Yes, Aratina Solar Project Will Down Iconic Joshua Trees in Southern California
The solar project is destroying the Joshua trees…to save the Joshua Trees from “climate change.”
There are a lot of essential lessons real environmentalists can learn from this post.
I have offered post after post proving that the Earth’s climate has continually changed. Any temperature rise observed from reliable temperature stations is likely cyclic and part of the world’s warming after an intense period of glaciation. I have noted repeatedly that carbon dioxide is a life-essential gas in trace amounts, and data shows it has no significant role in global warming.
I have highlighted that fossil fuels and nuclear energy are the only two current energy sources that support civilization. The rest of the sources are substantially less efficient and/or limited to specific regions.
Finally, between a wind project on the Osage reservation and geoengineering experiments in San Francisco Bay, I have shown how politically connected power companies and climate crisis promoters ignore the concerns of locals to move forward with their projects.
Therefore, I was slightly amused when environmental activists began warning that the iconic Joshua Trees around Boron, California, would be downed to make room for a solar farm.
4,200 Joshua trees are scheduled to be removed are replaced by solar panels for the Aratina Solar Project near Boron, CA in June of this year. They will not be salvaged but funds based on the size of the tree will be placed in a mitigation bank. pic.twitter.com/1BhA3uag4F
— Basin & Range Watch (@BasinRange) May 4, 2024
Jason Brown of the Sierra Wave News offers this insight about the project:
In 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that Joshua Trees are not endangered. They concluded they are unlikely to be significantly threatened in the next 50 years.
However, a study conducted in 2013 revealed that Joshua trees are experiencing a halt in reproduction across approximately half of their range within Joshua Tree National Park. As temperatures rise and conditions become drier, it is anticipated that the available habitat for Joshua trees will diminish significantly. By the end of the century, as much as 90 percent of the Joshua Tree habitat could vanish due to these environmental changes. You read that right, a reduction of 90 percent.
So, in the name of our Solar Agenda, to protect the world from greenhouse gases, let’s destroy another species and wait until it is too late to save them. I am not anti-solar. I am anti-destroying a species for the sake of an agenda.
The trouble is that the “climate crisis” narrative has given those who wish to impose a particular green energy source on us the moral authority to do so.
This particular saga began in 2021 when the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved the Aratina Solar Project despite residents’ objections.
Despite comments and concerns from residence in Boron and Desert Lake, the Kern County Board of Supervisors approved a solar farm project which will include five different sites in the East Kern County area; the board voted on the approval at their October 12th meeting in Bakersfield.
8-minute Solar Energy’s Aratina Solar Center would provide 250 megawatts of power which is enough to power 93,000 homes to a pair of community choice organizations that contract electricity on behalf of residential customers in the Monterrey Bay and Silicone Valley areas of California.
The agreements represent a new and growing market for a company that’s integrating large photovoltaic solar arrays with battery installations to provide sun power 24 hours a day at prices low enough to compete with natural gas fired power plants.
In fact, on its website, Avantus (formerly 8-Minute Solar Energy) admits it has every intention of chopping down the Joshua Trees on its website:
The kicker…they are destroying the dress to save the trees from “climate change.”
Avantus is working to preserve native Mojave plants like Joshua Trees while also preserving California’s ability to achieve its clean energy goals – and the economic and climate benefits that come with them. While trees will be impacted during project construction, vastly more Joshua Trees are being threatened by climate change caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions, which the Aratina solar project directly addresses.
If California had just not gutted our nuclear power capabilities and looked at next-generation options, and if the state didn’t ludicrously decide “net zero” was a sensible and responsible goal. Perhaps the Joshua Trees and the wildlife end habitat dependent on them would not now be threatened.
If you live by the virtue signal, you can die by the virtue signal. Or your favorite species.
Perhaps it is time for those who genuinely love the environment to reconsider what they have been told about climate and energy.
I looked it up and this project is gross. They’re going to rip up thousands of trees to power 180,000 homes with “clean” energy.
The San Onofre nuclear power plant was made in the late 60s and provided 20% of power to SoCal.
Nuclear is a better option to fight climate change. https://t.co/KVr1rESubU pic.twitter.com/ZfkMzRz8Yd
— Lani M🌺 (@MotivatedUni) May 5, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Net zero is the IQ of those pushing ruinables (a/k/a renewable). There is little evidence that CO² is the cause of the current warming cycle for a host of reasons. It makes no sense to impoverish ourselves by wasting resources on building these monstrosities that supply some energy sometimes. Of course, the bid said batteries included, but it doesn’t say how long and at what cost the batteries will supply power. One good hail storm, and poof, no more solar panels. How long will the batteries provide power after that before everyone is in the dark. If CO² is not the reason for the recent warming, then there is no reason to abandon the use of fossil fuels.
Plus, “fossil” fuels are actually not fossils.
How horribly stupid these people are!
No, even horribly stupid people are appalled.
All religion involves sacrifices, and the climate change cult is no exception.
CA voters are idiots. They voted for $10B bullet train that’s already exploded in cost to $100B, and increasing. That’s just for build out, doesn’t cover expense of ongoing operations over the years that will surpass that. The voters were told it would be powered by wind turbines, which is hallucination. CA under dem super majority. smh
Soon electricity will flow like ketchup.
