No- just no. Literally none of this. The grid does not have to be massively upgraded to allow for electric car charging. That is a myth. Tesla also introduced a whole home battery system that charges vehicles when electricity is plentiful and manages renewable energy sources- like wind and solar power. And as for where that electricity comes from? That is up to us as consumer and the electric company on whether the sources produce carbon monoxide. There are no alternatives to an internal combustion engine preceding carbon monoxide but Tesla has taken the first step of at least eliminating the last and one of the largest users of oil- the internal combustion engine.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple, Google, and Microsoft Among Companies Signing New White House Climate Pledge
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No- just no. Literally none of this. The grid does not have to be massively upgraded to allow for electric car charging. That is a myth. Tesla also introduced a whole home battery system that charges vehicles when electricity is plentiful and manages renewable energy sources- like wind and solar power. And as for where that electricity comes from? That is up to us as consumer and the electric company on whether the sources produce carbon monoxide. There are no alternatives to an internal combustion engine preceding carbon monoxide but Tesla has taken the first step of at least eliminating the last and one of the largest users of oil- the internal combustion engine.
The obvious answer is that they aren't lying about it. You are simply choosing to take one study out of the context it was intended and arguing that it's incorrect based on another bit of information that you chosen to take on faith because it fits your POV.
As opposed to an international, scientific consensus based on all the evidence as a whole.
Funny how you have ignored all the questions that I've put to you. Again, the biggest profit motive in the whole debate is the fossil fuel industry.
And, again, even if everything that you believe about climate change from facts to conspiracies is completely true, a federal push for renewable energy is a good thing on multiple levels.
<camera pans to Statler and Waldorf>
Statler: He says he wants to do everything he can to increase his carbon footprint!
Waldorf: That's easy! He already farts too much!
<both laugh>
<both fart>
BL.
Last edited:
Climate is global, weather is local. The overall temperature of the Earth is going up with direct correlation to CO2 emissions. In the most simplistic terms possible, we are seeing greater extremes at both ends of the spectrum. Cold is getting colder, hot is getting hotter, wet is getting wetter and dry is getting dryer. Paradoxically, we are also seeing unusual weather that doesn't make much sense as well. I am not a climate scientist. However, I'm a social scientist, and research is research, data is data, and evidence is evidence. All the data and evidence we have suggest - proves - anthropogenic climate change is real.
Edit: here is a wonderful infographic.
Last edited:
This is completely illogical. The graph published by NASA which showed CO spiking higher than ever in the past references two studies, one of which I examined, and found that there is no data to link the two studies the way NASA liked the data on the graph. I explained that in clear English, with full references to specific sentences in the historical record study and the only response is that somehow I am taking it out of context.
So the fossil fuel industry is forcing Climate Change proponents to falsify their headlines to make a point against the fossil fuel industry. Again, the argument you have put forward when examined in detail fails.
I have never said that Climate Change is not important, what I have said over and over again is that the data does not support the media fervor, the headlines, and the calls for changing our lifestyle. I do know for a fact that the fossil fuel industry is not the reason that numerous, if not most, Climate Change headlines are flawed or faked. And yes, I am asking why are these headlines based on flawed logic? And I have put forward perfectly legitimate possibilities for this behavior.
Science is fact based not consensus based. Science is not a vote. In science you make a theory, then proceeded to prove that theory. When significant, important scientists don't agree, there is not even consensus. If you care to open your eyes and ears, there are important scientists that do not agree. So until we understand the science, we need to leave the emotion at home, it has no place in the public debate if your goal is the truth.
Again, I'm not going to argue an individual study with you.
If you think that I have implied that in any way, than you just aren't paying attention.
A dissenting opinion is certainly important to scientific debate. But that doesn't change the fact that there is an international scientific consensus (the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned) that the facts support that climate change is affected by human activities.
That infographic is an excellent indoctrination graph and exactly why people are so easily duped. Please read the reference in my earlier comments about how to lie with statistics. Also this reference shows the pervasiveness of flaws in medical research (that are directly applicable to this subject). There is even a book, not so popular since it is not politically correct, about the misuse of statistics in climate research.
The OP link is a great example that hits on multiple points in the reference material about statistical flaws.
- It is a accepted fact that both temperature and CO2 have been at or higher than they are today in the past. In fact 4 times in the last 400,000 years if you believe the study mentioned earlier in the NASA link. We can not correlate current atmosphere readings with the historical record based on proxy measurements because we only have reliable direct measurements from recent times. We also don't have any accepted research explaining theory, types, and amount of possible bias to the historical records. These are conveniently left out of most research reports, and make the research non-repeatable. Wonder why that is?
- But we do know that the sources of blame from civilization did not exist 400,000 years ago. We also do not have an accepted theory why CO2 and Temperature cycle up and down in the historical record. But we know they do. If necessary I can explain this.
- There is no reference on that wonderful infographic web page that indicates the source of the data. It could just be made up. It could come from the same source I already debunked. If NASA can do it, why not Bloomberg? But in any case we do not know. And at least to Prof., the source of the data does not matter, since it matches his or her politically correct mindset.
