Climate Change or Manipulated Data?

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:
My nephew died years ago at four years of age because, we think, he used to play on vacant land that was contaminated by a large corp.

Where I live, a former large well known corp now out of business dumped toxic shit in the ground - and there are higher rates of cancer.  

I am anti-regulation on nonsense regarding climate change shit.  That doesn’t give these criminals the right to pollute our resources. 

the EPA is an absolute must,  but they need somebody to keep them in check and on mission.  they need to be looking at the big players (who make massive campaign contributions) and spend less time killing the small offenders,  and even less time trying to create new laws to create new offenders to go after.   

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:
NASA recently came out and said climate change is tied to the sun and the tilt of the earth.

A!, I think your statement is suspect.


 From NASA's site (https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/):

"No. The Sun can influence the Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.
One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of the Sun’s energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites and what they tell us is that there has been no upward trend in the amount of the Sun’s energy reaching Earth.
A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface all the way up to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a build-up of heat-trapping gases near the surface of the Earth, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”"

And this from September by NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/:
"The Sun powers life on Earth; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. It also influences Earth’s climate: We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the past ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity."

[Guest]

First, there are monetary winners or losers on either side of the argument.  If you don't try to address climate change, the polluters of the world win, if you do, the people pushing clean energy win.  Simply saying that "it is a way to make millions of dollars by guys like Al Gore and liberal theorists making grants at universities" without realizing the oil companies are pushing the anti-climate change arguments (and apt to make much more money than professors getting governmental grants").  Both sides of the argument will economically benefit depending on what we decide.

I would compare this to Pascal's wager which goes like this: a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).  Yes, believing that climate change is man-made and reversible will cost money and luxuries but if we are correct we can reverse climate change and eave a better world for our children.  On the other hand, if we believe climate change is not man-made but inevitable, we are risking our children's future (while having more money for ourselves).  Do I care whether the oil and coal company owners make a ton of money or the creators of clean(er) energy make more money -- frankly, no, it is just one group of rich people getting richer.  But am I willing to risk my children and their children's future just so I can drive a bigger car, etc.?  It seems to me that unless I am 100% certain that the majority of scientists are wrong, I owe it to my children to do the responsible thing and believe in climate change.  That is Pascal's wager.

And as one of you cited as NASA an authority on the subject (though horribly misciting NASA's findings), you should probably take NASA guidance on the subject; "Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space."  https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/  

Here is more from NASA (from the same link):
"In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."   

[Guest]

@JimmyinSD said:

@AGRforever said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@AGRforever said:
interesting tube. thanks!!

really really casts a shadow over the entire thing when its presented in that manner doesnt it.   I am not sure how people cant look at this manipulation of scientific data and not draw into question pretty much everything that is being pushed at us from the political machine and the people that run them.

I don't know if I'd be able to find it but the tube I was talking about basically said all the temperature data prior to the early 1920s-30s is bullshit.  There were only a few places taking measurements and when the data didn't fit the narrative they changed the data. 

Saving the planet is easy.  Make it economically viable to use less impactful things.  Want us to have solar panels?  Make them cheap enough that its stupid not to install them.  Want us to drive electric cars?  Make them cheaper to operate then gas cars.  I drive a small car for the MPGs.  Nothing more nothing less.  Its cheap to drive and "better" on the environment.  

I say make it so those industries can survive (solar/wind) to develop better technology , but to essentially try and kill coal and the cheap power and massive amounts of jobs tied to it... and at the same time giving massive tax breaks as well as other subsidies to the renewable industry,  that isnt good for the country or the power users that depend on that electricity.   when wind or solar are able to produce power on a massive scale,  as well as the battery tech be able to store surpluses for when the sun isnt shining and the wind isnt blowing... well then lest talk, but until then we still need coal and gas so lets quit trying to artificially kill those industries in an effort to prop up ideas that arent ready for prime time.

IMF recently came out to present that the US spends over $630 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually.  That’s over $2,000 per person.

Renewables, $14 billion, $42 per person.  Half of this is spent on bio fuels.

yes, subsidies should change, in the direction of innovation and new tech for a cleaner economy.

[Guest]

@Skodin said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@AGRforever said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@AGRforever said:
interesting tube. thanks!!

really really casts a shadow over the entire thing when its presented in that manner doesnt it.   I am not sure how people cant look at this manipulation of scientific data and not draw into question pretty much everything that is being pushed at us from the political machine and the people that run them.

I don't know if I'd be able to find it but the tube I was talking about basically said all the temperature data prior to the early 1920s-30s is bullshit.  There were only a few places taking measurements and when the data didn't fit the narrative they changed the data. 

Saving the planet is easy.  Make it economically viable to use less impactful things.  Want us to have solar panels?  Make them cheap enough that its stupid not to install them.  Want us to drive electric cars?  Make them cheaper to operate then gas cars.  I drive a small car for the MPGs.  Nothing more nothing less.  Its cheap to drive and "better" on the environment.  

I say make it so those industries can survive (solar/wind) to develop better technology , but to essentially try and kill coal and the cheap power and massive amounts of jobs tied to it... and at the same time giving massive tax breaks as well as other subsidies to the renewable industry,  that isnt good for the country or the power users that depend on that electricity.   when wind or solar are able to produce power on a massive scale,  as well as the battery tech be able to store surpluses for when the sun isnt shining and the wind isnt blowing... well then lest talk, but until then we still need coal and gas so lets quit trying to artificially kill those industries in an effort to prop up ideas that arent ready for prime time.

IMF recently came out to present that the US spends over $630 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually.  That’s over $2,000 per person.

Renewables, $14 billion, $42 per person.  Half of this is spent on bio fuels.

yes, subsidies should change, in the direction of innovation and new tech for a cleaner economy.

wasnt that you that said you work for a solar company?  your data seems a bit off from what I find.  most data I find shows that wind and solar combine for 4 to 5 times the amount of subsidies that coal/gas/and oil receive and most of the fossil subsidies come in the form of tax breaks while renewables get a lot of tax breaks they also receive significant direct money to assist in development already.

per forbes:https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/03/23/renewable-energy-subsidies-yes-or-no/#202edab36e23

In the U.S. alone in 2016, $18.4 billion was spent on energy subsidies; $11 billion of that went to renewable energy and $3 billion to energy efficiency.


A study by the University of Texas projected that U.S. energy subsidies per megawatt hour in 2019 would be $0.5 for coal, $1- $2 for oil and natural gas, $15- $57 for wind and $43- $320 for solar. Many of the renewable energy subsidies come in the form of a Production Tax Credit (PTC) of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Wholesale prices for electricity in 2017 were between approximately 2.9 cents to 5.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Therefore the wind production tax credit covers 30% to 60% of wholesale electricity prices.

https://talkbusiness.net/2019/01/renewable-energy-collects-93-of-federal-subsidies/


Here is one thats about 6 years old,  but I doubt much has changed since all the govt seems to do is find new ways to piss away tax dollars.  informative read with the link below.

This image has been reduced by 57.1%. Click to view full size.


insideenergy.org/2016/11/04/ie-questions-how-does-the-government-subsidize-oil-and-gas/

[Guest]

I just want to invite anyone who thinks we can go back to a simpler time to come out and split some wood with me.  I got 2/3s of a cord split yesterday afternoon but there were and are some impossible pieces that took forever. 

For you upper midwest people what would it take 8-12 cords of wood to heat your house?