Shake and shake the ketchup bottle
None’ll come, and then a lot’ll
Intermittent power that isn’t reliable?
Leftists don’t have to make sense. They just have to be “passionate.”
Biden green new deal is trillion dollar fraud.
Solyndra was just a practice round
They claim funds will be put into a “mitigation bank” to make up for cutting down the trees.
You can be certain that the “mitigation bank” will be managed by Al Gore or similar wealthy types getting richer through the “green” new deal.
And if any money is left after they take their cuts, they will find a “better” use for the funds than planting Joshua trees.
Being a certified and degreed biology nerd (I can spot real women if needed), I looked up some longevity facts about the Joshua tree.
To wit (from the Environmentor and other sites):
Somehow, I don’t think the longevity of the Joshua trees, or their reproductive schedule, is really on the table.
The real question: so there was no place else other than this unique and federally “protected” ecosystem to set up a solar “farm?”
And “new research” is not proven research, but lefties will jump on any fractured hypothesis that fits their agenda. See: transgender “affirmation” surgery and medication, aka human vivisection.
I am sure the trees will use the money in the bank for their uprooted brethren wisely.
“I can spot real women if needed” can you indeed, I’m curious then how do you identify a women? Always wondered how that fits in with biblical defintion of sex
Well, a DNA test is definitive, but a balance beam routine will suffice.
Interesting you identify what a women is by a DNA test or balance beam, that seems impractical.
I’d say identifying a woman via a DNA test is EMINENTLY practical.
Of course, Dimsdale was being a bit “ironical” with the balance beam comment, but you do seem dumb enough where it could have flown straight over your pointy head.
@steve59
So your proposal at bathrooms is to use dna testing? Fascinating
Lols , I think you may have missed my sarcasm. I may have to include /s from now on 😉
@FartE: stop being a retard. Where did the OP use the term “bathroom?”
Your pathetic attempt to distract and dissemble is duly noted.
As usual.
Restoration of common sense and the rejection of mental illness as “normal” would remediate any bathroom, sports and pronoun issues.
@steve59
He didn’t use the term bathroom however the claim is that using dna testing is practical. Your claim to be fair. Seems like it obviously isn’t.
@Fartknocker: he didn’t make the claim, dumbass.
You are simply trying to play the PeeWee Herman act of “I know what you are, but what am I?” game.
Give it up. He did it a LOT better than you do.
@steve59IQ
Reading isn’t your strong point is it, I state it was your claim. Maybe read the comment a bit more carefully first. Of course thar might involve you engaging your brain which you aren’t exactly known for.
@Fucktard: you stated “you identify what a women is by a DNA test or balance beam, that seems impractical.”
I stated “I’d say identifying a woman via a DNA test is EMINENTLY practical.”
Please state any OTHER way of 100% identifying a woman that’s practical.
Looking at her tits doesn’t count, just in case you were wondering.
@dimsdale
Unresponsive, you don’t get to just deny that trans people exist. Doesn’t seem like you have a means of determining sex that’s remotely practical.
@steve59
Lol someone’s triggered by questions. It’s not really an issue for my world view though is it, I don’t reduce people to whether they have large or small gamates.
Oh sure, there are 1-2% of “trans” people, better known as gender dysphorics, but by the same measure, they don’t get to dictate to me what fake pronouns I “must” use or accept that they are genuine.
I don’t really care what they do, so long as I don’t have to accept it, watch it or pay for it.
I do care when children are targeted for their gender dysphoria. The human vivisection they call gender “affirming” care is a travesty that only Dr. Mengele could understand. The same with hormone sex blockers they claim are temporary and “completely reversible.” Hogwash. An absolute lie.
If you staple an elephant’s trunk to your face, are you an elephant? Conversely, does the elephant stop being an elephant?
If your answer is not an emphatic “NO,” then you are deceiving yourself and opposing PROVEN science.
@dimsdale
Fascinating, when prompted about your view on identifying what a women is you end up on a transpobic rant highlighting what a snowflake you are.
I stand by my answer.
Your empty, ad hominem filled answer demonstrates that you are a proponent of child vivisection, something that countries are looking at and rejecting as ineffectual at best, and destructive at worst.
Dimsdale: Well, a DNA test is definitive
Turns out that biological sex isn’t perfectly binary. For instance, a person with androgen insensitivity can be born with XY sex chromosomes, but be outwardly female, including having female genitalia.
There are a few anomalies, including people with XXY chromosomes. But if you’re noting anomalies then you’re actually stating that sex is normally binary, if not perfectly so.
Dimsdale: There are a few anomalies, including people with XXY chromosomes.
So, a DNA test is not definitive.
Ambiguous sexual development affects about one in a few thousand births. That may not seem like a lot, but even in a medium-sized town, that can mean a number of intersex persons (24,000 * 0.05% = 12). That doesn’t include people who may have hormonal balances that affect their gender identity. And that’s just people with known physical causes for non-gender conformation.
Sure, let’s turn our entire society on it’s head to coddle a miniscule number of people who are oddities. It sucks for them, but destroying all sense of normalcy for everyone in a doomed attempt to make them feelz better is idiotic.
Paul: Sure, let’s turn our entire society on it’s head to coddle a miniscule number of people who are oddities.
Yeah, the old system of beating up “sissies” and other non-conformers was, uh, better. Somehow.
