Climate Change Scientific Studies

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 11:16 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: It doesn't have to be a scam like that.  I think some people genuinely believe their is a climate crisis, the media goes along, people see money to be made and it slowly perpetuates.

That coupled with scientists relying on funding for climate research and the fact that it is not very well received, or people are even silenced if they have a different theory/opinion.

It doesn't have to be some big, crazy conspiracy.

Well, then what's your explanation that an overwhelming majority of scientists do claim climate change is real and happening. I mean, these are the experts, they do this for a living and usually out of real passion, they know the facts and figures and dynamics and are not that easily misled by shams and frauds and misleading articles. It's tough for me to see why you would know better than all of them. Even more so since the only proof you have presented so far are said misleading articles, collected over decades and with little context.

On a less important note, I wonder where all the money to perpetuate a climate change hoax allegedly comes from. Most businesses, and hence most wealthy influential people, do not stand to benefit from that. They'd usually rather do business as usual than get greener.

[Luvnit2]

(09-12-2023, 11:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, then what's your explanation that an overwhelming majority of scientists do claim climate change is real and happening. I mean, these are the experts, they do this for a living and usually out of real passion, they know the facts and figures and dynamics and are not that easily misled by shams and frauds and misleading articles. It's tough for me to see why you would know better than all of them. Even more so since the only proof you have presented so far are said misleading articles, collected over decades and with little context.

On a less important note, I wonder where all the money to perpetuate a climate change hoax allegedly comes from. Most businesses, and hence most wealthy influential people, do not stand to benefit from that. They'd usually rather do business as usual than get greener.

=
I guess you missed all of the green money in the 1.7 trillion dollar spending bill.
https://www.forrester.com/blogs/the-us-is-spending-nearly-half-of-a-trillion-dollars-on-climate-and-infrastructure-seeding-the-green-market-revolution/

On August 16, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act. The act contains $369 billion in spending to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and to adapt to the irreversible effects of climate change.


The Inflation Reduction Act does this through a multitude of tax incentives, as well as through direct investment in renewable and clean energy projects, including energy production, manufacturing clean energy technology domestically, supporting electric vehicle (EV) transportation, funding for clean tech innovation, etc. This funding is in addition to the $296 billion already allocated to be available to address climate change and other initiatives in the 2021 Infrastructure Bill. Together, at almost $669 billion, this is the largest investment that the US federal government has ever made in climate action and interrelated infrastructure projects.

Whether you’re in the energy or transportation industry, there are many industrywide implications worth noting about the new act. We recommend the following:

Marketers, anticipate and adjust to a much faster shift to green consumerism. Today, 36% of US online adults would rather purchase products from a company/brand that takes action on climate change, even if the price of the product is higher. And there is a segment of consumers who want to be more green-conscious, but they’re often stymied by price or convenience or both. The bill includes incentives for consumers to invest in green technology. For example, there is a home improvement credit, which allows households to deduct 30% of the cost of improvements, such as installing heat pumps and solar panels or insulation, from their taxes. It also provides consumers with tax credits for both new and used EVs. Significant investments are also earmarked for low-income consumers to incentivize them to electrify or retrofit energy-efficient home appliances. These initiatives will push consumers to not only be more aware of their options but also make them more likely to make other green purchase decisions.
Tech leaders, look for opportunities to ride a wave of tech innovation in the coming years. Among other initiatives, the Inflation Reduction Act includes $1.3 billion for farmers and ranchers to access tools and information to implement climate-smart measures, $236 million to monitor air pollution, and $25 million for EPA enforcement technology such as software. It also includes almost $15 billion in various loan and grant programs under the Department of Energy to invest in the development of innovative clean energy technology. There’s another $40 billion in new loan authority for the DoE’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) that it can use to fund a wide variety of technology not yet commercially viable. There will be huge opportunities here, not just for companies that directly support agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, energy, batteries, etc., but for an ecosystem of software and services to forecast, model, enable, manage, and measure it all.
Insights leaders and product managers, prepare your firms to thrive through impending industry disruption. The fossil fuel industry will also benefit from the climate components in the bill. Specifically, the bill includes billions of dollars in new tax breaks and subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the next 10 years while still allowing the US to achieve 40% GHG reduction. These incentives give the energy sector more time to develop technology such as carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) that could extend the lives of fossil fuels as well as give the industry more time to adjust to a decarbonized economy. This includes not only investments in CCUS but new products and services in support of renewable energy and in green hydrogen.
The Inflation Reduction Act will also completely transform the transportation sector. New EV sales will slow down in the short term, but domestic manufacturing will increase and create a new market for used EVs. This is because the act extends consumer tax credits for EVs, but it also phases in stricter supply chain requirements that require assembly in North America, which will take time to adjust. The act includes $2 billion to help the conversion and $3 billion for the US Postal Service and others to purchase clean vehicles, from delivery trucks to school buses and garbage trucks. More importantly, the act also introduces a credit of up to $4,000 for used EVs when certain requirements are met. While the credits will be harder to receive, it will reshape where EVs are built and spur the growth of the used EV market.
Remember, this is just the investment by the US federal government. Expect US states, cities, and towns to also take action and spur investment ─ Massachusetts passed a new climate bill recently. Companies can expect this massive injection to be a turning point in decarbonization, and they should expect ripple effects across the economy as businesses sense the momentum and clearly see a green market revolution underway.

