NBC news story on Hunter Biden

[canpakes]

Your just side stepping CP. Unless you went to all the trouble of removing the line voltage to the stove, it is still there, so not added costs. The added costs was for gas.

I’m not side stepping. I’m having fun. : D

But, I’m not sure what you’re getting on about with this bit about electrical line removal. We are well aware that adding a gas stove wasn’t free. We paid for an addition from the main gas line.

Your roof decking should in no way be an issue.

Easy for you to say that. Our roof looks a bit like San Onofre’s surf on a mediocre day. I’m sure that you’ll understand the reference.

And my point is, like you, you have better things to do with your money. And like most Americans it is not in the cards. So given that we need fossil fuels. It would probably take 50 years or more to assimilate fully to renewable energy, and only if everybody was on board. Just think about every house, restaurant, and business in America, with gas ovens, dryers, heaters, water heaters, pools and spas...etc., having to remodel and revamp, on their dime, their homes and businesses. And where are we going to get all the copper. What about lithium? How much plastic and rubber for insulation and wire nuts. Transformers, sub stations, let alone clean energy generation facilities.

Sure. I agree with this. You’re keying into other schools of thought about sustainability that layer into or augment green energy. One is the ‘cradle to cradle’ approach I mentioned earlier. Another is the realization that aside from paper products, recycling is still in large part a failure, and a better approach is to consume less. Imagine, as example, that the demand for new automobiles in America would drop by 50% tomorrow. How much less pollution and energy use could be realized by being able to do so?

How much could CO2 emissions be reduced by not having to accommodate one-half of the total auto inventory? Do you know how much CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere from the manufacture and use of concrete? The number would surprise you.

Obvs, these are mere wishful thinking on that scale, but the concept works at smaller scales. As example, I’m not demanding that an EV battery plant obtain mined materials and refined plastics to create a $70K Ford Lightning for our family when we can keep our two-decade-old vehicles operating. Could you do the same, if your vehicle could still meet emissions testing requirements? Why do you drive what you drive if you’re hauling around a load of air at least half of the time? Trailers are cheap, too. : D

Your just making excuses when you should just say I don't want it.

Rethink that. There are plenty of things in the world that I want. There’s a much smaller list of things that I realistically need, or can afford even if needed and wanted. That’s how life works. You’re subject to the same sort of limitations on your own list. Those limitations don’t erase ‘want’ simply because your checking account isn’t bottomless.

[Markk]

I’m not side stepping. I’m having fun. : D

As am I, having fun watching you side step and make excuses.

Easy for you to say that. Our roof looks a bit like San Onofre’s surf on a mediocre day. I’m sure that you’ll understand the reference.

Well, Lol, your need a new roof and maybe sheathing, which has nothing to do with solar. if your roof needs repair fix it. Most roofing companies offer financing for a roofing solar package.

Sure. I agree with this. You’re keying into other schools of thought about sustainability that layer into or augment green energy. One is the ‘cradle to cradle’ approach I mentioned earlier. Another is the realization that aside from paper products, recycling is still in large part a failure, and a better approach is to consume less. Imagine, as example, that the demand for new automobiles in America would drop by 50% tomorrow. How much less pollution and energy use could be realized by being able to do so?

If demand for new autos dropped in half, our economy and 401 k's would take a huge hit. New autos are much more efficient. And if people did not buy new cars, there would not be a market for used cars for folks that can't afford new.

How is recycling steel and metals a fail?

How much could CO2 emissions be reduced by not having to accommodate one-half of the total auto inventory? Do you know how much CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere from the manufacture and use of concrete? The number would surprise you.

And how much omission with making wind mills and turbines and all the plastic and rubber? Asphalt, electric ovens vs gas? Shingles. I could go on and on....computers and smart phones? Cheese wrappers (eat string cheese at the moment), water bottles?

Obvs, these are mere wishful thinking on that scale, but the concept works at smaller scales. As example, I’m not demanding that an EV battery plant obtain mined materials and refined plastics to create a $70K Ford Lightning for our family when we can keep our two-decade-old vehicles operating. Could you do the same, if your vehicle could still meet emissions testing requirements? Why do you drive what you drive if you’re hauling around a load of air at least half of the time? Trailers are cheap, too. : D

If you want to drive an old car fine. I had a 09 Tacoma with low miles I loved, but a drunk totaled it recently hitting it while it was parked. So I bought a used truck with 10K miles to replace...why, because I wanted to. Some people like nice cars and safer car's....LoL I drive through Newport Coast each work day and that is a testimony to that.

