New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Among them are also links with different conclusions. I did read the quotes you mentioned, but you're still cherry-picking arguments in your favor. How can someone look at the same info and come to different conclusions. Either they're biased, or lack a full picture of the whole data. It goes both ways for sure.

There are also plenty of dissenting independent studies that are yet to be refuted. What do you make of that?

Literally every argument is a cherry picked argument otherwise if it’s solid data across the board no one would be arguing. And even then, people would still argue.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Among them are also links with different conclusions. I did read the quotes you mentioned, but you're still cherry-picking arguments in your favor. How can someone look at the same info and come to different conclusions. Either they're biased, or lack a full picture of the whole data. It goes both ways for sure.

There are also plenty of dissenting independent studies that are yet to be refuted. What do you make of that?

This is your evidence? You were raving about reliable sources a minute ago, and now you have quoted an opinion paper about a single state’s climate changes, which even appear to support climate change, but the funny stuff was finding the source of this report. It is from the Science and Public Policy, which leads to an opinion website titled The Climategate Emails, and even more interesting was the references on page 179 (labeled 168), which quotes assassinationresearch.com (see picture below). The author of all this is John P Costella. He is not a climate scientist. His degrees are in other areas. His personal website is also…interesting.

I should add that some of his statements in that article are false like the one below. This position that China is worse really has no bearing. If your neighbor throws litter on your lawn could they say it doesn’t matter because you should focus on the other neighbor who throws more litter? No. We produce more emissions per capita by a factor of two than China that only produces more in total because they have more people, so we all need to be better.

What’s worse, is that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing so rapidly in China, that new emissions from that country will completely subsume the entirely of New Mexico’s emissions cessation in little more than 6 week’s time! Clearly, any plan merely calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will fare even poorer. There is simply no climatic gain to be had from emissions reductions in New Mexico.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_analysis.pdf

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/

http://johncostella.com/

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Although the study shows no change in catastrophic weather events, they are presupposing the global warming. In their conclusions, they're questioning the link between global warming and hurricanes, but are not questioning anything about global warming. What was that? When you read a data, you look for what's objective regardless of viewpoints, and what's preconceived subjective ideas. Nevertheless it is a data point. If you prove to me that there is no link between global warming and catastrophic weather events, then this article doesn't support my view.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I’m really confused. At one moment you are quoting an organization and appealing to evidence stemming from them, and then I show you their current opinion on climate change, and you are ignoring that fact while continuing to quote their paper from seventeen years ago.

Meanwhile, your counter evidence is antiquated or dubious at best. Care to try again?

[Irace86.2.0]

I feel like this is appropriate:

While there is overwhelming scientific agreement on climate change, the public has become polarized over fundamental questions such as human-caused global warming. Communication strategies to reduce polarization rarely address the underlying cause: ideologically-driven misinformation. In order to effectively counter misinformation campaigns, scientists, communicators, and educators need to understand the arguments and techniques in climate science denial, as well as adopt evidence-based approaches to neutralizing misinforming content. This chapter reviews analyses of climate misinformation, outlining a range of denialist arguments and fallacies. Identifying and deconstructing these different types of arguments is necessary to design appropriate interventions that effectively neutralize the misinformation. This chapter also reviews research into how to counter misinformation using communication interventions such as inoculation, educational approaches such as misconception-based learning, and the interdisciplinary combination of technology and psychology known as technocognition.

https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/chapter/230759

[chipmunk]

Irace, if you read thru my posts, I said I would post 1 article for now. Obviously I was refering to the journal article, not the opinionated web page. I have been asking you to show me the underlying data & analysis from your links. And we can look beyond the opinions and look at the data objectively, and in a civilized manner. Unfortunately you'll find bias even in the journals (both sides), so if you're willing to be unbiased, we can look at the data together.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Among them are also links with different conclusions. I did read the quotes you mentioned, but you're still cherry-picking arguments in your favor. How can someone look at the same info and come to different conclusions. Either they're biased, or lack a full picture of the whole data. It goes both ways for sure.

There are also plenty of dissenting independent studies that are yet to be refuted. What do you make of that?

Perhaps we should start here. Which of the following statements do you agree with?
1. The average temperature of Earth's atmosphere is currently increasing.
2. The rate of increase is cause for action to attempt to counteract it.
3. The cause of the increase in temperature is due to excess greenhouse gasses
4. The excess greenhouse gasses include gasses such as CO2 that are made/released due to human activity as well as water vapor.
5. The most common natural greenhouse gas, specifically water vapor has a baseline value which is required for Earth to retain enough heat to be habitable.
6. The total excess of greenhouse gasses (all types) is triggered by a phenomenon where the human made/released greenhouse gasses increase the heat stored and reflected by the atmosphere, which in turn affects the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can store.
7. The increase in water vapor adds to the effect of the manmade greenhouse gasses to further increase the heat stored and reflected by the atmosphere.
8. Humans can mitigate or reverse this phenomenon by reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses they release into the atmosphere.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by weederr33

Literally every argument is a cherry picked argument otherwise if it’s solid data across the board no one would be arguing. And even then, people would still argue.

