Over 1,000 scientists sign declaration that there is no climate emergency

[Lord of Planar]

You can lead a horse to water, but the rest is up to the horse. So, they chose to omit it. So what?

So true. We keep trying to bring you to the facts, but you not only deny the facts, but cannot support your own silly opinions on the matter.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I was taught back in elementary school that C02 is, indeed, a greenhouse gas. What changed?

Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas

In making a case against CO2 as a greenhouse gas, the Galileo Movement relies on irrelevant facts while omitting pertinent ones

www.scientificamerican.com

It is. Nothing changed. The pundits still lie about how potent it is.

 

[Olddemocrat]

You first, you are the one claiming this threat exists, while I cannot prove a negative?

Nah! Too much like arguing with a stop sign. As much fun as this has been, I think I have pretty much exhausted the entertainment value of this thread. Bye, all.

 

[longview]

Nah! Too much like arguing with a stop sign. As much fun as this has been, I think I have pretty much exhausted the entertainment value of this thread. Bye, all.

So you are unwilling to support the basis for your belief that warming from added CO2 will be catastrophic, and make Earth uninhabitable.
If you want to persist in your belief, you should be able to say why it is you think it is true?

 

[Eurotrash]

Oh, they'll go into their usual fallacy spiels like: ad homs, shoot the messenger, agumentum ad populum, strawman, etc.

No, "they" won't. I don't believe electric cars solve nearly as many problems as we want to believe they can solve. That doesn't make climate change a hoax, however. Not by a long shot.

 

[PoS]

Does that

Does that include the two new huge funds in California? Salton sea is actually tailings, so it’s already mined and ground up. Death Valley is still in the ground.

And it’s the processing that’s toxic. Some bright person will figure out a way to re-use the water and they’ll get nice and rich. Unless they work for a company. Then they’ll just get their paycheck and the company will get rich.

And if they do what has been proposed: build all the processing and battery factories where the lithium is, and the carbon footprint will decrease dramatically.

Easier said than done when there's very little lithium deposits out there, and most of them are in China and South America. Even then lithium ion batteries lose their charge, so you'll be constantly replacing them, adding even more pollution and trash. Claiming green energy is good for the environment is a myth.

No, "they" won't. I don't believe electric cars solve nearly as many problems as we want to believe they can solve. That doesn't make climate change a hoax, however. Not by a long shot.

You just made a strawman since nobody has claimed that climate change is a hoax.

 

[What if...?]

Easier said than done when there's very little lithium deposits out there, and most of them are in China and South America. Even then lithium ion batteries lose their charge, so you'll be constantly replacing them, adding even more pollution and trash. Claiming green energy is good for the environment is a myth.

You just made a strawman since nobody has claimed that climate change is a hoax.

So you don’t know about the California finds.

Which iirc are some of the biggest found.

There are also recycling efforts. And as I said, a diff ent model than the one we have now which is dragging the parts back and forth across the planet. And it’s that transporting they is responsible for most of the current carbon footprint. As I understand the new plane is to put the various processes where the mine heads are.

 

[JBG]

Source:

Clintel

Explore the Clintel Climate Intelligence perspective that suggests there is no climate emergency according to experts in the field.

clintel.org

And a PDF copy of the document:

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf

Right on the money. Climate science needs to go back to using real science, not ridiculous computer models that are always wrong.

At last, some scientists not making themselves into a parody of lemmings.

 

[PoS]

So you don’t know about the California finds.

Which iirc are some of the biggest found.

There are also recycling efforts. And as I said, a diff ent model than the one we have now which is dragging the parts back and forth across the planet. And it’s that transporting they is responsible for most of the current carbon footprint. As I understand the new plane is to put the various processes where the mine heads are.

Youre talking about the stuff they supposedly claimed exists in the Salton Sea? It's not confirmed and even if it is, it probably wont be enough.

If youre gonna provide batteries to power every home youre talking about literally over 3 billion tons of lithium, and that's already about the third of what Chile's got. The price of such an amount will no doubt be astronomical, and mining this stuff would cause untold ecological damage.

Nope, what your proposing isnt practical or economical in any way shape or form. We should keep using fossil fuels until a new, better energy source is invented.

 

[longview]

At last, some scientists not making themselves into a parody of lemmings.

But which ones?
The statements in the declaration are questions a scientist would raise, saying the science is settled is lemming behavior!

 

[What if...?]

