The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

It has got nothing to do with me. Crowder is a blogger, who has been shown to get the science wrong, on many things - and therefore he is not a credible source.

I got 1:27* into the first one and 0:21 into the second. potholer54 has the affect of a sanctimonious pr*ck. "...there's no need for real-time debate in science" Because it can't be peer reviewed ...or what?

Louder With Crowder is not a credible source. He has been debunked.

Perhaps you misapprehend long-form journalism. Crowder, like Joe Rogan, is a comedian. He has guests. The guests may or may not be falsifiable sources. Admittedly, I know nothing about his blog, just the Youtube stuff.

*I can't pull it out of the transcript, but the in graphic quotes about 'fluctuations' they're talking past each other.

edit:
Both potholer54 and Thunderfoot rub me the wrong way. I prefer a less affect[at]ed host, like Joe Scott or Scott Manley.

[Xist]

I have enjoyed some of Crowder's stuff, but there are dozens of channels that I watch first. He is annoying. Is he as annoying as Shouty? I do not have any idea. Sometimes each of them are right. Crowder provides sources. I have watched videos where he shows a liberal making claims and saying "Look it up."

Around here we demand sources. It is weird when someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, someone says they are wrong, and the original person says "Prove it."

No, the burden of proof is on the first person.

It is annoying when someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, someone asks for a source, and the first person says "Don't be lazy! Look it up yourself!"

You could argue that it is lazy, but if someone does not support their claim, I do not take it seriously.

While I was writing that there were three or four ads for the Arizona senate race. You have a retired Airman that flew fighter jets in Afghanistan and a woman that protested the war in Afghanistan by dancing in a pink tutu.

Personally I would rather watch a recreation of the fighter missions than the tutu dancing, but that is just me.

There was an ad apparently for the dancer saying that her opponent served honorably, but made dishonorable claims, which are simply not true. Don't be fooled.

Wait, which claims are untrue, and where are your sources?

Shut up and give me coroplast!

[freebeard]

One post only. We'll have to be patient.

What do you think of Styxhexenhammer? He's running for Governor of Vermont.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGRIlFFJ63k

He doesn't get into climate much. He's more likely to be updating on his garden.

edit:
Awesome. At 5:26 he says it's not dinosaur juice and it's not abiotic — its anaerobic and chemotropic bacteria. I reject my previous thinking.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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

The 'real' ice is 'freshwater' ice.It's salt free.
If you pump seawater onto it,you lower it's freeze point and melt it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

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.

I've been thinking about it in terms of an 'non-oil depletion allowance.'
As an incentive for the nascent EV/renewable energy companies to get a tow hold in the marketplace.
It's cheaper than war, and you get something durable,paying dividends every year into the future.
Without it,we're probably looking at a class action lawsuit, at least against the oil industry,which has enjoyed federal incentives since before dirt.

[redpoint5]

I'd like to know the details on "oil subsidies" one of these days. It's talked about a lot, but what specifically do they entail, and for what purpose?

All businesses get to write off their expenses, so that cannot be included in what we call "subsidy". When I get time I'll try to look it up, but I've never seen someone post exactly how much the oil industry gets in subsidy, and how it is justified.

[TheEnemy]

Not sure If I should put this in its own thread, bit it was discussed here at one point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mXSMwZUiCU

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It has got nothing to do with me. Crowder is a blogger, who has been shown to get the science wrong, on many things - and therefore he is not a credible source.

And Patrick Moore is also wrong on science:

PT Barnum would love this sucker-baiting tripe.
Crowder is living proof that we evolved from apes.
And I've got 3 Bibles at home.I'd be happy to loan any or all to Prager,as well as kick in a little for literacy training.
Maybe the internet ought to be regulated.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

You disagree with him, therefore he is wrong?

If Crowder knew anything about Global Climate Change research,he'd already know that natural variability of solar irradiance does not force climate change in magnitudes sufficient to compensate for anthropogenic carbon emissions.
This sort of thing was sorted out in 1995.
Eigil Friis-Christensen & Knud Lassen were wrong.
Sallie Baliunas and Robert Jastrow were wrong.
The Sun's irradiance/senescence cycle only varies 0.1%
The Maunder Minimum (when there weren't any sunspots at all),combined with the actual reason for irradiance,of the Little Ice Age displayed only a 0.14% delta.
The Milankovitch cycles aren't events measured in human lifetimes.
There won't be any global cooling.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'd like to know the details on "oil subsidies" one of these days. It's talked about a lot, but what specifically do they entail, and for what purpose?

All businesses get to write off their expenses, so that cannot be included in what we call "subsidy". When I get time I'll try to look it up, but I've never seen someone post exactly how much the oil industry gets in subsidy, and how it is justified.

It's the oil depletion allowance.It used to be (I think) 28%,then later,it was lowered to 26%
It has allowed the oil industry to write off the first 26-cents of every net dollar they earn,paying corporate income tax only the remaining 74%.
And knowing the American Bar Association,an attorney representing,say,wind or solar,will make the claim that the Sun is a finite energy source,will Red Dwarf one day, rendering itself useless;and in fairness to the wind and solar industry,an incentive must be made,as is made for oil and gas,or else we're looking at prejudice and discrimination.
Presently,when other factors are added in,as with externalities,oil and gas,worldwide receives $5.3-Trillion / year.