stated whether you have any scientific background but if you do please look at the science and tell me where it is incorrect.

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

The amount of CO2 from man made emissions is a very small percentage of the total something like 3%! That's a fact. Your
assertions that some natural buffer has been exceeded is ludicrous. See below:

SCCRENDO | December 24, 2018

Yes it is a small amount. No doubt about it. But it is enough to upset the balance. A common strawman argument is that logically amounts seem small so they cannot be consequential. But when this is studied it can have enormous consequences. I suggest you read the links I posted. The discussion is not complicated even if you don't have that much background. And if you do and want more info the articles are linked to the science thay are based on.

sabbia | December 24, 2018

Darth won't tell us the what key combination he uses on his California designed keyboard to get those sketchy quotation marks. As Darth said, I caught them.

sabbia | December 24, 2018

The St. Petersburg Internet Research Agency may or may not have designed the keyboards used to plaster disinformation on social media...but they plastered anyway.

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

@SCC no one knows if it's going to have huge consequences. That's still being studied. We do know that it isn't unprecedented and has been much higher. I read your links and they are no more valid than your assertions. I agree that some people think there's a looming crisis. However they cannot prove it with anything other than incomplete models. Models that almost always need adjustment. I am not linking you to environmental activist websites and fanboys. I've showed you sworn testimony from scientist who say exactly what I have. From published scientist who say exactly what I said. We all agree man have an effect on climate. We do not agree that it is catastrophic, the most pressing issue or even on what if anything we need to do about it. Only media, profit seekers, politicians, activist and ignorant people say things like that.

And we also know BEVs aren't any solution to CO2 because they emit as much as ICE vehicles when the entire life cycle and production is considered.

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

@SCC this is what scientist think. Notice the difference from what you say:

SCCRENDO | December 24, 2018

@Darth. I sure notice the difference. I posted links that explain that the CO2 produced by industrialization has overwhelmed our buffering systems. And they show the science behind it. Your TV show fails to mention that the excess CO2 from industrialization. So I guess if we were not producing excess CO2 then they would be correct.

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

@SCC how exactly do you get excess from a closed system? Please tell me what "excess" is to the Earth?

I wrote this in a way that hopefully will help you to see the error in what you said.

SCCRENDO | December 24, 2018

CO2 is stored in fossil fuels in the ground. They were built up over millions and millions of years. We are releasing the CO2 over a few centuries..

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

Uh huh and we are nowhere near those levels. And we will continue to release that CO2 for the foreseeable future.

Mike83 | December 24, 2018

Most lies from Darthantiamerican. Here is the data. Avg. of 220 now at 409.67 PPM.

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

Mike you might want to slow your confirmation bias down a bit and Google "Devonian". Your average is a literal blink of the eye.

Mike83 | December 24, 2018

LOL an almost 100% increase in a blink of an eye. Your nuts.

dtodd16 | December 24, 2018

You are all a strange breed. Darth has stated his point and lots of others have stated theirs. What more do you want? Get a life and move on.

SCCRENDO | December 24, 2018

@dtodd. Get a life and stop telling us how to run our lives.

SCCRENDO | December 24, 2018

Although Mike I think this poiht has been flogged. He poses stupid questions that he doesnt understand and when you answer him or refute his point he either hasn’t read our answers or doesn’t understand them. So I guess I have given my answer and will step off the thread I created for him.

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

@SCC you should try asking yourself more questions. We do not know the long term impact on climate nor can we. BEVs are not significantly cleaner than ICE vehicles when you account for their battery production, inefficiencies and charging. Those are cold hard facts.

Mike83 | December 24, 2018

You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

@Mike get off of @SCC's jock and acknowledge or refute the math before you. You spent all that money thinking you're saving the environment when in fact you could have got a Honda Civic and actually reduced your carbon footprint.

SCCRENDO | December 24, 2018

@Darth. BS. We do know that they are and we have shown you. And Mike is cool. He is a retired marine biologist and he knows what he is talking about

Darthamerica | December 24, 2018

I'm sure he is good at his job. He's being alarmist about climate though.

SO | December 25, 2018

Even South Park admitted fault. In their own way. :-)

SO | December 25, 2018
SCCRENDO | December 25, 2018

@SO +1000. I hope Darth watches your second link at least.

Darthamerica | December 25, 2018

@SCC and @SO that was hilarious! I get the point you're making and it is a good analogy right up until the man bear pig enters the restaurant. Believe in such a creature is not rational. Without more evidence of it being real then the man is right to disagree with the woman. That's where we are with climate change catastrophe. However when proof is obvious, the creature busting open the door, it would be right to do something instead of waiting for it to rip off your head.

SO | December 25, 2018

@Darth - not sure if you watch South Park but there is a history about this.

Twelve years ago, South Park had an episode saying how Al Gore was trying to warn everyone of this problem. (Man Bear Pig). But the point of that problem is that it was a fake thing. They really made a point that it was overblown nonsense.

Now, twelve years later, they admit that there is enough data to show that this is real. You’d have to watch the whole thing to really understand their point. Pretty good episode. (2 parts)

SO | December 25, 2018

The creature = climate change. They do have a funny way of looking at things.

Darthamerica | December 25, 2018

@SO I get it. However since I use strict science as my guide it's still a man bear pig to me. When real evidence of catastrophe is available, I have no problem accepting it. But for now there is not enough evidence to suggest anything dire. There is plenty of proof that overreacting will have very immediate negative impact including mass deaths. I'm more concerned about that. I think the best thing to do is to continue to monitor and study until we can have better models. Until then transportation and energy innovation and products should be introduced using free market principles.

NKYTA | December 25, 2018

“There is plenty of proof that overreacting will have very immediate negative impact including mass deaths.”

LOL! Thanks for the twisted Holiday humor.

In what goalpost-shifting scenario are there going to be mass deaths?

SO | December 25, 2018

@Darth - I certainly didn’t expect you to be swayed. Just like the guy in the restaurant. :-)