I haven't actually cherry picked anything. I took the most relevant paragraph from the article that explicitly states the conclusion of experts who analyze the presented evidence. These are articles were provided by the very person who is using them as evidence of the complete opposite conclusion. It is pretty solid data across the board in this case.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Irace, if you read thru my posts, I said I would post 1 article for now. Obviously I was refering to the journal article, not the opinionated web page. I have been asking you to show me the underlying data & analysis from your links. And we can look beyond the opinions and look at the data objectively, and in a civilized manner. Unfortunately you'll find bias even in the journals (both sides), so if you're willing to be unbiased, we can look at the data together.

You are having a fundamental misunderstanding about how science works. Hypothesis leads to studies, and when there is enough body of evidence preliminary theories begin to form, and eventually an explanatory theory forms, which is the highest level of scientific understanding. Even after a scientific theory is established, data continually adds to theories such as it has with the Theory of Plate Tectonics or the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of General Relativity or the Big Bang Theory. Asking someone to show the evidence for any one of these theories is a monumental task. While there are good examples, by themselves, they don’t illustrate the breadth of overwhelming evidence converging on the theory or the power it has for prediction.

The data supporting global warming and climate change is also monumental. There is no single study that overwhelmingly demonstrates the theory, nor are there any review papers from a single subject matter/discipline that is going to analyze cumulative data on other disciplines. Even one review paper analyzing one aspect may do a randomized review of hundreds of papers, so it is no small task to demonstrate overwhelmingly anything easily with palatable data, even for the most established theories. The type of report produced by the ICPP is a conglomeration of hundreds if not thousands of studies and presented in a congested format that is palatable for those outside the scientific community.

With that said, what do you expect to get presented here that hasn’t been already presented that would satisfy any reasonable expectations you might have?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I haven't actually cherry picked anything. I took the most relevant paragraph from the article that explicitly states the conclusion of experts who analyze the presented evidence. These are articles were provided by the very person who is using them as evidence of the complete opposite conclusion. It is pretty solid data across the board in this case.

I agree that providing evidence from the very papers used by chipmunk that he was citing as reliable is very reasonable and should be compelling to chipmunk if he is being intellectually honest.

I don’t know where Weederr stands on the subject, but what he said is true, which I illustrated above. Any single study presented would be cherry-picking. A review paper of 100+ articles on a single subject matter like economic impact, increased incidence of natural events, co2, methane, sea temperature changes, coral bleaching incidence, rise in extinction numbers, etc is still lacking the breadth of what the cumulative data demonstrates. I think Weederr might just be saying that anyone can prove anything citing a single study, while being able to ignore the 97% consensus among climate scientists. If there was 10,000 articles and 97% were affirming global warming, a person would still have 300 articles to cite in opposition to the overwhelming consensus, so citing a few studies is literally futile, despite our best efforts.

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Perhaps we should start here. Which of the following statements do you agree with?
1. The average temperature of Earth's atmosphere is currently increasing.
2. The rate of increase is cause for action to attempt to counteract it.
3. The cause of the increase in temperature is due to excess greenhouse gasses
4. The excess greenhouse gasses include gasses such as CO2 that are made/released due to human activity as well as water vapor.
5. The most common natural greenhouse gas, specifically water vapor has a baseline value which is required for Earth to retain enough heat to be habitable.
6. The total excess of greenhouse gasses (all types) is triggered by a phenomenon where the human made/released greenhouse gasses increase the heat stored and reflected by the atmosphere, which in turn affects the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can store.
7. The increase in water vapor adds to the effect of the manmade greenhouse gasses to further increase the heat stored and reflected by the atmosphere.
8. Humans can mitigate or reverse this phenomenon by reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses they release into the atmosphere.

To keep it short and quick:

1. Yes
2. No, but good luck trying
3. Inconclusive data from me to make a comment
4. No (another one: https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...tivity,.2.aspx)
5. Yes
6. No
7. I am yet to see any convincing evidence on this cyclic behavior, so I don't have an opinion yet
8. No. Eventually, like all stars, sun has its clock ticking too. No point in fighting the natural course of the cosmos.

Just so everyone understands, it takes a lot of time and effort to read thru the comments, pick out legit questions, and respond. It's not like I get paid for the time spent.

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

1. [The average temperature of Earth's atmosphere is currently increasing.] Yes

Just out of curiosity, what's the plan, then? Assume this has nothing to do with human activity (neither causing it nor being able to reduce the temperature), so we should all just move further and further north/south (and inland) to stay in habitable temperatures (and not get flooded)?

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Ohio Enthusiast

Just out of curiosity, what's the plan, then? Assume this has nothing to do with human activity (neither causing it nor being able to reduce the temperature), so we should all just move further and further north/south (and inland) to stay in habitable temperatures (and not get flooded)?