Rethink that. There are plenty of things in the world that I want. There’s a much smaller list of things that I realistically need, or can afford even if needed and wanted. That’s how life works. You’re subject to the same sort of limitations on your own list. Those limitations don’t erase ‘want’ simply because your checking account isn’t bottomless.

What does that have to do with doing your share? My hypocrisy is admitted, no excuses. Should will drill and frac more? I say yes and yes.

[canpakes]

I’m not side stepping. I’m having fun. : D

As am I, having fun watching you side step and make excuses.

Excuses for what? I’ve asked that before and you seem unable or unwilling to answer.

Easy for you to say that. Our roof looks a bit like San Onofre’s surf on a mediocre day. I’m sure that you’ll understand the reference.

Well, Lol, your need a new roof and maybe sheathing, which has nothing to do with solar. if your roof needs repair fix it. Most roofing companies offer financing for a roofing solar package.

Sure. Send your team over. I offer pizza and warm beverages (it’s winter already). Deal?

Sure. I agree with this. You’re keying into other schools of thought about sustainability that layer into or augment green energy. One is the ‘cradle to cradle’ approach I mentioned earlier. Another is the realization that aside from paper products, recycling is still in large part a failure, and a better approach is to consume less. Imagine, as example, that the demand for new automobiles in America would drop by 50% tomorrow. How much less pollution and energy use could be realized by being able to do so?

If demand for new autos dropped in half, our economy and 401 k's would take a huge hit.

And? Is this an excuse for something? Do we always need to consume more?

New autos are much more efficient.

This depends greatly on choice. If I replace my near-quarter-century old vehicle with, say, a new Toyota 4Runner, I’ll experience a MPG drop of 50%.

What are you driving?

And if people did not buy new cars, there would not be a market for used cars for folks that can't afford new.

A reduction in demand for new vehicles in this case implies a reduction in the need for personal vehicle use, which is the point. Used vehicle demand would shift similarly.

How is recycling steel and metals a fail?

It’s not. I’m not seeing where you’re getting that from.

How much could CO2 emissions be reduced by not having to accommodate one-half of the total auto inventory? Do you know how much CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere from the manufacture and use of concrete? The number would surprise you.

And how much omission with making wind mills and turbines and all the plastic and rubber? Asphalt, electric ovens vs gas? Shingles. I could go on and on....computers and smart phones? Cheese wrappers (eat string cheese at the moment), water bottles?

By all means, go on and on. That’s the point. Less consumption equals less resource use and waste, less pollution, less CO2, etc..

Remember back to the early days of when COVID was in full force, and folks were not driving nearly as much? Do you remember how the skies above LA looked then? A whole lot less smog, right?

Your solar roof is great, but if you cut your driving in half - along with a good chunk of the population doing the same - that would also make a massive difference.

Obvs, these are mere wishful thinking on that scale, but the concept works at smaller scales. As example, I’m not demanding that an EV battery plant obtain mined materials and refined plastics to create a $70K Ford Lightning for our family when we can keep our two-decade-old vehicles operating. Could you do the same, if your vehicle could still meet emissions testing requirements? Why do you drive what you drive if you’re hauling around a load of air at least half of the time? Trailers are cheap, too. : D

If you want to drive an old car fine. I had a 09 Tacoma with low miles I loved, but a drunk totaled it recently hitting it while it was parked. So I bought a used truck with 10K miles to replace...why, because I wanted to. Some people like nice cars and safer car's....LoL I drive through Newport Coast each work day and that is a testimony to that.

Is this just an excuse because you couldn’t afford a nice, new Cybertruck? : D

Rethink that. There are plenty of things in the world that I want. There’s a much smaller list of things that I realistically need, or can afford even if needed and wanted. That’s how life works. You’re subject to the same sort of limitations on your own list. Those limitations don’t erase ‘want’ simply because your checking account isn’t bottomless.

What does that have to do with doing your share?

It doesn’t. It relates to your odd comment that a person not doing something always means that a person doesn’t want to do that something, whereas I maintain that sometimes not doing something can also indicate that a person lacks the time, money or resources to do that thing.

It seems like you’re trying to apply your own personal rationalization for your own decisions, on to others. But your conclusion is not logically defensible anyway.

My hypocrisy is admitted, no excuses. Should will drill and frac more? I say yes and yes.

Why? Because you think that gas will be cheaper for you? Do we always have to sacrifice ever more land, resources and air quality so that Markk can continue to not understand that doing so doesn’t even necessarily make gas prices lower anyway?

We’re producing oil in this country at record levels, outpacing what happened even during the Trump Administration. Why are you still paying what you are at the pump? Why did you believe Trump when he lied to you about reducing your energy costs by 50%?