Regardless, ignoring that some people—many more than you think—don’t match your binary preconceptions won’t lead to good or just policies in a free society.
How many in the USA? What % of the approximately 340 million people? If less than 1% and the condition you refer to is an order of magnitude less than 1% they don’t get a seat at the table where we decide how social interactions/civic norms are developed and applied.
These are biological not psychological anomalies. Testicular feminization actually is a “super female” since there is no testosterone receptors and REAL females have some. There is no evidence that one is born trans just as we had the argument in the 80’s that people are born gay. No “gay” chromosome .. no “gay” genes.
alaskabob: These are biological not psychological anomalies.
The claim was that “a DNA test is definitive”. We provided a counterexample.
One in a few thousand people are born with ambiguous genitalia. There is also a great deal of variation in hormones in people. And these are just some of the known physical mechanisms that can affect gender expression.
@commochief
Society isn’t exclusively made up of your group either. Many think that the right wing has gotten a little carried away with there rampant transphobia and that maybe a happy balance of not being a total twat would be better. Of course there are a number of specific issues which are raised with trans people that require thoughtful discussion but as dimsdale illustrated there is a horrible tendency for some to just turn into total nob heads
The descent into name calling is an indicator that you lost. The left always attempts to put their opponents on the defensive when the lefty is losing.
Good luck with that.
Wait. The Joshua trees are being leveled for a solar “farm,” and your biggest concern is spotting real women?
That speaks volumes.
Oh I’m just mocking you to be fair, as far as the article is concerned it is mock worthy given it tries to equate the removal of a few trees for a solar farm with the survivability of Joshua trees more widely.
Again, you dismiss the question of “was this the only place they could put the solar “farm?” In a formerly protected area? This little island of Joshua trees is the ONLY place they could put these solar panels. Uh huh.
And mock away. You amuse me.
Loving the strawman dimsdale, and you’ve deflected from my points. Too funny
Um, no. The actual point of this article/post is the destruction of Joshua trees in order to save them.
You do get the irony here, right?
@dimsdale
Dumb person says dumb thing
As I pointed out, and indeed the citation in the article clearly states the loss of a small number of Joshua trees in a particular locality is off set by giving a greater prospect of saving the wider species. Something that once again you’ve neglected to address.
” Joshua Tree National Park has a total area of 795,156 acres (1,242.4 sq mi; 3,217.9 km2), which is slightly larger than the state of Rhode Island.” If you are familiar with the U.S., you know that RI is the smallest state, comprising and insignificant amount of the area of the country.
Given this, how can you justify “saving the trees” by destroying “some” of the trees?
It just doesn’t make sense. 4200 trees is not a “small number.” The utter absurdity of the placement of this solar “farm” is lost on you. The small number of solar panels on this area will do nothing to affect the general climate of the area, even indirectly, and the long term effects of the panels is unknown.
And please, stow the ad hominems. They do not aid your argument.
@dimsdale
The panel placement is so they relate to settlements they actually supply. And compared to the size of the park is miniscule covering 2300 acres.
So this seems a bit of an exaggeration on the part of the article
Uh huh. So they can only justify the “saving” of the Joshua trees by killing them for acres of solar panels.
That is nonsensical, as the story demonstrates.
even males who want to be women “Feminize” themselves up so there is in fact a certain way that one wants to project themselves as a female ( or a male)
so the stereotypes are in fact true
now your crying game scenario may play well with the ketanji crowd but really is just another left wing ,,,,lets cause confusion so that we will manipulate the system,,, action
So you think that sex characteristics are what defines sex. Interesting , from a biological perspective this is incorrect but it does mean that at least to some extent defining a women is based on social constructions
So what defines race?
Race is a social construction as well
Now THAT is mockworthy. Now genetics is being denegrated.
I trust you will demand elimination of all “affirmative action” quotas now, correct?
Colorblindness, or what you call a racial social construction, is the basis of equality. Your side demand the racism of equity, and the meritless selection of people based on that social construction.
@dimsdale
It’s a fact, genetics would identify a potential country off origin not a race. There is no such thing as a black American gene for example. Your literally parroting racists, please stop being so dumb
I think we actually agree here.
Of course there isn’t a “black American gene;” what we describe as African Americans have their origins in Africa. “Native” Americans have Asian origins. Caucasians have other origins. Forensics will show that to you, although the inevitable mixing of the races will make those differences moot in several generations.
Dark skin, epicanthic eye folds etc. are indications of what some call “race,” but are really variations based on geographic isolation. Since we can all interbreed, there is only one race, the human race. It is those, the “betters” of the left, that think some “races” are weaker in some way, and have to be coddled, employing the soft bigotry of low expectations.
The colorblindness of equality as espoused by MLK Jr. defies that, while the race based “equity” embraces it. I believe in the former. The left embraces the latter.
Therefore, my insistence that “affirmative action” is, in fact, racist, and, as you say, based on a social construction.
But there are only two sexes. They may be expressed in a range of ways, but XX and XY, and indicators of female and male respectively, are inviolate. Yet another thing the left believes in defiance of science.
@dimsdale
“It is those, the “betters” of the left, that think some “races” are weaker in some way,”
That would be the right wing typically
With respect to affirmative action, the thoery is that there has been a long history of structural racism in the US. It’s an attempt to rebalanced long standing structural issues. We know this in part because of the statistics related to different groups. Compare rich immigrant blacks to those who have grown up in red lined areas and you see a strong disparity in outcomes.
