Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28702 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #315 on: February 09, 2019, 12:04:10 am »
There are science deniers like yourself trying to paint it that way
There is that word again. Please explain what exactly think I am denying? I have said that CO2 is a GHG and the climate changing. My contempt for the ideologues claiming to be climate scientists does not mean I reject findings that have a well founded scientific basis. I only reject claims where is there is no scientific basis other than the opinion of the researcher manipulating the data.

What I also reject are idiotic policies being pushed by progressives who see climate change an excuse to hijack the moral authority of science in order to push their pet policies that have nothing to do with climate. The recent "Green New Deal" released by that Democrat in the US is a text book example. It is filled a progressive wish list of policies while it completely fails to deal with the claimed objective (i.e. it wants to close all nuclear plants in 10 years - a policy that makes zero sense if someone actually cared about CO2 emissions).

Now you can continue call me names and dismiss my legitimate concerns about the politicization of climate science. All that accomplishes is convince me that there is no point looking for compromise policies that would work toward CO2 reductions and I will cheer on Doug and Jason in their attempts to obstruct the modest policies that Trudeau wants to put in.

Or you could get out of your bubble, acknowledge that science is no where near as certain as you would like to believe and try to have a conversation with the people that are numerous enough to ensure that no effective anti-CO2 policy will ever be put in place.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2019, 12:08:14 am by TimG »
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #316 on: February 09, 2019, 12:31:39 am »
There is that word again. Please explain what exactly think I am denying? I have said that CO2 is a GHG and the climate changing. My contempt for the ideologues claiming to be climate scientists does not mean I reject findings that have a well founded scientific basis. I only reject claims where is there is no scientific basis other than the opinion of the researcher manipulating the data.

What I also reject are idiotic policies being pushed by progressives who see climate change an excuse to hijack the moral authority of science in order to push their pet policies that have nothing to do with climate. The recent "Green New Deal" released by that Democrat in the US is a text book example. It is filled a progressive wish list of policies while it completely fails to deal with the claimed objective (i.e. it wants to close all nuclear plants in 10 years - a policy that makes zero sense if someone actually cared about CO2 emissions).

Now you can continue call me names and dismiss my legitimate concerns about the politicization of climate science. All that accomplishes is convince me that there is no point looking for compromise policies that would work toward CO2 reductions and I will cheer on Doug and Jason in their attempts to obstruct the modest policies that Trudeau wants to put in.

Or you could get out of your bubble, acknowledge that science is no where near as certain as you would like to believe and try to have a conversation with the people that are numerous enough to ensure that no effective anti-CO2 policy will ever be put in place.

Still no idea about the ice eh? Oh well, Donald Trump agrees with your idea.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #317 on: February 09, 2019, 01:33:03 am »
Please explain what exactly think I am denying? I have said that CO2 is a GHG and the climate changing.



you deny that the principal causal tie to today's relatively recent GW/CC is anthropogenic sourced CO2. When repeatedly challenged to provide your understood/interpreted alternate causal tie, one other than anthropogenic sourced CO2, you refuse to do so.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #318 on: February 09, 2019, 01:44:57 am »
The science seems pretty darned politicized to me.  I would hate to work in this field, you wouldn't know what's real anymore.

real science is real science... and is inclusive of legitimate skeptical views/papers. The difficulty fake skeptics/deniers have is that their preferred "science" is not prevailing science.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #319 on: February 09, 2019, 02:12:32 am »
If climate scientists have a credibility problem it was one they created themselves.

But go ahead. Blame it all on a vast right wing conspiracy instead of actually accepting that these people are human and act like humans.

ya ya, climate scientists keepin' the poor denier-man down! It is you/your favoured cadre of "blog scientists" that have the credibility problem. As is your forever way, you presume to denigrate the hundreds of thousands of world-wide ethical scientists, simply based on your targeting of a handful of perceived, suspect and/or real circumstance.
Agree Agree x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #320 on: February 19, 2019, 11:13:52 pm »
Maybe the cost ?  Jeez...