Youre talking about the stuff they supposedly claimed exists in the Salton Sea? It's not confirmed and even if it is, it probably wont be enough.

If youre gonna provide batteries to power every home youre talking about literally over 3 billion tons of lithium, and that's already about the third of what Chile's got. The price of such an amount will no doubt be astronomical, and mining this stuff would cause untold ecological damage.

Nope, what your proposing isnt practical or economical in any way shape or form. We should keep using fossil fuels until a new, better energy source is invented.

Fossil fuels of course do no environmental damage.

And makes us involved in that shitty market.

And isn’t becoming more expensive to get.

 

[Mr Person]

They're still trying to play chess on a football field, using marbles? Oy . . .

 

[longview]

Fossil fuels of course do no environmental damage.

And makes us involved in that shitty market.

And isn’t becoming more expensive to get.

We do not have a choice about fossil fuels, as they are a finite resource, we do have a choice about how we transition away from fossil fuels.

 

[Olddemocrat]

At last, some scientists not making themselves into a parody of lemmings.

Oh no! Not another one. It is a denier report from an unabashedly proselytizing denier web site funded by a denier organization, and you fell for it. For more, see post #566.

 

[longview]

Oh no! Not another one. It is a denier report from an unabashedly proselytizing denier web site funded by a denier organization, and you fell for it. For more, see post #566.

Why don’t you itemize for us, what from a scientific perspective in the declaration you think is in error?

 

[Olddemocrat]

Youre talking about the stuff they supposedly claimed exists in the Salton Sea? It's not confirmed and even if it is, it probably wont be enough.

If youre gonna provide batteries to power every home youre talking about literally over 3 billion tons of lithium, and that's already about the third of what Chile's got. The price of such an amount will no doubt be astronomical, and mining this stuff would cause untold ecological damage.

Nope, what your proposing isnt practical or economical in any way shape or form. We should keep using fossil fuels until a new, better energy source is invented.

So, the batteries are a stopgap. There are developing technologies which promise cheaper, sustainable, carbon neutral power. The market will sort them out.

 

[longview]

So, the batteries are a stopgap. There are developing technologies which promise cheaper, sustainable, carbon neutral power. The market will sort them out.

When the government preselects winners with subsidies, it delays the market selecting the most viable solution!

 

[What if...?]

We do not have a choice about fossil fuels, as they are a finite resource, we do have a choice about how we transition away from fossil fuels.

So we wait for a perfect solution?

How long do we wait?

And what happens if no perfect solution arises before the oil gets too expensive due to increasing scarcity?

Imagine if we had waited to adopt the automobile until there were freeways with gas stations. Never would have happened.

 

[What if...?]

When the government preselects winners with subsidies, it delays the market selecting the most viable solution!

Profitable solution. We always end up the the most profitable solutions. It is the primary criteria, often the only criteria as we allow businesses to socializize exernalities. Clean up their messes.

 

[Olddemocrat]

When the government preselects winners with subsidies, it delays the market selecting the most viable solution!

Possibly true. But it can only delay, not stop altogether. Sooner or later, the market wins out.

 

[watsup]

At last, some scientists not making themselves into a parody of lemmings.

They prefer making themselves into a parody of deniers?

 

[longview]

Possibly true. But it can only delay, not stop altogether. Sooner or later, the market wins out.

True, but we waste money in the mean time.

 

[longview]

So we wait for a perfect solution?

How long do we wait?

And what happens if no perfect solution arises before the oil gets too expensive due to increasing scarcity?

Imagine if we had waited to adopt the automobile until there were freeways with gas stations. Never would have happened.

No one is waiting, every year cars and homes are more efficient. In the US emissions are already down to 1992 levels.
There is already a solution to our sustainability energy problem, we can make all the carbon neutral fuels we need, but it will only be economically viable when oil is stable above ~$96 a barrel.

 

[Olddemocrat]

True, but we waste money in the mean time.

Yhe way of the world...

 

[PoS]

Fossil fuels of course do no environmental damage.

Straw man. No one ever said that.

And makes us involved in that shitty market.

And isn’t becoming more expensive to get.

The average cost of buying an EV in California is $65K, while buying an average ICE car is $5K. Do the math.

So, the batteries are a stopgap. There are developing technologies which promise cheaper, sustainable, carbon neutral power. The market will sort them out.

I agree that the market should be left to sort itself out without gubmint intervention like mandating EVs, because it will only make things worse.