Unfortunately I don't have a solution for that. Perhaps it will cycle back down like it has throughout the history. With all the evidence that human activity is insignificant to global climate change, jumping onto EV trend without a foresight of what implications it has to both emissions and pollution is extremly shortsighted and could be disastrous (case study: EU and UK right now). There is no guarantee that switching to 100% electric is going to solve anything. Nor do we have a clear idea of what it does to water, soil, and air pollution. A guy from Myanmar doesn't care if you're driving a Tesla or a Hellcat. All he cares about is the outright violation of his livelihood and human rights.

I don't like gasoline for a different reason- pollution. NOx, Carbon monoxide, carcinogenic lubes & chemicals involved in ICEs, etc. Not global warming. With that logic I'm not a big fan of EVs either. I don't find them as a solution to anything.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

Unfortunately I don't have a solution for that. Perhaps it will cycle back down like it has throughout the history. With all the evidence that human activity is insignificant to global climate change, jumping onto EV trend without a foresight of what implications it has to both emissions and pollution is extremly shortsighted and could be disastrous (case study: EU and UK right now). There is no guarantee that switching to 100% electric is going to solve anything. Nor do we have a clear idea of what it does to water, soil, and air pollution. A guy from Myanmar doesn't care if you're driving a Tesla or a Hellcat. All he cares about is the outright violation of his livelihood and human rights.

I don't like gasoline for a different reason- pollution. NOx, Carbon monoxide, carcinogenic lubes & chemicals involved in ICEs, etc. Not global warming. With that logic I'm not a big fan of EVs either. I don't find them as a solution to anything.

Where are you getting that? From one study? Again, a hundred studies can affirm that position, but if 10,000 affirm the corollary then that should make you question your position and not make such a statement. 97% of climate scientists and the supporting published research are in agreement. Meanwhile, the guy you quoted in the last article has a PHD in apparently radiologic sciences. I’ve seen discussions on the same subject suggesting the corollary to his conclusions. Below is him responding to critique of his work, which is to say his colleagues and the editors may have some objections to his findings as they were obtained and analyzed. This is common part of the review process.

https://journals.lww.com/health-phys..._et_al_.4.aspx


It isn’t a mystery how much CO2 is coming from humans. We have models for how much we burn in cars, in coal towers, when burning wood, when producing concrete, etc. We know how much we add, and it is tens of billion of metric tons a year. We know the rate it is increasing, and we know the effects of methane and other gases on global warming. We know it is human activity.

What is interesting is that in over 10,000 years+ the CO2 concentrations have been below 300ppm, yet it is only since the industrial revolution that CO2 has risen to 420ppm, and you believe that it is more likely some natural event is leading to this surge that otherwise would be perfectly explained by the advent of technology.

http://www.climate.gov/news-features...-caused-humans

http://www.planetexperts.com/smoking...lobal-warming/

You also are making claims about what we don’t know about the effects of manufacturing batteries, yet we have studies comparing end of life emissions and environmental effects of BEVs, and they are better than other EVs and by far ICE, and it will only get better as we advance.

Irregardless of whether BEVs are going to save the environment, they are far more sustainable in a future with renewable energy and with diminishing fossil fuels, and they are superior for the average user in almost every way. ICEs will be antiquated to collectors and enthusiasts. Manufacturers will make more with BEVs too, so they want to move that way, even if the cars will be cheaper over the life of the vehicle for the owner; higher up front cost, but less maintenance and gas, so better long term savings and more dollars going to the manufacturer instead of OPEC and the dealerships. These BEVs will be even cheaper once we get sodium sulfur, so much so, that everyone will want an BEV. No one will want an ICE like no one will want a 90’s Nokia flip phone.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

To keep it short and quick:

1. Yes
2. No, but good luck trying
3. Inconclusive data from me to make a comment
4. No (another one: https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...tivity,.2.aspx)
5. Yes
6. No
7. I am yet to see any convincing evidence on this cyclic behavior, so I don't have an opinion yet
8. No. Eventually, like all stars, sun has its clock ticking too. No point in fighting the natural course of the cosmos.

Just so everyone understands, it takes a lot of time and effort to read thru the comments, pick out legit questions, and respond. It's not like I get paid for the time spent.

In regards to the article, here is a piece of one of the objections that got published:

https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...ts_14c.13.aspx

[chipmunk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

In regards to the article, here is a piece of one of the objections that got published:

https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...ts_14c.13.aspx

1. The critique was that the data measured from 1750 was done measuring a radioactive test (think carbon dating) while the most recent 2002+ data was done using contemporary methods. If this objection is valid, then all your carbon dating theory is out the window. If carbon dating techniques are valid, then this critique is invalid.
2. The nuclear drops and testing during the 50s and 60s. Since the contemporary isotope measurements have been in use since 2002, the measurements from 1950s and 60s were done using the same cosmogenic measurements he was criticizing in #1. He is contradicting his own #1.
3. No access to full article
4. No access to full article

If you have the full paper, I'll be happy to look at it.


The original authors responded to the critique: https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...ts_14C.11.aspx