My attempt at humor falls flat.
If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #321 on: February 22, 2019, 05:52:40 am »
My attempt at humor falls flat.

Kudos

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #322 on: February 22, 2019, 03:46:00 pm »
People really do not understand the implications of the refueling time for EVs and that this will make EVs less desirable to anyone who is not a dedicated fan of EVs and willing to put up with their idiosyncrasies.

A couple of points to note on TEO taxi.

It was a competitor to Uber, not a real taxi company. The biggest failure was their app gaining popularity.
Most of their vehicles were Kia Soul, they only had a handful of Tesla in the fleet. The Soul has a very limited range.
The parent company Taxelco intends to electrify their regular taxi cab fleets (Diamond Taxi and Hochelaga Taxi).

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #323 on: February 22, 2019, 05:23:43 pm »
A couple of points to note on TEO taxi.
The point I was making is charging times matter to a business whose profitability depends on having vehicles in motion. It may not be a huge issue when business is slow but during peak times the downtime for charging will impact the bottom line. There will obviously be companies that want to cash in on virtue signaling that comes from a fleet of EVs much like farmers cash in on the organic label but that does not mean that a fleet of EVs is cheaper to run. The devil will be in the detailed calculation of capital cost, maintenance, fuel and downtime across different weather conditions (cold weather increases EV charge times and lowers the range).
« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 05:29:12 pm by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #324 on: February 22, 2019, 07:53:43 pm »
The point I was making is charging times matter to a business whose profitability depends on having vehicles in motion. It may not be a huge issue when business is slow but during peak times the downtime for charging will impact the bottom line. There will obviously be companies that want to cash in on virtue signaling that comes from a fleet of EVs much like farmers cash in on the organic label but that does not mean that a fleet of EVs is cheaper to run. The devil will be in the detailed calculation of capital cost, maintenance, fuel and downtime across different weather conditions (cold weather increases EV charge times and lowers the range).

Except the downtime issue youy mention has been discussed and you simply have recharge stations with pre-charged batteries so when you need more juice you go to a station and swap out batteries. Probably quicker than you can pump a tank full of gas.

Farmers are able to cash in with the organic label because there are enough shoppers who are happy to pay the higher price for health concerns. The increase in sales of EV's I can imagine comes from the same thinking.

Plus, how can maintenance costs of an EV not be significantly less than than your old gas guzzler when you look at the comparison of moving parts. You can save money while saving the planet.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #325 on: February 22, 2019, 08:55:24 pm »
@TimG - didn't you have a link that put forward a cohesive argument for risk acceptance with climate change ?  Can you repost it ?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #326 on: February 22, 2019, 10:12:42 pm »
@TimG - didn't you have a link that put forward a cohesive argument for risk acceptance with climate change ?  Can you repost it ?
Can you remember anything about who the author was?

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #327 on: February 22, 2019, 10:18:45 pm »
Donald Trump? Naw, he can't concentrate long enough to get out anything longer than a tweet.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #328 on: February 23, 2019, 08:18:56 am »
Can you remember anything about who the author was?

Unfortunately no.  My Google Fu doesn't cut it either.  I tried 'Climate Change' 'Risk Acceptance' etc. but it's too general.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #329 on: February 23, 2019, 01:23:27 pm »
Except the downtime issue youy mention has been discussed and you simply have recharge stations with pre-charged batteries so when you need more juice you go to a station and swap out batteries. Probably quicker than you can pump a tank full of gas.

Way faster - over twice as fast, Musk demonstrated that years ago.
.
Tesla however never brought the technology to market. I expect a big issue was maintaining a stock of batteries, and dealing with either the concept of a leased battery pack or providing a method to return your original battery pack on a subsequent "refueling". Those issues however would not be real issues for fleet services.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2019, 01:25:09 pm by ?Impact »