[Markk]

Excuses for what? I’ve asked that before and you seem unable or unwilling to answer.

LoL read the thread and our posts

CP wrote...Sure. Send your team over. I offer pizza and warm beverages (it’s winter already). Deal?

Okay give me your address:) But it seems to me that it is a affordability thing, which is 1000% understandable, and which most property owners get and are in the same boat. And government mandates need to get that and understand assimilation and waiting for technology to become affordable, happen.

And? CP wrote...Is this an excuse for something? Do we always need to consume more?

No it is a reality that we are a country (world) that our economy and basically existence is dependent on fossil fuel. Without it billions would starve to death. It is not a hard thing to understand if you stop and think about it. Cutting it in half is not really an option.

CP wrote...What are you driving?

My wife a 23 Highlander with a turbo 4, 25 miles per gallon. My personal truck 22 Nissan Fronter 6 cylinder 23ish per gallon, rarely drive. My everyday work truck (company truck) is a 22 Colorado 6 cylinder... 18/25. 80 percent highway driving.

What are you driving?

A reduction in demand for new vehicles in this case implies a reduction in the need for personal vehicle use, which is the point. Used vehicle demand would shift similarly.

HuH???? Please expound on that. Are you saying that we need to choke the market? Without new cars, including leases and rentals, there would be a reduced used inventory and the prices for decent used cars would sky rocket, and folks with low incomes would take the hit. What you are describing is Cuba, at least years ago there.

During covid because new car production went way down, used cars skyrockets and created a racket of sorts where folks that could afford buy used cars wholesale were turning them for huge inflated rates. I had a 09 Tacoma pre runner I loved....130K miles. I paid 14K for it new. A drunk hit it in front of my house while it was parked and totaled it. I got 15K for replacement by showing the insurance company from auto trader that was what they were going for on average.

Or are you saying you want to force people to stay home. And not commute for better job opportunities, and a having to exit the suburbs? Or take trips? Enjoy outings?

Again please expound on that, I am not sure I understand your point, thanks.

More later.

[Dr Exiled]

Yes they were, but that probably isn't that important now because the narrative has shifted to warming alarmism and we must follow. So sayeth our masters! Anyway, here is the evidence of their silliness: https://realclimate.science/2013/05/21/ ... #gsc.tab=0

lol. No, they were not. Using a larger font doesn’t change the facts.

Good Doctor, I’m not quite convinced that you have actually brought to bear your full set of lawyerly skills, upon this page. Did you actually peruse the content, or did you just grab this ragtag collection of chopped snippets from the impulse shelf at the quick checkout lane in the climate denialist dollar store?

1. The first image is a mystery graph with vague scaling, about ‘something’. There’s a link that just refers back to itself. The headline for this entry is from the author of the contemporary web page (ie, there’s no connection to the historical image).
2. The next graph, labeled, ‘A mean temperature of the northern hemisphere’, only graphs recorded temperatures. It makes no predictions or claims about anything, let alone gives any mention of an impending ice age.
3. Third item is a partial sentence composed of a chopped quote supposedly taken from a source that cannot (again) be accessed by the ‘link’ given for it.
4. The fourth item appears to be an article from an English newspaper (not a scientific journal) about the opinion of a particular fellow named Hubert Lamb, director of climate research at the University of East Anglia (it’s always the University of East Anglia), in which the following is stated:
   
   “The full impact of the new Ice Age will not be upon us for another 10.000 years and even then it will not be as severe as the last great glacial period.”
   
   How is predicting something happening ten thousand years down the road … and mildly, at that … ‘alarmist’? I don’t think this rises to the standard you claim.
5. The next snippet doesn’t even mention an ice age, just that temperatures seemed to be leveling off from their otherwise upward trend.
6. The next snippet is about the opinion of that same fellow from University of East Anglia again. Repeating the same fellow twice is still only one guy.
7. The next two snippets only mention that snow and ice cover had experienced anomalies during the early seventies. Neither claims an ice age was on the way.
8. A live link is finally given! This one goes to a CIA paper which … does NOT predict an ice age. What it does do is examine the destabilizing effect of climate variability on worldwide food supplies. Interestingly, this paper mentions that the prevailing climate prediction ‘school of thought’ is the Lambian model. That is, the conclusions pushed by Hubert Lamb, the same fellow already referred to in two other references above.
   
   The paper goes on to state that the Lambian approach is losing traction to other methodologies (Wisconsin Study and others). So there is no scientific consensus on an impending ice age.
9. The next four references are dead links and give no context about the opinions referenced.

