• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Scientists Are Not Experts in Economics

Phys251 said:
So do you accept the scientific opinion on climate change or not?
Click to expand...

Can you stop with this purity test? You go around asking everyone this question. It's pathetic. How about talking about the actual issues and making real points? And I find it funny that you expect such scientific purity here, when you throw out expert consensus show that renewables are far more inefficient that fossil fuels and issues like that.
 
atheist4thecaus said:
Can you stop with this purity test? You go around asking everyone this question. It's pathetic. How about talking about the actual issues and making real points? And I find it funny that you expect such scientific purity here, when you throw out expert consensus show that renewables are far more inefficient that fossil fuels and issues like that.
Click to expand...

Your gross lack of understanding on scientific opinions stick out like a sore thumb. Educate yourself on this simple matter and then get back to me.
 
atheist4thecaus said:
Can you stop with this purity test? You go around asking everyone this question. It's pathetic. How about talking about the actual issues and making real points? And I find it funny that you expect such scientific purity here, when you throw out expert consensus show that renewables are far more inefficient that fossil fuels and issues like that.
Click to expand...

We're being asked if we believe in their God. It is comical, isn't it.
 
Phys251 said:
So do you accept the scientific opinion on climate change or not?
Click to expand...
What do you think the scientific opinion on climate change is?
I accept what most scientist do, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing it's level will cause some warming.
 
Lord of Planar said:
We're being asked if we believe in their God. It is comical, isn't it.
Click to expand...
:lamo

How Religion Impacts Americans' Views on Climate Change and Energy Issues | Pew Research Center

PI_2015-10-22_religion-and-science_4-01.png


Being nonreligious means you are more likely to accept climate science.
 
longview said:
What do you think the scientific opinion on climate change is?
I accept what most scientist do, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing it's level will cause some warming.
Click to expand...

That is the consensus.

"Some" warming.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That is the consensus.

"Some" warming.
Click to expand...
The consensus is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but there is no agreement
on how much warming increasing the CO2 level will cause.
Even the IPCC said they cannot arrive at a best estimate of ECS.
We can characterize that most agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but not a particular level of warming,
that would result.
The assignment of catastrophic results is an IF-THEN statement based on the non agreed upon results.
If you read most of the catastrophic predictions, they are predicated on the mid to high end of ECS.
 
atheist4thecaus said:
This graph is not considering all the cold-weather issues. For instance, the need to use a heater inside the vehicle, driving through snow, etc. All of these types of things reduce range. And yes, the cold itself reduces range, too.
Click to expand...
Erm... Yeah, not so much.

Fleetcarma asked users to report range in various temperature conditions. Since they are asking about real-world use, by design that includes energy used to heat the car, drive over snow, lose battery efficiency to cold, and so on. Full article:
https://www.fleetcarma.com/nissan-leaf-chevrolet-volt-cold-weather-range-loss-electric-vehicle/

In fact, they even broke out the auxiliary load in a separate article:
https://www.fleetcarma.com/electric-vehicle-heating-chevrolet-volt-nissan-leaf/

Nissan-Leaf-Auxiliary-Power-Load-and-Temp1-1024x743.png



I really don't think that it helps electric vehicles to pretend like they are so practical, when clearly they are not.
Click to expand...
I don't live in Alaska, so I'm not in a position to say whether EVs are practical there. I would not be surprised in the slightest if they were more practical in some areas (e.g. Juneau) than in others (e.g. Barrow).

At any rate, I see little indication that anyone is *cough* snowing the public about the practicality of EVs. They are still new, don't have anywhere near the range of a hybrid, and the infrastructure isn't quite there yet. Or, to put it another way: I see no indication that GM's or Toyota's or Ford's marketing is significantly more or less accurate than Tesla's.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, and people used to believe the world was flat.
Click to expand...
Fun fact! Westerners have known for centuries that the world was round. The ancient Greeks hypothesized it for several centuries, and Eratosthenes calculated the size of the Earth based on shadows cast in two different cities on the Solstice. He was probably quite accurate, though we are not sure of the exact size of his unit of measurement in modern terms. This was most likely disseminated to the East during Roman times.

Christians knew it for centuries. Columbus also knew the world was round, but he thought it was about 1/3 its actual size.

The claim that "everyone believed the Earth was flat" is actually a more recent slur against Catholics, by American Protestants. Washington Irving was apparently a big culprit in promulgating that particular anti-Catholic meme.

Anyway, if you want the science on climate change and AGW, the obvious source for that is....

