The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Still, the requirement isn't that grid connected EVs provide 100% of the electricity demand, just whatever deficit in renewable production there is. Even if EVs are insufficient to 100% cover deficit demand, it at least holds the potential to massively smooth out the grid and avoid costly peaking generation a significant portion of the time.

Best of all, the charge/discharge currents would be way lower than what the battery encounters when driving; nothing they couldn't handle.
And there is money to be gained by hooking up a car like that, to make up for any battery deterioration - if that's still an issue by then, modern car batteries don't deteriorate that much anymore.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

This is a nice magic wand you have to wave away anything you do not agree with.

[aerohead thanks sendler] Now I'm all confused again.

When you add energy to a system you add chaos. Anyone not prepping for hotter and colder temperatures is only half prepared. (going commando myself)

Given the appropriate nano-scaled semi-permeable membrane, seawater should meet lake salt in a race to the bottom. Meanwhile Moon Power and demand reduction can help.

[redneck]

.


“Global warming ‘provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.”

~Margaret Thatcher



>

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redneck

.


“Global warming ‘provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.”

~Margaret Thatcher



>

That is a BS quote. Margaret Thatcher was a scientist, and she was well aware of the FACT that humans are causing climate to change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fys5Z63xCvA

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

[NeilBlanchard]

Climate change: World heading for warmest decade, says Met Office

[freebeard]

That is a BS quote. Margaret Thatcher was a scientist, and she was well aware of the FACT that humans are causing climate to change.

What a convenient hook to hang your political intention on. Much better than the Sixth Animal Extinction.

Was she arguing for or against? (I guess I should put the videos in my queue. Joe Rogan (ecological collapse at Easter Island) at the moment)

edit:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47144058

It will EITHER get warmer OR it won't. That's logical.

The more we master our environment the more we must learn to serve it.

Margaret Thatcher

Sounds reasonable.

[oil pan 4]

We know it's not going to stay the same.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

That is a BS quote. Margaret Thatcher was a scientist, and she was well aware of the FACT that humans are causing climate to change.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22069768


In 2003, her book Statecraft recanted her earlier views, casting doubt on "alarmist" science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - a body she helped to create - and warning that: "The new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes."

She said the international effort to tackle climate change "provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism".



Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...e-sceptic.html



In bringing this about, Mrs Thatcher played an important part. It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.
In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Alas, what she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day.

But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of "climate sceptics" has been almost entirely buried from view.





>

[oil pan 4]

Blaming every disaster on climate change cost the US 91 billion dollars last year. The government wants a few hundred billion dollars per year to fix it.
I have a feeling that if the government confiscates 200 billion dollars per year we will still have natural disasters....
The only thing that will change is my account ballance.

Originally Posted by redneck

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22069768


In 2003, her book Statecraft recanted her earlier views, casting doubt on "alarmist" science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - a body she helped to create - and warning that: "The new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes."

She said the international effort to tackle climate change "provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism".



Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...e-sceptic.html



In bringing this about, Mrs Thatcher played an important part. It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.
In other words, long before it became fashionable, Lady Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Alas, what she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day.

But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of "climate sceptics" has been almost entirely buried from view.





>

I'm going to have to say that back fired on them.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redneck

... She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.
...

2.5 degree change in the Medieval Warm Period? How come I did not know?
Time for a fact check...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may have been related to other warming events in other regions during that time, including China[1] and other areas,[2][3] lasting from c. 950 to c. 1250.[4] Other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific.

So it wasn't a global effect. That '2.5 degree change' wasn't even 0.25 degrees globally. It falls way short of the current situation.
It must be another distortion of science by a right-wing politician, which she happened to be.