You can debate what needs to be done to address the issue not the issue itself
If you look honestly, virtually all the racism has come from the Democrat party or its predecessors.
And continues to this day. The soft bigotry of low expectations is a large part of it.
And you are mixing economics with race. Make the “affirmative actions” be about income, not race. Compare new black immigrants with established black families.
For leftists, political science controls the natural sciences.
“Joshua Trees are crucial to the ecosystem of the Mojave Desert. They provide food and habitat to local species.”
They thrive moderately well in the Sonoran Desert as well. I’ve always found their bizarre appearance weirdly beautiful. At one point, we asked our landscaper if he could obtain and install one for us. He dissuaded us strongly, informing us that one of the “local species” they attracted best was the termite. Not only do you not want to install a termite magnet onto your property, but they don’t particularly do the tree any good either. So sad.
“I have offered post after post proving that the Earth’s climate has continually changed.”
No you haven’t you made a series of assertions contrary to the evidence. Interglacial changes makes no sense whatsoever, there simply isn’t any evidence that processes associated with this are in action or make sense of the temperature curve. Likewise solar doesn’t explain the temperature either since the energy output of the sun has followed a consistent pattern which doesn’t follow the temperature curve at all.
More mush from the wimp.
As usual, your post is a melange of verbal diarrhea, flaccid prose, and denials of evidence by your continual retort of “nuh uh.”
Grow a pair of balls, son. Refute a post by using logic, reasoning, and actual evidence that contrasts the original assertions, rather than childish denials.
Oh dear steve59
I have used logic, the mechanism proposed by Leslie simply doesn’t work, it doesn’t explain the temperature curve so maybe stop projecting your own inadequacies and think about what this entails. Think about for example how long it takes for the climate to come out of an interglacial period and the mechanisms involved, now compare this to the temperature curve we see.
Maybe try thinking things through, spend a little less time using ad hominem and a bit more time using reason
You haven’t done shit.
All you’ve done is post blah, blah, blah.
As usual.
Get the f*ck out of here.
I’ve made a very simple claim Steve, you can try to prove me wrong but you can’t so you resort to pretending.
@Fucktard: for the last time. You’ve posted a plethora of garbage statements with no cites, no proof, no nothing.
You’re just here to pollute the atmosphere.
You provide no redeeming value whatever.
We don’t need any more fucktards here: you should stay in Britain with the rest of your ilk.
@steve59iq
I’ve posted a series of facts none of which you seem able to counter
If you bothered to read the linked article, you would learn the Norwegian study asked a pointed question: why are the temperature trends over the past 400 years not as statistically significant as the temperature trends from the 1950’s?
This is the speed bump (speed mountain, actually) that climate scientists cannot overcome. And some of them tried to make it disappear by a “Nature Trick” to “Hide the Decline” with a hockey stick graph and a battery of lawsuits.
1. I’d suggest reading what you’ve written. Coming out of a interglacial period would follow a gradual increase in temperature whereas what we have seen is a broadly flat temperature followed by a rapid acceleration. In other words you’ve demonstrated what a silly argument this is.
2. The paper in question has been widely debunked with a range of issues including misquoted and a model that does not use any data on greenhouse gases. After they have asserted, in their review, that multiple factors affect temperatures including natural variations, their model does not take such natural influences into account. It is completely useless to investigate the question they have posed.
3. The paper was written by economists with no knowledge of the physical sciences and it clearly shows. The paper was an embarrassment
Mark steyn
“I have offered post after post proving that the Earth’s climate has continually changed.”
No you haven’t you made a series of assertions contrary to the evidence. Interglacial changes makes no sense whatsoever, there simply isn’t any evidence that processes associated with this are in action or make sense of the temperature curve.
Wait–you’re asserting that the climate of the Earth is NOT in a state of constant change?
Damn, Bart, I knew you were stupid, but this is beyond even that.
Jesus you are dumb.
The claim is that the anthropological warming is not occurring, that temperature changes occurring due to natural variation.
Well done for the giant strawman retard
“Jesus you are dumb.
The claim is that the anthropological warming is not occurring, that temperature changes occurring due to natural variation.
Well done for the giant strawman retard”
Speaking of giant retarded strawmen, here you are.
I believe the word you’re looking for is “anthropogenic,” not “anthropological.”
So much for the vast fount of knowledge you profess to possess.
Irony: do you speak it, bro?
The words have the same meaning 🤦♂️
@Fucktard. No, they don’t, you flatulent dumbass.
“Google is your friend.”
@steve59IQ
Google is indeed your friend, anthropological is the science of human beings thus if something is anthropological in cause its human caused. This isn’t difficult
For a smart guy, you don’t know how to spell “gamete” or the difference between “anthropological” and “anthropogenic.”
As I’ve mentioned in prior posts I literally could not give AF about spelling, it’s a waste of time. I have better things to do.
With respect to the two words highlighted they in effect have the same meaning and again couldn’t give AF. It’s a distinction without a difference.
@Fucktard. Yet you continue to waste OUR time with your flights of fancy.
Don’t tell me, let me guess. You’re a pimple-faced college puke sharing a “flat” in London with a transgender Muslim.
Get the f*ck out of here.
To everyone else, I apologize for wasting pixels on this single-celled amoeba.
@steve59IQ
Something waa waa something waa
Do you ever say anything useful steve
“…there simply isn’t any evidence that processes associated with this are in action or make sense of the temperature curve.”
We are in an interglacial period, during a period of intermittent glaciations. There is no evidence that those intermittent glaciations have stopped, so “interglacial” is presumed to be accurate terminology for the current (non-glacial) period.
That being said, the earth has been warming since the end of the last glacial period. Even during historical times (that is, within records made by humans), there have been three anomalous periods – the Roman “optimum” (warming) period, the Medieval warming period, and the “Little Ice Age.” All three of these climate changes occurred without input from human activities, demonstrating that short-term, relatively extreme climate change can and does occur without regard to human activity, and, after each of these periods, the climate stabilized back into the slower, steadier, post-glacial warming trend. There is no evidence that human CO2 production is responsible for any climate change. Anthropogenic climate change is a theory, the computer modeling of which shows how the theory may work, not how it does work. As far as any “evidence” shows, the increase in CO2 and an increase in the global average temperature, is merely a correlation. There is not a single scientific paper that demonstrates anything else. (There are, OTOH, competing theories, also similarly not proven, that people like you completely ignore. Some of them are actually more comprehensive, explaining observed changes on Venus, earth, and Mars, so they encompass two planets for which anthropogenic CO2 is not in issue.)
The anomalous periods you talk about have understood mechanisms for there causation none of which are present at the current time.
As for your assertion regarding co2 that’s just an outright falsehood. We know the mechanisms by which co2 and other greenhouse gases cause increases in temperature and we know, within reason, the historic record of concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere. This is like saying that evolution is just a theory, scientists just don’t use that term in the colloquial sense of oh it’s a guess. It’s established as extremely likely to be the case until someone can come up with a better theory. The problem for clikate deniers is that there ‘theories’ fall over under the most cursory of examination. Which is why you don’t actually get any clinate denier peer reviewed papers because they are almost universally shite.
I’d be fascinated to see these competing theories you cite. They sound more like astrology than actual science
BartE: Clearly, I can’t help you overcome your climate cultism. And you writing that you fail to see the logic, reason, and facts presented by leading scientists I link to is not the effective counterargument you think it is. How many more species are going to be sacrificed because of the pseudoscience you bitterly cling to?
You haven’t got logic, reason or facts though do you. I’ve pointed out deficiencies in your position which you’ve failed to respond too.
What leading scientists lol, a rag band of climate deniers paid for by the fossil fuel industry. Like Willie Soon for example. This is a matter of public record.
I’ll await with interest an actual argument addressing the points I’ve made. I seem to recall that you failed to respond last time after I pointed out the ‘graph’ you cited was indicative and illustrative only and couldn’t possibly be used to draw any conclusions.
“I’ll await with interest an actual argument addressing the points I’ve made.”
This is the problem, dipshit… you haven’t actually MADE any points.
You’ve made a series of personal statements and assertions, backed up without a SHRED of proof.
You’ve offered up not one single cite or statistic that buttresses your argument.
All you’ve done (and all you ever do) is deny.
You’re a waste of f*cking pixels.
Really is too bad that the admins here can’t ban people: you’d be a prime candidate.
Oh dear Steve embarrassing yourself seems regular occupancy.
1 I’ve made some claim, that can be proven either way. If you wish me to back up a claim your welcome to ask
2. It’s demonstrably the case that interglacial periods are associated with changes in the tilt of the earth. This is a factual claim as is the length of time associates with the temperature changes. I am getting a complete lack of rebuttal from yourself or Leslie here
3. There isn’t evidence that we ate coming out of an interglacial period, the tilt difference is tiny. Indeed as we are in an interglacial period in theory the next phase would be a cooling phase
4. The warning phase of the mechanisms in question works by gradual warming followed by co2 being released,our current observation is the reverse co2 being released followed by other mechanisms coming into play.
5. There are tonnes of papers and scientific resources out there, which support my position including all th3 main scientific organisations like NASA, it’s not clear to me why I should run around providing loads of links in response to vague assertions on Leslie’s part when it’s Leslie’s claims that are thr controversial ones. And proven time and time again to be less than we’ll supported
Somewhere in Britain, a village is missing its idiot.
Do you ever tire of being a complete wanker?
@steve59
Once again, projection isn’t much of an argument.
Perhaps you’ll answer me this, why do you think ,as we are in an interglacial period, do you think the next phase would be warmer. The proposed mechanism by Leslie is such that we should be experiencing a cooling phase not a warming one. Let alone a massively warming one
@Fucktard.
No one cares what you think.
“There are tonnes of papers and scientific resources out there, which support my position…”
Not a one of which proves anthropogenic climate change/global warming is due to “greenhouse gases.” Not one. Anthropogenic climate change is a theory. Theories must be tested. One of the tests is predictability, something at which the theory has proven to be exceptionally bad, which is why predictions over longer time periods are preferred because they can’t be falsified for decades, or in some cases for centuries. But every short-term prediction for which dates have already passed failed to manifest in the real world, demonstrating that there is something wrong with the models being used (likely too sensitive to increases in CO2 – and that the atmosphere should be sensitive to CO2 is, itself, a theory).
“Greenhouse gas” theory was developed, in part, to explain the hellish surface temperature of Venus. But is it now understood that Venus’ surface temperature is a function of its atmospheric pressure, which is 90 times that of the earth’s. Mars, which has an atmosphere with a composition nearly identical to Venus, is extremely cold. The difference in the insolation of the two planets cannot explain the difference in their temperatures, but their atmospheric pressures can, Mars having an atmospheric pressure of 0.006 that of earth’s. The very basis for theories concerning “greenhouse gases” is likely wrong, as this newer understanding of planetary atmospheres better accounts for atmospheric conditions on at least three – of four – terrestrial planets.
Fun fact: vehicles entering the earth’s atmosphere from orbit require heat shielding, not because of friction with the atmosphere upon re-entry, but because the air in the path of the vehicle heats up due to compression (the air can’t get out of the way fast enough, and is therefore compressed).
@Daveginoly
‘Not 1 paper supports co2’
This is pure bullshit, there a thousands of papers on co2 emissions in relation to various aspects forming a vast body of literature than demonstrates the claim. For example this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4761980/
And to illustrate the extent of the literature and its agreement on the issue this
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
With respect to predictability actually the climate models have been proven to be largely accurate and if anything to conservative
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
Democracy is a stupid system and the founders did not want one. It simply makes for good sloganeering. The masses are so stupid they will always do the bidding of the industrialists and think it a triumph of the common man. One need only look at the bloodbath of 2 world wars, in which strangely, key industrial complexes on both sides were spared serious bombing.
Ummm what I think you may wish to look further into the history before making demonstrably false claims.
The founders wanted a republic. The plants spared shelling in both wars was so shocking it was a staple of criticism at the time.
A republican by definition includes elements of democracy. It’s integral to the meaning of the word.
Err no it wasn’t, factories were bombed on a regular basis
Consider the following (https://www.bas.ac.uk/project/retreat-of-southern-hemisphere-sea-ice-127-000-years-bp/the-last-interglacial/):
How did humans achieve this, since, according to the left, all climate change is anthropogenic? They are fretting like today’s sea level is the “correct” one, ignoring the fact that in the last interglacial, the sea level was about 18 FEET higher that today’s. Which is the “correct” one?
I await your enlightenment.
For your viewing pleasure:
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2021/01/swsc200108/swsc200108.html
and…
1. Sea level – there are clearly consequences for places at low levels. Are you seriously making this argument?
2. Well done youve shown how seasons work. Now explain the temperature curve we’ve seen in the last 5o years, otherwise known as the hockey stick. Hint the energy output of the sun hasn’t changed, and the tilt is the same
“Hockey stick” he says.
LMAO.
Correct and guess what it’s been demonstrated with real wold temperature data
“Real world” temperature data?! HAHAHAHA!
That data is so horribly mangled and manipulated it won’t be useful for another 50 years.
LOL @F*cktard’s use of “hockey stick.”
Mann’s garbage theories invoking the “hockey stick” were soundly debunked.
A simple Google search would have prevented you from sharting yourself.
Begone.
BartE…. the hockey stick underrepresented the Medieval Warming Period and was linked to the past with a limited number of trees (for tree rings)…. yet in the last 50 years there has been a departure in the correlation between tree rings and models they were originally based upon.
The models are correct…. they have been expertly modified to correctly match the changes in the climate to the modeling. Now, if only they could predict the future… that would be something.
@GWB
No one cares about your opinion,
The raw data makes the temperature curve look worse
@steve59IQ
A Google search demonstrated that you are completely wrong about the hockey stick. I’m sorry you live in a bubble
@alaskabob
Err no not particularly and that doesn’t negate the primary concern does it. That is the temperature prediction of the last 50 years ish.
1. Sea level – there are clearly consequences for places at low levels. Are you seriously making this argument?
Yes, and? Sea levels were higher in the past. They will get higher again. And they will get lower again.
He didn’t make an argument. He stated a fact. YOU seem to think that sea levels are supposed to remain at a constant height. Why?
And, Bart, you cited the hockey stick. The program is DESIGNED to create hockey stick graphs. Virtually any data put in will generate a hockey stick shaped graph.
The secret to even Mann’s ‘hockey stick is that if you give it a reasonable time frame, the ‘blade’ of that hockey stick turns into a slight blip on a long, slowly rising line.
But, we ARE talking to you, so this will fall on a deaf ear, shoot through an empty cranium, and fall out the other side having never touched your fervent, moronic belief in whatever you’re told to believe by your masters.
1. And , lots of people live in areas affected by these levels. Moron
Sure he stated a fact, one which he then derived the contradictory conclusion that clinate change doesn’t matter.
2. No, it is not designed ro produce a hockey stick that just you being dim
And no it doesn’t turn into a slight blip the temperature curve is unnaturally accelerated. Hence why scientists think its die to human activity
Oh I’ve listened very carefully. You’ve demonstrated your a witless wonder (again)
Insolation explains the last 4.6 billion years. Weather is not climate.
Don’t dodge: who was responsible for the sea levels rising 115-125K years ago?
Wow that’s a massive deflection. What part of natural variation and effects can’t explain the temperature curve do you not understand.
How is it a deflection? The Earth is the coldest it has ever been in 4.6b years, and the uptick in temp you are referring to is but a flyspeck on the geologic climate record, far below what has occurred in the past.
Re: your statement “Sea level – there are clearly consequences for places at low levels. Are you seriously making this argument?”
