The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I support your right to think it,say it.I don't like to be duped.
And Gore may have done as much damage as he may have helped.

When I say sit back and watch the man made global warming movement destroy it's self, that's what I am talking about.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

When I say sit back and watch the man made global warming movement destroy it's self, that's what I am talking about.

With only 2-days a week to look online, I probably don't have the time to look around to see what kind of sensationalism is going on in the name of climate change as some of you.
Other than what I can squeeze in,I'm basically limited to SCIENCE,NATURE,Scientific American,Rolling Stone,and National Geographic.Sometimes,PBS NOVA will have a special.
As far as broadcast journalism goes,AccuWeather and PBS are the only networks to have even mentioned climate change in a year.
The science of anthropogenic carbon dioxide-related climate change has been excepted since around 1859.
Predictive capabilities aren't as good as we'd like,but folks do as best they can.
As far as 'movements',I may be missing something.
As to the science,I can't imagine it going away.It is what it is.
There are industry lobbyists doing what they can.There's a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ at stake.
Some climatologists believe some of the climate accords are basically lip service and wouldn't have any meaningful impact,except as a gesture.
If you're unsure as to if Global warming is real,you don't have to look further than Venus,and compare it to Mercury.Venus IS the poster child for global warming.

[Xist]

I searched for "al gore saying "the artic could be ice free in 5 years" and found "2008 Al Gore video where he predicts that the arctic would be ice-free in 5 years." https://science.slashdot.org/story/1...eze-the-arctic

So, the the video was in 2008, and he said in five years, so by 2013, not 2010, but it still came and went.

Can we get back to not discussing that clown? I try to forget about him!

In more important news, that link led me to this: Scientists hatch crazy $500 billion plan to refreeze the Arctic

[oil pan 4]

Sounds like a plot to a bond film.

[Xist]

As I have mentioned before, I have long wished I could figure out how to convert caloric energy directly to electricity. Everyone says it is not possible.

Not with that attitude!

If I, or perhaps someone smarter, could figure it out, you wouldn't need a radiator!

Or an AC unit!

Or a refrigerator!

In theory, you could keep an entire room, building, city, or glacier a pre-determined temperature.

Of course, what would you do with all of that energy?

Bit mining! :P

[oil pan 4]

According to AEI dot org in 2017 the united states was the world leader in CO2 emissions reduction.

[Xist]

Firefighters: Solar panel likely caused Cornelius house fire

A solar technician said it appeared a safety device wanted to watch the world burn.

[All Darc]

Calories into energy?

Uhnn... You can eat a big X-burguer and then run (cooper) 10 miles.

Ok, serious speaking, there was a "solar panel that worked at night". No kidding, it had micro antennas that captured radiant heat and converted into electricity.
In theory you could use it in the lower area of the car, pointed to the ground, to captured the radiant heat of the hot road and convert into electricity.

Originally Posted by Xist

As I have mentioned before, I have long wished I could figure out how to convert caloric energy directly to electricity. Everyone says it is not possible.

Not with that attitude!

If I, or perhaps someone smarter, could figure it out, you wouldn't need a radiator!

Or an AC unit!

Or a refrigerator!

In theory, you could keep an entire room, building, city, or glacier a pre-determined temperature.

Of course, what would you do with all of that energy?

Bit mining! :P

[oil pan 4]

One of the reasons for why I'm doing ground mount.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Xist

Red Point, did you watch the video that Sendler linked?

Yes, I did enjoy the video. I just didn't find it prompting me to post with new thoughts though.

A problem has to be accurately identified to accurately solve it. The variables are so great that defining the problem is difficult at best, and prone to hyperbole. Then the solutions to the poorly defined problem have undefined benefits.

How much does the $7,500 tax credit for EVs help solve whatever problem it was meant to solve? That's $1.5 Billion in lost tax revenue per auto manufacturer.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be concerned about difficult to define problems, or that solutions that are difficult to quantify are inappropriate, but the costs must be considered. This is coming from someone who is gungho on EVs.