EV Movement, Plastic Bag Bans, etc. - Is Motive Really Environment or Control? (solar, recycling)

[jbg]

Do you understand the Greenhouse effect at all? Do you know why and how he atmosphere keeps us warmer/

I also understand that the costs of these madcap experiments to stop this theoretical risk will hurt the poor far more than the wealthy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am new here but you will see me use the term "fear porn" a lot. Contrary to predictions 20 years ago, New York City is not underwater. We are not having more 90°F or above days. In 1991 and 1993 we cracked, by one or two days to 1944 summer record. Contrary to Al Gore's predictions snow has not become a rare event, albeit last winter it was.

Scientists never predicted that. Scientists do not even predict flooding of Florida this century. Are strawman arguments the best that you can do?

Even within the last 1000 years we went through the Medieval Optimum, followed by the Maunder Minimum and a bunch of Little Ice Ages.

the Medieval Optimum was not global. The Maunder Minimum was more about sunspots than cliimate.

This is bullying and shaming, far worse than the marginalization of their latest darlings, LBGTQ+. Some personal disclosure, though; I consider myself a cisgender male Black Lab.

Either they'll double down, or lose all credibility.

Be careful, seriously. La Niña worsens hurricane seasons. The strong subtropical jets of El Niño prevents the vertical formation of hurricanes, basically decapitating them. One or two do sneak through though; even in 1992, Andrew, caused a lot of damage. Both were Niño years but as you can tell from their alphabet position, there were few hurricanes those summers. Agnes formed in 1972, a Niño year, but that storm had many subtropical characteristics. High numbers of storms, with names starting after letter "Z" were in near-Niña 2005 and Niña 2021.

Do not take him too seriously. He appears to be largely another science denier.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I also understand that the costs of these madcap experiments to stop this theoretical risk will hurt the poor far more than the wealthy.

Sorry, but you do not. All you have is prejudice right now since you are looking at short term costs only. You can learn at least the basics. You might become a better debater if you knew what you were talking about. Of course there is an even bigger risk. You might realize that you were wrong all along.

So, the Greenhouse Effect, it is not controversial at all. It was known and well accepted long before AGW became a thing.

Do you think that you could understand it? The math behind it is not difficult at all.

 

[Shaul]

Horses might be "green" but they're horribly
inefficient. Bicycles are the most energy efficient
form of travel.
Science of Cycling: Human Power | Exploratorium
But they suck for hauling heavy.
I recently hauled this from MN to MI.
(7' tall, & 9400#)

I was wondering where that thing went.

 

[Shaul]

I used my bicycle today to go to the store instead of driving. It was a beautiful day here. But I pity the fool that tries to take away my Studebaker!

 

[jbg]

Scientists never predicted that. Scientists do not even predict flooding of Florida this century. Are strawman arguments the best that you can do?



the Medieval Optimum was not global. The Maunder Minimum was more about sunspots than cliimate.



Do not take him too seriously. He appears to be largely another science denier.

This reminds me of a maxim in my field. "When the facts are against you argue the law. When the law is against you argue the facts. When both are against you pound the table." Or on a discussion board, start making ad hominim attacks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This reminds me of a maxim in my field. "When the facts are against you argue the law. When the law is against you argue the facts. When both are against you pound the table." Or on a discussion board, start making ad hominim attacks.

I don't think that you know what an ad hominem attack is since I did not make any. You on the other hand have lived off of them.

Also the facts are on my side and you seem to know it. Why run away from an offer to help you to understand the basics?

 

[jbg]

I don't think that you know what an ad hominem attack is since I did not make any. You on the other hand have lived off of them.

Also the facts are on my side and you seem to know it. Why run away from an offer to help you to understand the basics?

With due respect this is a herd mentality; a plausible theory, untested, unfalsifiable spreads, and becomes gospel. To disagree is to defy "science."

 

[Subduction Zone]

With due respect this is a herd mentality; a plausible theory, untested, unfalsifiable spreads, and becomes gospel. To disagree is to defy "science."

What makes you think that it is untestable? You should know that when you make claims like that you take on a burden of proof. I would like to see you prove your claim. And unfortunately you once again appear to be guilty of what you accuse others of. It is the science deniers that follow a belief just because they want to. I have never seen any of them able to support their claims. Most, like you, do not even understand the bare minimum of the science that they are attacking.

 

[jbg]

What makes you think that it is untestable? You should know that when you make claims like that you take on a burden of proof. I would like to see you prove your claim. And unfortunately you once again appear to be guilty of what you accuse others of. It is the science deniers that follow a belief just because they want to. I have never seen any of them able to support their claims. Most, like you, do not even understand the bare minimum of the science that they are attacking.

You raise an interesting issue with burdens of proof. I believe that the party seeking to plunge society and industry into massive shifts bears the burden of proof.

Maybe I get a bit caustic and sarcastic in my remarks. However, I consider it hubristic to think that humans can change the weather, by accident or deliberately. Yes, meteorological events have a greater impact with greater human population densities. If we have a new Ice Age, for example, moving New York City or Toronto will be a lot more difficult than moving nomadic hunters a few hundred or thousand miles. I personally think we should take such measures as discouraging massive development right at the waters edge. Even centuries gone by storms with the intensity of the St. Croix hurricane that forced Alexander Hamilton to move to New York City or merged the Hudson with the East River a pretty good ways into New York City have disproportionate impact right at the coastline. That I will concede.

As to the natural world, I favor such steps to restore nature's balance as reintroducing wolves to largely uninhabited areas such as Yellowstone, and even, on the East Coast, the Adirondack, Green and White Mountains. Again, a "pet" belief I have is that coyotes, probably interbred with wolves and domestic dogs, are doing that for us.

Don't worry, I am not some unreconstructed Right Winger, I just believe in moving cautiously and constructively.

 

[Revoltingest]

You raise an interesting issue with burdens of proof. I believe that the party seeking to plunge society and industry into massive shifts bears the burden of proof.

Keeping the status quo requires justification too,
especially since it will also plunge us into major
changes, eg, climate, population growth, loss
of natural environment.
So the issue is what's best to do regarding
public policies. Some things are clearly
compelling, eg, getting lead out of gasoline.
Others are murky, & will change over time,
eg, EVs or hybrids?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You raise an interesting issue with burdens of proof. I believe that the party seeking to plunge society and industry into massive shifts bears the burden of proof.

Maybe I get a bit caustic and sarcastic in my remarks. However, I consider it hubristic to think that humans can change the weather, by accident or deliberately. Yes, meteorological events have a greater impact with greater human population densities. If we have a new Ice Age, for example, moving New York City or Toronto will be a lot more difficult than moving nomadic hunters a few hundred or thousand miles. I personally think we should take such measures as discouraging massive development right at the waters edge. Even centuries gone by storms with the intensity of the St. Croix hurricane that forced Alexander Hamilton to move to New York City or merged the Hudson with the East River a pretty good ways into New York City have disproportionate impact right at the coastline. That I will concede.

As to the natural world, I favor such steps to restore nature's balance as reintroducing wolves to largely uninhabited areas such as Yellowstone, and even, on the East Coast, the Adirondack, Green and White Mountains. Again, a "pet" belief I have is that coyotes, probably interbred with wolves and domestic dogs, are doing that for us.

Don't worry, I am not some unreconstructed Right Winger, I just believe in moving cautiously and constructively.

When it comes to AGW the burden of proof has been met. But amateurs rarely understand the sciences. That is why they lump the alarmists, and there are some, in among with the scientists. A bit over ten years ago I used to argue along with the deniers. I thought that it was overblown.

But I have a rare bad habit. When someone that I am debating against posts a source I tend to read it far too often. Most debaters ignore sources. This is a very good bad habit to have. If I am wrong I can learn why and change my position. That is sadly rather rare. But with AGW I found that all of the facts and science was on the AGW side. As for the other times. . . . You would be amazed how often a posted link opposes a debater. Especially if they only read the headline.

Back to AGW. If you hear that New York City is going to be underwater in fifty years or something else extreme in a rather short period of time is going to happen the person that made this claim is likely to be an alarmist. I am not all that fond of Al Gore. He at times works as an alarmist.

But if someone says that hurricanes are going to be more powerful, or that extremes in general are going to be worse. That island aquifers are becoming salty. Or other claims that are not so extreme, but still very important if one thinks about them then they may be legitimate.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

@jbg Any thoughts on the recent train problem we have in ohio?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I know people who think that government institutes
policies solely to train us to be more submissive.
But they never have evidence for this conspiracy.

And what's your opinion on the massive train disaster, that no one has yet made a thread on? Is it the preference of corporations and the state for us to avert away from looking too hard at that, or am I being paranoid

 

[Revoltingest]

And what's your opinion on the massive train disaster, that no one has yet made a thread on?

That begs the question...
Why haven't you made the thread?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

That begs the question...
Why haven't you made the thread?

Well, this seems like a possible thread to mention it in, and creating political threads is not my forte

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, this seems like a possible thread to mention it in, and creating political threads is not my forte

You mis-pronounced "forte".
The "e" is silent when using it to describe a skill.

It seems that no one, not even you, is interested
in your thread about the train.

 

[jbg]

@jbg Any thoughts on the recent train problem we have in ohio?

I've been working and not really following the news. What is happening?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I've been working and not really following the news. What is happening?

Just getting ready to go to work myself. There was a big train derailment in ohio, spilling a lot of viny chloride and stuff, which apparently they burned. Animials/fish are sick/dead. Town of east palestine had about 5000 people, many evacuated but now told it's safe to return. I had a thread on it in the north american politics section. Curious on your opinion, as I read that you seem to have views on environmental related stuff

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What are we accomplishing by all this harem-skarem activity other than salving our consciences for being affluent?

It tells us who the science deniers and hyper-partisan cretins are, those who refuse to learn and instead carry the torch of American Anti-Intellectualism with pride.