Summary http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
Full Document http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
 
Visbek said:
Fun fact! Westerners have known for centuries that the world was round. The ancient Greeks hypothesized it for several centuries, and Eratosthenes calculated the size of the Earth based on shadows cast in two different cities on the Solstice. He was probably quite accurate, though we are not sure of the exact size of his unit of measurement in modern terms. This was most likely disseminated to the East during Roman times.

Christians knew it for centuries. Columbus also knew the world was round, but he thought it was about 1/3 its actual size.

The claim that "everyone believed the Earth was flat" is actually a more recent slur against Catholics, by American Protestants. Washington Irving was apparently a big culprit in promulgating that particular anti-Catholic meme.

Anyway, if you want the science on climate change and AGW, the obvious source for that is....

Summary http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
Full Document http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
Click to expand...

I agree with you for the times you stated. My point is, that the consensus of what western Europeans (first world nation ancestry) long ago, was that the world was flat.

My point is that consensus is not science, and is proven wrong time and again.

As for the IPCC material... Hogwash. They cherry pick what they use and are a political organization with political type goals in mind. What they are great for is finding actual peer reviewed papers. They list hundreds. The best thing to do is to find those papers they list, and read them. When you do that, you might notice the inconvenient facts the IPCC leaves out of their assessment reports.
 
Last edited:

[h=1]Green Energy Mandate Bankrupts East Coast Oil Refinery, 1,100 Jobs at Risk[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Willie Soon – the hangover of President Obama’s war on cheap energy is still causing financial hardship. Philadelphia Energy Solutions, which employs 1,100 people, has been driven into financial distress by the cost of compulsory green energy mandates. Exclusive: Philadelphia Energy Solutions to file for bankruptcy – memo Jessica…
Continue reading →
 
Lord of Planar said:
I agree with you for the times you stated. My point is, that the consensus of what western Europeans (first world nation ancestry) long ago, was that the world was flat.

My point is that consensus is not science, and is proven wrong time and again.

As for the IPCC material... Hogwash. They cherry pick what they use and are a political organization with political type goals in mind. What they are great for is finding actual peer reviewed papers. They list hundreds. The best thing to do is to find those papers they list, and read them. When you do that, you might notice the inconvenient facts the IPCC leaves out of their assessment reports.
Click to expand...

Apparently, someone doesn’t know that Eratosthenes predates Western European civilization by several hundred years....
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]Green Energy Mandate Bankrupts East Coast Oil Refinery, 1,100 Jobs at Risk[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Willie Soon – the hangover of President Obama’s war on cheap energy is still causing financial hardship. Philadelphia Energy Solutions, which employs 1,100 people, has been driven into financial distress by the cost of compulsory green energy mandates. Exclusive: Philadelphia Energy Solutions to file for bankruptcy – memo Jessica…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Without knowing the specific mandate changes, I don't know if this is good or bad. There are some really bad facilities in the US that do need shut down.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Without knowing the specific mandate changes, I don't know if this is good or bad. There are some really bad facilities in the US that do need shut down.
Click to expand...

Carlyle Group thought it was worth saving six years ago. They are serious people.
 
Jack Hays said:
Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Willie Soon – the hangover of President Obama’s war on cheap energy is still causing financial hardship. Philadelphia Energy Solutions, which employs 1,100 people, has been driven into financial distress by the cost of compulsory green energy mandates. Exclusive: Philadelphia Energy Solutions to file for bankruptcy – memo Jessica…[/FONT]
Click to expand...

The headline is misleading, Jack. It is still operating, it was able to get $260 million in financing. Why isn't this issue causing problems for all the other US refineries?

It seems the scientist that you provided me links on has never published in peer review journals according to Skeptic Science.
 
camlok said:
The headline is misleading, Jack. It is still operating, it was able to get $260 million in financing. Why isn't this issue causing problems for all the other US refineries?

It seems the scientist that you provided me links on has never published in peer review journals according to Skeptic Science.
Click to expand...
I think it is an older refinery that does not have the capability to blend in the required biofuel additives,
and so therefore must buy credits for doings so from refineries that do have that capability.
One can assume the other refineries are their competitors.
It is the costs of buying the credits that is hurting the business.
The Credits are for ethanol, which is of very questionable use as a way of limiting CO2 emissions.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't have a statistic, but I know they are among the largest (maybe the largest) private equity investment firms, so they have to be right more often than wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh, not doubt. They would seldom make a bad investment. This appears to be one of them thorough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom