World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[vanbrady]

If it’s true that the scientists are biased, then it’s also true that there is an agenda involving some type of global governance.

If the scientists are being honest, then we should honestly be looking towards some type of global governance.

Am I right or am I wrong?

Rule of thumb: “FOLLOW THE MONEY”…There is a “CLIMATE CHANGE INDUSTRY”. It extends through out academia, as professors scramble for grant money to prove climate change from an encouraging government and alternative energy industry. Observe the billions of dollars wasted on failed and economically unsound solar and wind energy companies and their schemes. They also pursue a carbon tax (or C02 tax if you wish). Who benefits? The government and solar/wind companies will get rich. They will rake in the revenue, as home owners and industry rush to purchase renewable energy credits or install green energy generation and other green technology.

 

[lynnvinc]

A Norwegian study has “determined that ultimately, the production of these vehicles is just as harmful to the environment as that of a regular car. In fact, some evidence from the study suggests that electric cars may even have a greater negative impact than a more “traditional” car.”
greenerideal.com/vehicles/0616-are-electric-cars-really-eco-friendly/

The criticisms – which are basically debunked by other sources – are:

1. The electricity used to charged the batteries is from dirty coal-fired plants.

My electricity is partly from wind generators (from the grid from Green Mountain) and partly from our solar panels on our roof.

I knew some members of the Fox Valley Electric Vehicle Association up north years ago, and they would point out that their cars (which were conversion EVs from reg ICE cars and used lead acid batteries), even when charged by coal-generated electricity, still were environmentally better (equivalent to ICE cars that get 75+ mpg), and that coal plants can be more easily controlled for pollution than ICE cars.

1. The disposal of the batteries is hazardous.

As for my Volt, the battery is warranted for 80,000 miles, but they told me it is made for the life of the car even up to 200,000+ miles. It’s a single big battery.

Lead acid batteries in EV conversions can be recycled, but of course there are issues with lead…

1. Making cars itself is polluting and resource intensive.

That is true, which is why we’ve been buying used cars for the 44 years of our marriage, and this is the 1st new car we bought (except for one in 1976). I would have bought a used EV, except none were available…and there would have been some available if the auto industry had not killed them a decade or so ago (stopped producing them, recalled all of them, and crushed them).

1. The lithium ion battery (which the Volt has) involves resources mined in countries, like China, in polluting ways. That’s true – causing local pollution – but probably contributing to regional and global environmental problems no more than production of ICE cars…and production is a one-time event, unlike driving a car for 20 years, with the EV generating almost no pollution compared to the ICE car (if alt energy electricity) and much much less if from coal-powered electricity.

It would be great if those mining operations would clean up their act and reduce local pollution (which could be done). As for ICE cars it would be great if the mining companies involved in resources for those would also clean up their acts, as well as the oil industry for the oil to run ICE cars – that industry has an extremely atrocious record, including being involved (or responsible for) the murdering of environmental activists in 3rd world countries working against their petroleum pollution that is destroying their subsistence base.

There’s just no comparison – the EV wins hands down over the ICE in the environmental arena, and also in the cost arena (long run). There’s really hardly any reason at all for people not to have EVs.

 

[GEddie]

No reason, except the added cost of EV would take too long to amortize.

ICXC NIKA

 

[lynnvinc]

No reason, except the added cost of EV would take too long to amortize.

ICXC NIKA

The Nissan Leaf base price is now about $30,000 and the Chevy Volt $33,000. With the $7500 tax credit, that comes to $22,500 and $25,500 respectively.

Those rebates are only on the first 200,000 models sold in order to jump-start the EV industry; the Volt and Leaf are at about 50,000 U.S. total sales each right now, so there’s a few more years in which to get the rebates. Once EVs are mass produced on scales comparable to ICE cars the prices should come down below ICE cars. And not only are their operation costs substantially less, but so is their maintenance costs, which is the main reason why the auto industry “killed” them over a decade ago (maintenance and parts on ICE cars are a big source of income for the auto industry).

The EV price now is about comparable to pick-up trucks. A lot of people here in Texas, 24%, have pick-ups, which are highly polluting, even tho only 2 to 3% need them for their work. I almost never see anything being hauled in them; and one would think people could have a less polluting sedan, then once or twice a year when they need to haul something big, they could rent a pick-up or have a friend with a pick up help them. They don’t even cut their engines in bank and fast food drive-thrus, pushing their pollution in people’s faces. It’s good to cut the engine in drive-thrus – for the sake of the life of the world and just to be polite; the finding is that if one is going to be stopped for more than 10 seconds (some studies even found 6 seconds), it’s more efficient to shut off the engine.

We do have a '98 Ford Windstar which we bought up north to bring some of our belongings down here to South Texas 12 years ago, and ended up keeping it for hauling supplies/equipment for a side business we do, as well as for the times we need a 2nd car & can’t carpool together – but we only drive it about 1000 miles a year, compared to our Volt, which we drive about 5000 to 6000 miles/yr.

My idea would be to buy a used EV conversion van, or maybe turn ours into an EV. The Fox Valley EV Association guys told me conversions are not that difficult. We don’t have time now, but after retirement in a year or so we may be able to do it.

For those interested in EVs and EV conversions see electricauto.org/

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Nissan Leaf base price is now about $30,000 and the Chevy Volt $33,000. With the $7500 tax credit, that comes to $22,500 and $25,500 respectively.

Those rebates are only on the first 200,000 models sold in order to jump-start the EV industry; the Volt and Leaf are at about 50,000 U.S. total sales each right now, so there’s a few more years in which to get the rebates. Once EVs are mass produced on scales comparable to ICE cars the prices should come down below ICE cars. And not only are their operation costs substantially less, but so is their maintenance costs, which is the main reason why the auto industry “killed” them over a decade ago (maintenance and parts on ICE cars are a big source of income for the auto industry).

The EV price now is about comparable to pick-up trucks. A lot of people here in Texas, 24%, have pick-ups, which are highly polluting, even tho only 2 to 3% need them for their work. I almost never see anything being hauled in them; and one would think people could have a less polluting sedan, then once or twice a year when they need to haul something big, they could rent a pick-up or have a friend with a pick up help them. They don’t even cut their engines in bank and fast food drive-thrus, pushing their pollution in people’s faces. It’s good to cut the engine in drive-thrus – for the sake of the life of the world and just to be polite; the finding is that if one is going to be stopped for more than 10 seconds (some studies even found 6 seconds), it’s more efficient to shut off the engine.

We do have a '98 Ford Windstar which we bought up north to bring some of our belongings down here to South Texas 12 years ago, and ended up keeping it for hauling supplies/equipment for a side business we do, as well as for the times we need a 2nd car & can’t carpool together – but we only drive it about 1000 miles a year, compared to our Volt, which we drive about 5000 to 6000 miles/yr.

My idea would be to buy a used EV conversion van, or maybe turn ours into an EV. The Fox Valley EV Association guys told me conversions are not that difficult. We don’t have time now, but after retirement in a year or so we may be able to do it.

For those interested in EVs and EV conversions see electricauto.org/

As I sit here working on my tax return, I consider the fact that I am paying well-to-do people to buy Volts against my will. Would they have bought them without being handed my money as an enticement? One would hope not, but one is skeptical. As Solhenitsyn said of some “…no bread is sweeter than that which is snatched from the hand of a hungry man…” I realize too, that my grandchildrens’ Catholic school tuition is costly and that there are people in real need whom I could (and would) benefit with the money the government gives to wealthy people to induce them to buy Volts. As between the two, there is no question where I would prefer to spend the money I earned by my own toil. Nobody asked me to make a gift to people who can actually function with a Volt (few can) because their lives are lives of leisure. The government just takes it and gives it to people sufficiently wealthy to buy new cars; an utterly unworthy cause. “Cash for Clunkers” redux.

And, as I consider that my tax money is also going to billionaires whose investments would be worthless without it, I don’t see why I should see that as a greater value than my parish, my charities, my neighbors and my grandchildren.

Why am I despoiled in order to benefit those who in no way need the products of my labor? Well, because some actually believe a theoretical hazard more ephemeral than belief in bigfoot impends. It’s a will-o-the-wisp that exists only on charts, graphs and computer models (and for which there are contrary charts, graphs and computer models). But more significantly, because some have seen a way to profit immensely on the backs of those who actually work. Nothing truly new in that except as to the methodology.

Personally, I don’t believe the worst of Obama’s policies will last long. I don’t believe it because I think the specter of even a handful of people freezing to death because they can’t afford their heating bills will bring all of the “global warming community” into the massive disrepute it deserves. It is as inevitable as Warren Buffett’s oil tank cars blowing up now and then.

Sometimes people ignore the obvious, and that’s true. We have seen some of Warren Buffett’s oil tankers blow up and spill into the environment, and many do not associate that with Obama’s decision to kill the Keystone pipeline that would transport the oil more safely. But one day, one will blow inside a city, and then people will see where this enriching of billionaires on the backs of the public leads.

At a point, the public simply will not take any more of it. The majority no longer believes in MMGW anyway. Time is running out on this anti-human religion, and its end will come not a moment too soon.

 

[Tomdstone]

And, as I consider that my tax money is also going to billionaires whose investments would be worthless without it, I don’t see why I should see that as a greater value than my parish, my charities, my neighbors and my grandchildren.

This is what was disgusting about the big bailout of banks a few years ago. While the tax money of the poor was used to bailout these huge corporations, administrators in those same corporations were taking home million dollar plus salaries.

 

[Tomdstone]

At a point, the public simply will not take any more of it.

When will that point be reached?

 

[tomarin]

The latest prediction reminds me of a Woody Allen movie that I once saw a long, long time ago where Woody comes back from the future. Everything that the scientists said was bad for you now, they say are good for you to the future Woody, and vice-versa.

You mean ‘Sleeper’?

 

[Ridgerunner]

When will that point be reached?

When, as Obama promised, utility bills “skyrocket” to the point some will try to do without heat or AC and die.

Possibly sooner when some former Appalachian coal miner’s child starves or some mine catches fire because there’s nobody there to take care of it. But I’m not sure that would do it. I saw Joe Manchin on TV practically in tears talking about how Obama “betrayed” West Virginia with EPA shutdowns of coal mines. But I don’t guess he moved many hearts and minds even so. It will take more, I guess.

Or maybe, as I said before, when one of Warren Buffett’s tank cars explodes in a heavily populated area. So far, the opponents of the Keystone pipeline have been lucky in that regard.

 

[tomarin]

You mean ‘Sleeper’?

Because in Sleeper, he doesn’t “come back from the future.” He is cryogenically preserved in the early 1970’s and is woken up in a future dystopia, whereupon hilarity ensues. (In which dystopia, I might add, there is no noticeable global warming.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is what was disgusting about the big bailout of banks a few years ago. While the tax money of the poor was used to bailout these huge corporations, administrators in those same corporations were taking home million dollar plus salaries.

I do not disagree with you, but I would like to make one distinction. There were two very different parts to the “bank bailout”, and some of it wasn’t even to banks.

One part was where the government:
a. Forced some banks (USB for example) to take bailout money they didn’t need or want, in order, it seems, to make it look as if it wasn’t just the “too big to fails” that needed it. Those paid it back as fast as they were allowed to do so. This was just stupid window-dressing, and these banks had to pay for the imposition.
b. Gave some other banks bailout money as “equity” so they could absorb failed banks without impairing capital. (I won’t name any of those) Because the FDIC gave those banks some “boot” in order to get them to do it, some of them made out very well. This was a gift to some of the takers, but at least they worked for it. Taking over failed banks is a big job.

The other part was the truly needed bailout of the “too big to fails” (not all just banks) and, in some instances, their counterparties (like Lehman and Deutchebank) who would have lost big if they hadn’t. Some of those institutions are now bigger than they were before. This, I suspect, would have been better handled by dismembering some institutions.

Oops! Went off-topic. Got to redeem myself. It was fairly seasonal today, but it sure was cold last week.

 

[vanbrady]

The Nissan Leaf base price is now about $30,000 and the Chevy Volt $33,000. With the $7500 tax credit, that comes to $22,500 and $25,500 respectively.

Those rebates are only on the first 200,000 models sold in order to jump-start the EV industry; the Volt and Leaf are at about 50,000 U.S. total sales each right now, so there’s a few more years in which to get the rebates. Once EVs are mass produced on scales comparable to ICE cars the prices should come down below ICE cars. And not only are their operation costs substantially less, but so is their maintenance costs, which is the main reason why the auto industry “killed” them over a decade ago (maintenance and parts on ICE cars are a big source of income for the auto industry).

The EV price now is about comparable to pick-up trucks. A lot of people here in Texas, 24%, have pick-ups, which are highly polluting, even tho only 2 to 3% need them for their work. I almost never see anything being hauled in them; and one would think people could have a less polluting sedan, then once or twice a year when they need to haul something big, they could rent a pick-up or have a friend with a pick up help them. They don’t even cut their engines in bank and fast food drive-thrus, pushing their pollution in people’s faces. It’s good to cut the engine in drive-thrus – for the sake of the life of the world and just to be polite; the finding is that if one is going to be stopped for more than 10 seconds (some studies even found 6 seconds), it’s more efficient to shut off the engine.

We do have a '98 Ford Windstar which we bought up north to bring some of our belongings down here to South Texas 12 years ago, and ended up keeping it for hauling supplies/equipment for a side business we do, as well as for the times we need a 2nd car & can’t carpool together – but we only drive it about 1000 miles a year, compared to our Volt, which we drive about 5000 to 6000 miles/yr.

My idea would be to buy a used EV conversion van, or maybe turn ours into an EV. The Fox Valley EV Association guys told me conversions are not that difficult. We don’t have time now, but after retirement in a year or so we may be able to do it.

For those interested in EVs and EV conversions see electricauto.org/

Lynnvinc as I told you before, If government really believed in a coming catastrophe, pick-ups, SUVs and other large carbon burning vehicles would soon be off the road. It didn’t take very long to build the A-bomb when we were forced to do so. Fact is that for all the brew ha ha and rhetoric about the sea rising, two large battery companies established to support the auto industry, recently went belly up, and the recent surge in Detroit’s bottom line is from the sale of pick-ups and SUVs, NOT EVs. There is little interest in, or demand for EVs.
. PEOPLE SIMPLY DON"T BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEM IS A PROBLEM This is obviously linked to the lack of government’s direct intervention to either end the use of carbon or adapt flood and warming control measures. Given the government’s inability to control polluters, both domestic and foreign, combined with a lack of even the discussion about possible global warming adaptations such as flood controls and agricultural modifications for high heat or limited irrigation, it is reasonable to conclude that either the situation is hopeless or is a bogus government power and tax grab.

 

[vz71]

It is difficult to convince people of a problem when the scientists that believe in the problem get trapped in in they did not believe would be there.

 

[tomarin]

Oops! Went off-topic. Got to redeem myself. It was fairly seasonal today, but it sure was cold last week.

Agreed. Can’t wait for the cold to return next week.

 

[tomarin]

PEOPLE SIMPLY DON"T BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEM IS A PROBLEM.

Or another possibility is that the change is gradual enough that people don’t perceive it as an emergency even though it is. I don’t happen to subscribe to this, but it is a possibility.

 

[frobert]

Lynnvinc as I told you before, If government really believed in a coming catastrophe, pick-ups, SUVs and other large carbon burning vehicles would soon be off the road. It didn’t take very long to build the A-bomb when we were forced to do so. Fact is that for all the brew ha ha and rhetoric about the sea rising, two large battery companies established to support the auto industry, recently went belly up, and the recent surge in Detroit’s bottom line is from the sale of pick-ups and SUVs, NOT EVs. There is little interest in, or demand for EVs.
. PEOPLE SIMPLY DON"T BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEM IS A PROBLEM This is obviously linked to the lack of government’s direct intervention to either end the use of carbon or adapt flood and warming control measures. Given the government’s inability to control polluters, both domestic and foreign, combined with a lack of even the discussion about possible global warming adaptations such as flood controls and agricultural modifications for high heat or limited irrigation, it is reasonable to conclude that either the situation is hopeless or is a bogus government power and tax grab.

Spending is exactly what the gov wants us to do till we can’t spend any more regardless of consequences and if the consequence is financial crash, climate or other catastrophe so be it. When it happens “who could have known.”

 

[Tomdstone]

PEOPLE SIMPLY DON"T BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEM IS A PROBLEM

You are speaking in generalizations. I would agree that those people who are driving cars, whether gasoline or electric, are a great part of the problem. However, those of us who ride our bicycles to school and to work and who are regularly run over by people driving cars, I don’t consider that we are a major part of this problem. Rather it is those people who are driving cars and dirtying the environment with their auto pollution who are at least partly responsible. And there should be severe jail terms for car drivers who are running bicyclists off the road.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

, it is reasonable to conclude that either the situation is hopeless or is a bogus government power and tax grab.

Every expert that I have talked to personally believes global warming is happening and is man made. (In fact, just two days ago at a talk on tide-water glacier caving by a USGS scientist) The science has moved on from if to how much. Given that nearly all peer reviewed papers (97%) on this subject conclude anthropogenic climate forcing is occurring, it is almost certain that it is not bogus.

Now there is plenty of uncertainty about how bad it will be.

 

[vz71]

Every expert that I have talked to personally believes global warming is happening and is man made. (In fact, just two days ago at a talk on tide-water glacier caving by a USGS scientist) The science has moved on from if to how much. Given that nearly all peer reviewed papers (97%) on this subject conclude anthropogenic climate forcing is occurring, it is almost certain that it is not bogus.

Now there is plenty of uncertainty about how bad it will be.

Argumentum ad populum

 

[frobert]

Argumentum ad populum

I hope you guys are right because if you are not you have already delay any action for so long that we have already passed several tipping points. Nature will now take its course. If you have grand kids they will certainly ask “what were they thinking?”