During the last glacial period, sea levels were 400-600 feet shallower than now. If people had built along the shoreline then, and the ice started to melt, would you have fought the warming then too?
In toto, the Earth’s sea levels, in just the last 125K years, the natural variation of sea level has varied from approximately 18 feet higher, to 4-600 feet lower.
Given that, what is the “correct” sea level? Wherever mankind has chosen to build at some specific time?
@dimsdale
Your trying to conflate temperatures seen over the geological expanse of time with the conditions human civilisation has experienced. That doesn’t work really does it. Especially in context of modern developed urban areas. Trying to make this conflation is a massive deflection from addressing the specifics
There is no correct sea level. There is look There are consequences from a sea level rise of a substantive value. Unless of course you want to.say goodbye to florida, seems a tad harsh
Where has the insurance for oceanfront property gone up due to this alleged “rise in sea level” or in response to the predictions of “global warming”?
Where has the value of oceanfront property gone down due this alleged “rise in sea level” or in response to the predictions of “global warming”?
There are islands in the Pacific (and streets in NYC) that should be underwater by now, according to predictions made decades ago. Those predictions were obviously wrong. Where is your proof that current predictions are obviously correct?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox13news.com/news/flood-insurance-rates-skyrocket-for-florida-homeowners.amp
You f*cking moron. DaveG asked where insurance rates have gone up due to “rise in sea level” or in response to the predictions of “global warming.”
You post, in response, an article that not only doesn’t even MENTION rises in sea level or “global warming” but instead seems to blame the FEDS for this rise.
Get the fuck out of here.
@steve59
The article blames the feds for cresting an updated flood map. It’s not hard to see the implications of this. Consider me chastised I should have treated Dave like a complete idiot like you and explained the implications.
Dimsdale: How did humans achieve this, since, according to the left, all climate change is anthropogenic?
Straw man. The scientific data shows that there are many influences on climate, including changes in solar radiation, Earth’s orbital variations, greenhouse gas concentrations, albedo, biological activity, volcanoes, even the occasional meteor impact.
Dimsdale: They are fretting like today’s sea level is the “correct” one, ignoring the fact that in the last interglacial, the sea level was about 18 FEET higher that today’s. Which is the “correct” one?
There is no “correct” sea level; however, humans have built the infrastructure of their civilization based on current sea levels, and with a population of more than eight billion, there is little margin for disruption.
Dimsdale (quoting): The consequence of all of this is that the amount of shortwave radiation received from the Sun at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere varies as a function of both times of day and season. Subtle changes in the Earth’s orbital geometry (i.e., changes in the tilt of the axis, the degree of ellipticity of the orbit, and the slow precession of the orbit) are responsible for the coming and going of the ice ages over tens of thousands of years.
That’s right. Milankovitch cycles are closely correlated with glacial periods. However, analysis of Milankovitch cycles show a slight cooling, not the rapid warming that is observed.
GWB: That data is so horribly mangled . . .
Satellite data supports the trend of the surface data.
“There is no “correct” sea level; however, humans have built the infrastructure of their civilization based on current sea levels, and with a population of more than eight billion, there is little margin for disruption.”
Our infrastructure was built with complete disregard for the fact that the climate changes and was a mistake. This has zero bearing on whether or not we’re responsible for the current (continuing, actually) change in the climate. We have simply become aware that the climate is not constant, and that it does change. So now we propose to stop the climate from changing. How does one do such a thing if the change is completely natural and beyond our control? Easy – propose that it’s our fault, and within our control.
A warming earth causing a rise in sea level certainly wouldn’t have surprised an early Native American living along the west coast of North America immediately after the last glacial period – his tribe would have been forced to move inland as the sea encroached on his village. He may have blamed the gods. We blame ourselves because we’re the gods now.
It has zero bearing because its a settled question, you simply haven’t provided any competing theory that explains the temperature curve being observed.
“Settled” science is dead science. It defies the scientific method. It becomes a religion/cult at that point.
@dimsdale
This doesn’t logically follow. Settled science means there is a lot of evidence. It means that a competing thoery would have to have better explanatory value and overcome this evidence threshold. As pointed out elsewhere climate deniers fail to overcome the most basic of scrutiny.
“We must destroy democracy to save democracy.”
“We must destroy Gaia to save Gaia”
(AKA “F*** the whales and birds and Joshua Trees. We need communism now!”)
And, by extension, we must destroy mankind to save mankind.
Leslie Eastman: I have offered post after post proving that the Earth’s climate has continually changed.
What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!
Leslie Eastman: Any temperature rise observed from reliable temperature stations is likely cyclic and part of the world’s warming after an intense period of glaciation.
“Cyclic” is not in and of itself a mechanism. The most likely explanation is that changes in Earth’s orbit, Milankovitch cycles, amplified by positive feedbacks from atmospheric greenhouse gases cause periodic changes in glaciation. However, Milankovitch orbital analysis indicates the Earth should be slightly cooling, not rapidly warming.
Leslie Eastman: data shows {CO2} has no significant role in global warming.
That is incorrect. Not only is carbon dioxide known to be a greenhouse gas, accounting for about 20% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, but the history of Earth’s climate can’t be explained without including the role of carbon dioxide.
“should be slightly cooling, not rapidly warming”
Shush, don’t point out the massive hole in the argument.
