The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I know. Just like all the climate change computer models where the source data is a secret.
Just believe it.

The scientists know from the past,the danger of releasing raw data to certain cranks,nutters,and harlot 'scientists',attempting to use the tobacco play book to 're-interpret' the data for their outcome-based research.
Scientists have better things to do,than be harassed by *****s.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

So you read the article but not the paper that showed that there was no statistical increase in the current rate ?

They claimed 60 percent.

60 percent.

There was zero percent.

Zero...


https://www.nicholaslewis.org/wp-con...906ff-36424229

(quote)

Conclusions

The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.
Moreover, even if the paper's results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming.

Because of the wide dissemination of the paper's results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected

Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.

But perhaps that is too much to hope for.

Nicholas Lewis

6 November 2018

(End quote)



That peer reviewed premier scientific journal was ”Nature”.

Which is one of the trusted sources you touted previously.

It will be interesting if they post a retraction or correction in a upcoming issue.


P.S
I’m not holding my breath.




Also.

I’m trying to figure out why you posted in your last two replies to me references to the 2008 meltdown and Enron.

Is it because we were lied to, had our money siphoned away then dragged our economy thru financial hell for the benefit of a few who ran a Ponzi scheme ...???

Sorta like AGW, carbon credits and the associated lower living standards that come along with it...???

If so...

I’m right with you...






>

I read the initial article.It essentially said that even if the researchers got everything wrong it wouldn't make much difference.
People are wrong all the time.Especially in SCIENCE and NATURE.
The next issue will have 'Correspondence' and you'll see a section on 'Corrections'.
This is nothing novel.
It's just science at work.
Peer-review isn't perfect,but it's all we have.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I respect your opinion and fought for your 1st Amendment right to share it,but I would respectfully argue that you may be saving a few in the short term,only to realize orders of magnitude greater suffering if we knowingly let all our weather patterns be disrupted.
Everything on Earth evolved for a world without fossil fuel combustion.

I'm not recommending further fossil fuel use. Since it is not even a possible choice to just leave it in the ground. What I am trying to say is that we are completely dependant on it. And the impending diminished access to oil and other crucial depleted resources will bring a societal collapse. Before any comparably destructive effects of climate change manifest. This is totally unbeknownst to most people. Climate change has totally distracted the conversation and planning away from addressing the complete social reordering that is headed for us as primary energy slips forever away to a lower level.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by slowmover

EV is being forced. Period. It’s nothing but greater control.

How’s your social credit score?

Oh, no local suppliers, and online won’t accept your order.

EV is more of the same. (Sorry, no charging for you. Anywhere).

One can argue content, but it’s who determined context that mattered.

Who, whom.

.

*Some of 'We the People' have decided to transition off carbon combustion.If you want to destroy states rights,and the Republic,well I guess,then We the People don't have a voice,or due process anymore.
*If incentives are offered,how is that interpreted as forcing?
*Are you going to bring back Thalidomide?
*Wood-fired,steam locomotives?
*Blacksmiths?
*Does the fact that many activities can be done without internal combustion alter our options for the future?
*Do you defend burning the entire surface of the earth more than one-and-a half times a year?
Do you believe that all lifeforms evolved to live on a planet which is completely burned 1-1/2 times each year?
*If you thought you had off-the-shelf technology to perform this transition,would you not exercise your option,given the consequences?

[oil pan 4]

Oh so they can't release the source data to protect everyone from the opposing view.
I see how it is. One sided, don't ask, don't tell science, secret if any peer review, yeah seems legit.
I will wait for it to come out on wiki leaks.
Getting the impression the believers are terrified of true transparency.
No thata a lie, I have known all along the believers will never go for full transparency, I leaned this back when I was kind of a believer, back around 2005 or 2006.

So the sun does effect the atmosphere but the part that it effects doesn't effect the other parts, ha that's rich. Man the rules keep changing in this game faster than I can keep up with.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The side in this, with the most money - is lying.

Both sides lie.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

EV's are pretty much accepted here, and he charging infrastructure is building up fast.

The thing that is holding back the rate at which new charging stations are built is the fact that the current ones are nowhere near full use. They are built in anticipation of future increased use. More charging stations now are simply not necessary. They will be in the future, but there is no reason to expect that the market suddenly stops responding to demand.

Once EV sales go up, finding local charging stations ceases to be a problem.

When ICE automobiles took off in the marketplace,there were no roads and no gas stations.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

EVs are excellent cars for short to medium range driving, and terrible for long distance. Multi-vehicle families should have at least 1 EV if they have access to home charging.

I'm guessing free charging will go away since you'll get people abusing it. Very few people will want to use slow charging infrastructure if it isn't free, since it would cost more than charging at home. For this reason, slow chargers in the public are also mostly a gimmick. People don't want to rely on a charger being available at their destination to be able to make it back home, for instance. If they aren't relying on a charger being available, then any charging they do is opportunistic rather than a necessity.

A couple of road warriors with CAR and DRIVER drove a Tesla Model S P85,from Ann Arbor,Michigan,to New York,then to Los Angeles,and I think their only complaint,was the choice of restaurants near the Supercharger stations.

[oil pan 4]

Most people charge at home.
But it seems 80 to 90% of home charging is done on 120v power which is inefficient and slow.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Well India now believers that galactic cosmic rays and El Nino are the major climate drivers for their sub content.
Not even going to waste my time linking the research paper since the believers will just deny and cling to their 20 year old study about the suns UV irradiance only changing by around 0.1%.

The belief that man as the driving force behind climate change is over.
Happened a lot faster than I thought it would. I figured it would be some time after 2020.

Cosmic rays are a misnomer.They're cosmic particles.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by slowmover

EV only makes sense in metro areas.

Yeah, restricted access.

Keep your social credit slave collar shiny. No matter how many humiliating lies it takes. Which is the point of them.

.

Tesla owners are driving coast to coast.