At this point, the trend seems to be clear. There was one or a few climate thought leaders (Hubert Lamb and friends) who had their opinion. It wasn’t universal, but it was based on the best land-based observations of recent trends. I’m sure that their proclamation of a mild ice age not even as bad as the Little Ice age of the late 1600’s - this time forecasted for some 10 thousand years down the road - made for tantalizing headlines in the local papers, with a bit of massaging. But this isn’t, as you claim, ‘all scientists forecasting an ice age soon’.

I don't know if those predicting such silliness were on the right and I don't suppose they knew what fascism would be unleashed in the future with Trump and his acolytes supporting this crazy theory, and so they probably need to be forgiven. All the popular people were supporting the ice age scare, including ... wait for it ... the CIA ...

Except that the CIA didn’t do anything of the sort. You didn’t read the paper. If you had, you’d have noted that the CIA took a neutral stance towards predictions and was about economic and food instability from climate variations regardless of direction. Its strongest focus on those trends relates to droughts.

Given that they were academics in the 1970's, it's probably a safe bet that they supported Carter and not Reagan or Nixon. They obviously weren't enlightened and probably looked at the facts instead of reducing everything down to a political narrative.

Of course, your take on those same academicians is that as we got smarter, accumulated more data, and deployed more tools including satellite reconnaissance and temperature monitoring, and over several more decades of trend watching, that somehow the scientists all decided to become political lackeys of some mysterious organization somewhere that wanted you to use solar panels. Because socialism, or Democrats, or something. So you stopped believing what they had to say. Right?

It’s a good thing that the oil industry was there to fight that trend, and to spread the kind of narrative that has led you to your present conclusions.
; )

My point is that it is not set in stone as science never is. It shouldn't become dogma like so many religions. There should be room for debate and there clearly were scientists back in the 70's saying that we may be headed for another ice age. This paper reviews the scientific literature from the 1970's and concludes that 65% of the scientific papers regarding climate predicted global cooling.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/ ... Old Testament-a-myth/

Perhaps the supposed consensus seen today needs to be reexamined, especially given the alarmist predictions that haven't come to pass. Here are some articles that show how wrong scientists have been with their predictions:

https://www.westernjournal.com/10-faile ... edictions/

https://timefortruth.blog/2023/01/04/13 ... edictions/

Is there a consensus as claimed? Looks like there isn't. Perhaps the MIT scientist I quoted in a prior post is correct in urging caution.

https://timefortruth.blog/2023/01/17/do ... l-warming/

Then there is the nobel prize winner that came out against the so-called consensus, calling it a hoax:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/worl ... is-a-hoax/

[Gunnar]

My point is that it is not set in stone as science never is. It shouldn't become dogma like so many religions. There should be room for debate and there clearly were scientists back in the 70's saying that we may be headed for another ice age. This paper reviews the scientific literature from the 1970's and concludes that 65% of the scientific papers regarding climate predicted global cooling.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/ ... Old Testament-a-myth/

I have lost count of how many times this myth has been debunked on this very forum!

Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was
Myth often cited by global warming skeptics debunked

Not true, climatologist Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and his colleagues report in the September Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The team’s survey of major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 found that only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions.

[canpakes]

My point is that it is not set in stone as science never is. It shouldn't become dogma like so many religions. There should be room for debate and there clearly were scientists back in the 70's saying that we may be headed for another ice age. This paper reviews the scientific literature from the 1970's and concludes that 65% of the scientific papers regarding climate predicted global cooling.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/ ... Old Testament-a-myth/

It doesn’t look like you read this one, either.

Are you sure that you want to cite it? I suggest that you read the linked works, so that you can see for yourself how they may not end up supporting the claim.

The short story is that you can always selectively search for a limited number of keywords that will appear to indicate the tone or tenor of a paper, when in fact they do not, when you actually read the source.

You’re a lawyer. I thought that examination of the ‘evidence’ was part of the job.


ETA: I have a moment to expand on this for you. Checking into this link we see that the author has made claims about which papers he believes are pro-cooling, pro-warming, or neutral. Examining the only example shown that moved into the ‘cooling’ column, he provides the following edited excerpt and reasoning for his classification:



But, what does the referenced article actually say? First off, the article is about the possible effect of albedo on climate, so this subject is entirely different and separate than any considerations of CO2-driven climate change. Secondly, the article mentions that albedo variations are at best a mild counter to other factors (including atmospheric conditions) and that we’ve probably already experienced their maximum effect through centuries of landscape change resulting from agricultural and urban development:



This is not a paper predicting global cooling.