Researchers Scott Bartley and Alex Soley also contributed to this blog.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-12-2023, 11:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, then what's your explanation that an overwhelming majority of scientists do claim climate change is real and happening. I mean, these are the experts, they do this for a living and usually out of real passion, they know the facts and figures and dynamics and are not that easily misled by shams and frauds and misleading articles. It's tough for me to see why you would know better than all of them. Even more so since the only proof you have presented so far are said misleading articles, collected over decades and with little context.

On a less important note, I wonder where all the money to perpetuate a climate change hoax allegedly comes from. Most businesses, and hence most wealthy influential people, do not stand to benefit from that. They'd usually rather do business as usual than get greener.

There are also scientists and experts that have differing opinions and they are labeled deniers, quacks, wrong, silenced, etc.  That's not science, that's having and pushing an agenda.

Let me know when the "climate crisis" is bad enough for the rich and people like John Kerry to actually change their lifestyle to match their rhetoric.

John Kerry, Mr. "climate crisis" himself has a bigger footprint in one year than I will in my entire lifetime.  Why do I need to change the way I live?  Seems like he should be leading.  I have been alive for almost 50 years.  Weather is the same.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-12-2023, 11:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, then what's your explanation that an overwhelming majority of scientists do claim climate change is real and happening. I mean, these are the experts, they do this for a living and usually out of real passion, they know the facts and figures and dynamics and are not that easily misled by shams and frauds and misleading articles. It's tough for me to see why you would know better than all of them. Even more so since the only proof you have presented so far are said misleading articles, collected over decades and with little context.

On a less important note, I wonder where all the money to perpetuate a climate change hoax allegedly comes from. Most businesses, and hence most wealthy influential people, do not stand to benefit from that. They'd usually rather do business as usual than get greener.

Did you fall for Y2k? I made so much money in 1999 off that.

[*pally*]

(09-12-2023, 09:30 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: If 50 predicted climate disasters over 55 years have never materialized, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, you might be being scammed?

so innovation should simply stop because some people don't think its necessary?     

[XenoMorph]

(09-12-2023, 11:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, then what's your explanation that an overwhelming majority of scientists do claim climate change is real and happening. I mean, these are the experts, they do this for a living and usually out of real passion, they know the facts and figures and dynamics and are not that easily misled by shams and frauds and misleading articles. It's tough for me to see why you would know better than all of them. Even more so since the only proof you have presented so far are said misleading articles, collected over decades and with little context.

On a less important note, I wonder where all the money to perpetuate a climate change hoax allegedly comes from. Most businesses, and hence most wealthy influential people, do not stand to benefit from that. They'd usually rather do business as usual than get greener.

The climate would be and is always changing   With or without humans

[Mickeypoo]

(09-12-2023, 12:45 PM)pally Wrote: so innovation should simply stop because some people don't think its necessary?     

What?

I think that is exactly what should happen.  UNFORCED innovation.

Let science and tech move forward as it always has.

Banning NG is not innovative.  Banning ICE vehicles by a certain date is not innovative.  Pushing EV's that are not ready (or even really green in the end) nor the charging infrastructure is not innovative.  Canceling oil leases is not innovative.

Science and tech will always move forward.  Setting dates and banning things is not innovative.  Not building nuclear power plants is the opposite of following innovation.

As the science and tech moves forward people will naturally migrate to the new tech without any force needed.  Force will stifle moving forward as some will push back instead of naturally adapting.

Look how many people had cell phones at one point.  Zero.  There were none.  Then the mobile phone came out and some people were early adopters.  Then phones started to be able to do more and more people got them.  Ease of communication spurred even more people to buy cell phones.  Texting comes out.  Phones start getting "smart" and even more people buy them.  Now phones are powerful, little mini computers in your pocket that a huge majority of people own.  There was never any force and yet people and businesses naturally adapted and adopted the new tech over time.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-12-2023, 12:50 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: The climate would be and is always changing   With or without humans

100% correct.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-12-2023, 12:45 PM)pally Wrote: so innovation should simply stop because some people don't think its necessary?     

Absolutely not. but I've said it before, Get the Tech done, developed and tested and then get the infrastructure in place to support it and THEN start pushing incentives to convert. 