- Why does the graph stop at 1880? Well if it went back 400,000 years it would show other temperature spikes and CO2 spikes that did not correlate with the man made hypothesis. That would very messy indeed. Using statistics I can find a correlation by changing the averaging method and time frame in just about any two data set. In fact this is a very big problem in time series data sets because normalization and averaging produce many correlations that don't mean anything. We have no information about the averaging and normalization of the data in the wonderful infographic.
- Even if the correlation is correct, correlation does not infer cause and effect without a lot of supporting theory and proof. This is basic Statistics 101 and lacking in the studies I have seen to date. Feel free to point me to some basic research, not headlines, that shows the anthropogenic climate change is real.
Yes and no. For the last 400,000 years, there have been peaks and valleys in the amount of C02 content in the atmosphere, usually occurring in a 100,000-150,000 year cycle. It's also true no one exactly knows why this is. But the maximum concentration hasn't ever topped 300 parts per million before. That high mark has remained all but stable in that amount of time.
We're currently sitting at 400 PPM. If all things were equal, we'd be sitting at a peak, seeing a very slight trend downwards. Instead, we've scaled far beyond the high water mark, and are continually climbing.
Why is that?
So what proof do you have that the general consensus on climate change is wrong, other than a few "well, you can use statistics to lie, so it only makes sense that they might be lying here", and "you know it's true because the teeming masses are denying it" type arguments?
In the past the peaks and valleys of CO2 levels were driven by temperature. Warming led to an increase in CO2 production in the biosphere. Conversely, the C02 levels increases that we are seeing post-industrialization are driving increases in temperature.
Excellent read. This continues and references the Vostok paper mentioned in the NASA reference earlier and extends it another 400,000 years. It shows historical changes in CO2 that range about 120 p.p.m.v from 180 to 300 as normal in the historical record. It shows temperature changes that vary from -9 to +4 C, or a range of 13 C. It attributes these changes to ". . . hence are a manifestation of the bipolar seesaw19–21 with oceanic and terrestrial processes likely contributing to the reconstructed CO2 variations."
Note that these are not CO2 measurements, they are "reconstructed CO2 variations" according the scientists involved. Now if you look at the most recent data, the far left of Figure 2, you will see that there are no upward hockey stick graphs. The most recent data is within the normal variation, albeit, at the top of an oscillation. There is absolutely nothing in this paper that indicates anything about man made Climate Change and it shows that both the temperature and CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are right now, or as close to right now as this research technique allows.
Note that the reconstructed CO2 levels are calculated on a 500 year resolution. This means statistically, that the current real atmospheric CO2 and temperature readings, if they could accurately be compared with this historical record, would have to exists for a significant part of 500 years to show up in this research and if shorter could be missed all together.
We also know from this paper that the research has speculated about 100,000 year and 1,000,000 year natural cycles in CO2 variation, and the paper presents no theory that explains these cycles. We don't know if the chart in Figure 2 for CO2 is a single natural occurring CO2 cycle, the sum of two naturally occurring CO2 cycles (possibility raised in the paper), or the result of the combination of several natural CO2 cycles. Even 800,000 years and the 8 cycles presented are two few cycles to apply wave theory to answer these questions. But, speculating now, it is entirely possible that if CO2 is driven by 3 or 4 independent CO2 processes that cycle at different frequencies, that a 380 or higher CO2 reading could be explained as a perfectly natural variation.
So what is the result. We have something interesting to monitor and research. The smart people should keep studying it, but we need to wait and see because our knowledge is not good enough about global earth process to assume this is the end of the world.
We can't even figure out a way to keep a city from being destroyed by a hurricane or tornado, what makes people think we are destroying the world with our puny little civilizations.
OK. I'll bite one more time. I did not say that "it only makes sense they are lying here." What I said was this, if the science is so clear that Climate Change is man made, they why do every study I read either not say that, or rely on flawed assumptions or statistics. I did not say they were flawed because they used statistics, I said I examined them and that anyone with a good High School education and an open mind could find the flaws. If you read the backup material to all of these headlines, you will find that the backup material does not support the headline. Why is that, if man made Climate Change is so clear? Why did the UN admit to falsifying Climate Change data for years? Why all of the smoke and mirrors? Why were key studies found to be flawed?
Lets look at it another way. If I made the statement that all minorities were criminals and you said just check your next door neighbor. And i did and found out that my next door neighbor was a minority and not a criminal, and that my work colleges were minorities and not criminals, it would be reasonable to anyone else that the statement "all minorities are criminals" was false. That same logic should apply the Climate Change.
It may be a proposition, it may be desire by certain groups of people, it may even eventually be proven to be true, but it is not a fact when the detail backup does not match the headlines. Flawed statistics are used every day to control people's thoughts and behavior, but people just don't want to know or take the time to determine that they are being manipulated so easily. Its sad really.
I see you are trolling anyone who dissents with climate change. Making sure sheep fall in line with big corporations & big gov. If they disagree, make sure you remind them that they are stupid and you are smart.
With arguments like this, you're pretty much doing all the hard work for us.