The website author compounds this problem by simplistically classifying the Kukla and Kukla paper mentioned as one that is predicting an ice age, but fails to mention that the paper is also about albedo, and posits one scenario regarding an increased ice cap cover based on two years of measurements, with a projected timeline of 8000 years.

This is a limited-observation study with a very long target. This is not a cooling alarmist paper.

I’m not going to track down the full list of papers used by the website proprietor, but given the shakiness of two of the four available at this link, I’m not seeing that the site is making a convincing argument that ‘cooling alarmism’ was all the rage during the 70’s.

Let’s keep going:

Perhaps the supposed consensus seen today needs to be reexamined, especially given the alarmist predictions that haven't come to pass.

Hopefully you’ll move past categorizing a handful of papers forecasting a mild cooling trend up to 8000 years out as ‘alarmist’. Now consider that the ‘consensus’ has been undergoing re-examination for over 100 years. The earliest discussions about ‘climate change’ recognized the possible effects of atmospheric pollutants and CO2. Here’s a link to an excellent article (for its time) from 1912 discussing the possibility of warming. Please read it:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tt4 ... na&f=false

What has happened since then? We witnessed a massive uptick in manufacturing and atmospheric particulates in the four decades to follow. This could easily have sparked a mild cooling trend during that time period, resulting in conclusions around 1970 about the future trend remaining as a slight cooling.

What happened after the 1970’s, and after those opinions on cooling were published? Automobile use saw a rapid increase for a decade prior, and that trend only accelerated after 1970. In fact, worldwide use of fossil fuels in general accelerated exponentially. Oil use increased 5-fold in the next 5 decades to follow, with coal and natural gas use increasing three-fold during the same time period. Within the US alone, CO2 emissions have tripled since then.



Conditions have changed dramatically between the benchmark years of 1912, 1970 and 2024. And the so-called consensus of scientists has adapted to those changes. You see this as valid when their conclusions match your wishes, but then choose to see the same process as a political conspiracy when their conclusions don’t match your wishes … while simultaneously adopting the rhetoric of multibillion-dollar energy industry giants who would presumably be negatively impacted by a change in our traditional fossil fuels use. Curious.

Here are some articles that show how wrong scientists have been with their predictions:

Except that they’re not articles about scientists. Most are anecdotes about non-scientists making various goofy predictions - as non-scientists often do - or anecdotes about quotes that end up being taken out of context and with a meaning opposite of what’s claimed, or they’re links to ‘petitions’ that virtually anyone can sign, or to an article about a guy who won a Nobel peace prize in a category that is not climate science.

We’ve already been down the bad climate denialist propaganda road with Ceeboo a few months back, so I’m not going to pick all of these apart again, but I can if you really want me to.

[Moksha]

Pardoning all of the January 6th crowd and dismantling climate science. Those are things the New Confederacy will be proud of.

[canpakes]

Sure. Send your team over. I offer pizza and warm beverages (it’s winter already). Deal?

Okay give me your address:)

1. Get on the 15 and drive for a lot of hours.
2. Exit at the off-ramp next to the gas station, and hang a right.
3. Take a left at the third light, then your second right, then left at the field, then your first left.

You can’t miss it.

No it is a reality that we are a country (world) that our economy and basically existence is dependent on fossil fuel. Without it billions would starve to death. It is not a hard thing to understand if you stop and think about it. Cutting it in half is not really an option.

Sure, everyone depends, to large extent, on fossil fuels. But if you’re concerned about a billion people dying should the supply diminish somewhat, then what are we doing in the US by continuing to use as much of it as possible?

Imagine if we cut our use of fossil fuels by 10%, freeing that up for future generations home and abroad. That’s all that I’m talking about.

The ‘cutting it in half’ that you mention regards the demand for actual vehicles, new or used, which is much more discretionary. Not fossil fuels.

HuH???? please expound on that. Are you saying that we need to choke the market? Without new cars, including leases and rentals, there would be a reduced used inventory and the prices for decent used cars would sky rocket, and folks with low incomes would take the hit. What you are describing is Cuba, at least years ago there.

No. Again, I’m only imagining the benefit of our domestic appetite for personal vehicles declining somewhat, due either to evolving attitudes about ownership, hybrid work schedules or an increased availability of other transit options … and the resulting resource and environmental benefits.

Or are you saying you want to force people to stay home. And not commute for better job opportunities, and a having to exit the suburbs? Or take trips? Enjoy outings?

Nope.

[Markk]

1. Get on the 15 and drive for a lot of hours.
2. Exit at the off-ramp next to the gas station, and hang a right.
3. Take a left at the third light, then your second right, then left at the field, then your first left.

You can’t miss it.

is this it...