Making all of these deadlines and so forth isn't going to just make it happen because someone wants it to. It's wasting money and time 

in my city i have the following Charging Stations:
ChargePoint 1 Stations

EV Connect 1 Stations
GE WattStation 1 Stations
I can count 3x that many GAS stations with in 5-7 miles of me.


Charging an electric car can be done at home or at any public charging stations. Fully charging a car can be done in just 30 minutes, or it may take as long as half a day. How big your battery is, or how fast your charging point is may change the time required.

We aren't there yet.

And of that list of things you put out, the only one that i think matters is keeping trees planted and making sure we don't de-forest our world. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-12-2023, 12:57 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: What?

I think that is exactly what should happen.  UNFORCED innovation.

Let science and tech move forward as it always has.

Banning NG is not innovative.  Banning ICE vehicles by a certain date is not innovative.  Pushing EV's that are not ready (or even really green in the end) nor the charging infrastructure is not innovative.  Canceling oil leases is not innovative.

Science and tech will always move forward.  Setting dates and banning things is not innovative.  Not building nuclear power plants is the opposite of following innovation.

As the science and tech moves forward people will naturally migrate to the new tech without any force needed.  Force will stifle moving forward as some will push back instead of naturally adapting.

Look how many people had cell phones at one point.  Zero.  There were none.  Then the mobile phone came out and some people were early adopters.  Then phones started to be able to do more and more people got them.  Ease of communication spurred even more people to buy cell phones.  Texting comes out.  Phones start getting "smart" and even more people buy them.  Now phones are powerful, little mini computers in your pocket that a huge majority of people own.  There was never any force and yet people and businesses naturally adapted and adopted the new tech over time.

Cell phones, great example! 
We are pretty much thinking the same way about it. Get tech done, tested and infrastructure in place. Makes for quick and easy conversion with out all the hassles we currently have.

Not only that, but what happens if a NEW Tech comes along and makes the current tech obsolete? Now all that time and money spent trying to get an infrastructure in place for the OLD tech is wasted.

Do you think someone's boss gives a crap that you had to wait in line at a charging station for 2 hours in order to get your 30 minute charge done to get to work?

[SunsetBengal]

(09-12-2023, 12:42 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: There are also scientists and experts that have differing opinions and they are labeled deniers, quacks, wrong, silenced, etc.  That's not science, that's having and pushing an agenda.

That was the entire point of the article posted in the OP.  Those sold on the big lie will even resort to censorship in order to prevent anything other than a singular, linear narrative being the lead story.  My opposition to the over the top aspirations of the climate change proponent mob isn't even with the general idea.  We all know that fossil fuels are pollutants, and that we need to eventually move on from them.  My biggest issue is with why the immense population of Asia isn't being held to task for not participating equally, thus reducing the burden of paying for all of this change from such a small percentage of the world population.  (US = 4%, ASIA = 60% of world population)  

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 12:42 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: There are also scientists and experts that have differing opinions and they are labeled deniers, quacks, wrong, silenced, etc.  That's not science, that's having and pushing an agenda.

Well, or maybe they are just wrong or quacks. I have some experience with people who made this claim and saw several papers from people that "got silenced". There was one guy in Germany that made quite some money with such a paper. That was so fraudulent that even I could see several mistakes instantly, but that didn't matter one bit. He still went around with that "I got silenced" trope.

(09-12-2023, 12:42 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Let me know when the "climate crisis" is bad enough for the rich and people like John Kerry to actually change their lifestyle to match their rhetoric.

John Kerry, Mr. "climate crisis" himself has a bigger footprint in one year than I will in my entire lifetime.  Why do I need to change the way I live?  Seems like he should be leading.  I have been alive for almost 50 years.  Weather is the same.

This is just a bad argument to make. No matter the alleged or real wrongdoing of Mr. Kerry, it has nothing to do with climate change or science. Please don't treat climate change as just a narrative carried by Kerry or Thunberg or Gore or whatever public person you like to dismiss. It's the science that makes the claim, it's not about those people.

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 12:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Did you fall for Y2k? I made so much money in 1999 off that.

That was unnecessary.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-12-2023, 01:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, or maybe they are just wrong or quacks. I have some experience with people who made this claim and saw several papers from people that "got silenced". There was one guy in Germany that made quite some money with such a paper. That was so fraudulent that even I could see several mistakes instantly, but that didn't matter one bit. He still went around with that "I got silenced" trope.



This is just a bad argument to make. No matter the alleged or real wrongdoing of Mr. Kerry, it has nothing to do with climate change or science. Please don't treat climate change as just a narrative carried by Kerry or Thunberg or Gore or whatever public person you like to dismiss. It's the science that makes the claim, it's not about those people.

Except Humans make the parameters for the Models. 

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 12:25 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: =
I guess you missed all of the green money in the 1.7 trillion dollar spending bill.
https://www.forrester.com/blogs/the-us-is-spending-nearly-half-of-a-trillion-dollars-on-climate-and-infrastructure-seeding-the-green-market-revolution/

On August 16, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act. The act contains $369 billion in spending to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and to adapt to the irreversible effects of climate change.

So just to grasp the idea. For decades scientists all around the globe were told to betray every principle they believed in, all scientific method, to propagate a largely unpopular lie. Because some day, some president will spend some money on fighting climate change and then there's big profit to be made. Or what is the claim here?

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 01:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Except Humans make the parameters for the Models. 

Well, sure. What exactly does that prove? Humans make the models for everything. Usually experts that know what they are doing. An argument like "humans made it, so it must be fraudulent" is weird.

Especially since it's no longer just the models. We see rising temperatures, melting glaciers and all the other signs of a warming planet, when naturally there'd be no reason for the slow climate cycle to trend this way.

So much also to the whole "the climate is changing with or without humans" argument. Which of course is true. The quickness of the change, however, is not quite natural and pretty unprecedented in earth's history. See ice core drillings.

But I know that usually here comes the "ice core drillings are fraudulent too" and that's that. What always just amazes me is that you're all so 100% certain about all that hoax and 'scientists are frauds and idiots' narrative that you're willing to bet your children's future on it.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-12-2023, 01:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, sure. What exactly does that prove? Humans make the models for everything. Usually experts that know what they are doing. An argument like "humans made it, so it must be fraudulent" is weird.

Especially since it's no longer just the models. We see rising temperatures, melting glaciers and all the other signs of a warming planet, when naturally there'd be no reason for the slow climate cycle to trend this way.

So much also to the whole "the climate is changing with or without humans" argument. Which of course is true. The quickness of the change, however, is not quite natural and pretty unprecedented in earth's history. See ice core drillings.

But I know that usually here comes the "ice core drillings are fraudulent too" and that's that. What always just amazes me is that you're all so 100% certain about all that hoax and 'scientists are frauds and idiots' narrative that you're willing to bet your children's future on it.

Well, I've been here for 48 years and my kids have been here for 12 and 15 years.  Weather is still the same.  I'm confident my kids and grand kids and great grand kids will be just fine.  There is no unprecedented quickness of change.  Some years are worse then others.  It's how the weather works.

[Luvnit2]

(09-12-2023, 01:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: So just to grasp the idea. For decades scientists all around the globe were told to betray every principle they believed in, all scientific method, to propagate a largely unpopular lie. Because some day, some president will spend some money on fighting climate change and then there's big profit to be made. Or what is the claim here?

My point is simple, follow the money. Do you think our government funds all that money for climate change if scientists contradict the climate change theory?

The government in effect bribes scientists to say climate change is worse than it really is, again show me scientists who received millions of dollars in grant money from our government and came to the conclusion climate change is real, however, it is not as deadly as many scientists proclaim.

Show me Chines and India scientists who have studied their part of the world and concluded climate change is going to damage the planet beyond repair within the next 100 years. 

Show me how a couple of huge culprits China and India are going to do their part to save the planet.

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 01:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That was the entire point of the article posted in the OP.  Those sold on the big lie will even resort to censorship in order to prevent anything other than a singular, linear narrative being the lead story.  My opposition to the over the top aspirations of the climate change proponent mob isn't even with the general idea.  We all know that fossil fuels are pollutants, and that we need to eventually move on from them.  My biggest issue is with why the immense population of Asia isn't being held to task for not participating equally, thus reducing the burden of paying for all of this change from such a small percentage of the world population.  (US = 4%, ASIA = 60% of world population)  

First off, the US is not alone. Europe has a strong economy too, and even though change could be quicker and more decisive this wealthy continent does more and more to get greener too.

Also, at some point Asians can make the same claim. Why should we change if the US, still the biggest overall contributor to the rising CO2 levels, does not change? The nation that claims with some merit to be the most advanced should lead the way. Then they can point to Asia an demand they follow suit, with some legitimacy; then we can even debate sanctions and other pressure points. Right now, there's really no one that could pressure them with any legitimacy.

Also, what is the "big lie" now you were referencing. That CO2 levels are a problem, or that the US should lead the way in reducing the levels?

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 02:02 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: My point is simple, follow the money. Do you think our government funds all that money for climate change if scientists contradict the climate change theory?

The government in effect bribes scientists to say climate change is worse than it really is

OK, at least you're consistent and actually accuse all scientists around the world as being corrupt. Your single proof being that there is now some money to combat climate crisis, hence follow the money, hence it's a fraud, hence case closed; a weird piece of logic, but at least thought through.

(09-12-2023, 02:02 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Show me Chines and India scientists who have studied their part of the world and concluded climate change is going to damage the planet beyond repair within the next 100 years. 

Their scientists - and in theory, even their politicians - agree with that too.