CO2 is agreed to be a greenhouse gas (this is unproven and merely theoretical), but the atmosphere’s sensitivity to it is still very much under debate. (And there is a limit to the amount of CO2 that can cause warming, as determined decades ago by a distant relative on none other than Greta Thunberg.) All models that show significant temperature increase due to CO2 are arguably too sensitive.
Theologians call prophesies that fail to come true “self-disconfirming.” The fact this term is so fitting for the many failed predictions of climate alarmists over the decades helps demonstrate that “climate change” is a religion, because even failed prophecies fail to shake the faith of the true believers. Real scientists would look at these failures, and determine from them that there’s something wrong with their theories.
Err no it’s not theoretical
Actually the climate models have been shown, if anything, to be too Conservative. Hence the worry about 2023 temperatures signifying a potential feedback loop coming into play
Err climate models haven’t been disproved. You’ve spent too much time on sites like this which grossly misrepresent sites
DaveGinOly: CO2 is agreed to be a greenhouse gas (this is unproven and merely theoretical),
That is incorrect. It’s easy to show that CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Furthermore, without greenhouse gases, the Earth’s surface would be a frozen wasteland.
While it wasn’t a surprise, the increase in radiative forcing by CO2 has been directly observed. See Feldman et al., Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature 2015.
DaveGinOly: but the atmosphere’s sensitivity to it is still very much under debate.
Sensitivity is subject to a wide error margin, but it’s not completely unknown. A variety of different methods, including paleoclimatic, put equilibrium climate sensitivity at about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.
That is what your experts say. I rely on other experts and they disagree. If you’re relying on “settled” science, I’ll remind you that the only science that’s “settled” are those theories that have been falsified. The science is not “settled.” Stop pretending that it is.
You don’t make sense. A falsified theory is a theory that’s wrong. I think what you actually mean is that thoeries have to falsifiable in order for them to be valid scientifically. In this case that would mean you demonstrating that co2 can’t be responsible. Good luck with that.
As for your statement re consensus, sure a consensus doesn’t automatically entail the claim being true but it damn well means there is a high bar to overcoming the claim. You seem to be trying to use the notion that consensus not equating to absolute truth as an argument for diminishing the strength of the claim. That’s not how this works.
DaveGinOly: That is what your experts say.
We cited observational evidence.
DaveGinOly: I rely on other experts and they disagree.
An appeal to authority can be a valid argument, but that’s not a valid appeal to authority. Regardless, we didn’t make an appeal to authority, but cited the evidence.
What a dilemma this must pose for Captain Planet! Does he protect Gaia by blocking the solar farm, or building it?
Saving the environment or tackling “climate change” are mutually exclusive. Here is the classic case. Massive mining and extensive alteration of the earth surface to attempt to hold back the “climate” in a frenzied push is nuts. The faster the attempt, the far greater the ecological disruption. Thirty years from now will be a disaster littered with the debris of failed “science”. Then what ? Hum?
You realise the carbon cost of these activities are understood right, this taken into account and its still the case that EVs are better than gas powered cars
Post a link to a scientific study supporting your claim.
See Amponsah et al., Greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources: A review of lifecycle considerations, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2014: “The 79 studies reviewed involved the life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable electricity and heat generation based on onshore and offshore winds, hydropower, marine technologies (wave power and tidal energy), geothermal, photovoltaic (PV), solar thermal, biomass, waste, and heat pumps.”
A study, dated 2014, on current EV models?
Surely you jest.
Here
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-vehicles-beat-gas-cars-on-climate-emissions-over-time/
https://mishtalk.com/economics/the-norwegian-illusion-evs-are-not-more-energy-efficient/
I read SciAm through the 70s and 80s. Then it developed an obvious leftward slant on any subject that could be politicized. That’s when I stopped subscribing. You may read SciAm today and think it “fair and balanced,” but I know what the publication was like when it was a neutral presentation of the current state of science. If you have grown up in the age of biased reporting the the corruption of science, you are forgiven your inability to detect same, for not having the experience that your elders had in actually experiencing the transition.
Cool. Now do “impact to environment, “impact to roads and landfills,” and “impact to an already strained electrical grid.”
Dumbass.
@Daveginoly
The article you cite is a mess, it’s a hitch pot of different claims most of which are irrelevant to the point. The calculation it does to try and compare evs vs gas cars was deeply flawed it compared the total estimated life cycle cost of an eV to the fuel saved. It didn’t even bother to assess the life cycle cost of a gas powered car.
There are more authorative reports that indicate life cycle carbon costing is on average about a quarter less than gas powered cars
@DaveGinOly
With respect I think you’ve left the scientific arena behind judging from your comments.
@steve59
These issues are taken into account by whole life cycle carbon costing
The energy grid is a particular issue, it needs modernising so what. The world changes, I don’t think anyone really wants to fossilise countries.
Hybrids, yes, EVs, no.
https://energyminute.ca/news/toyotas-1690-rule-the-case-for-hybrids/
@FartHammer: “These issues are taken into account by whole life cycle carbon costing
The energy grid is a particular issue, it needs modernising so what. The world changes, I don’t think anyone really wants to fossilise countries.”
“Whole life cycle carbon costing?” LOLOLOLOfuckingL.
“So what” if the electrical grid needs to be upgraded, amirite? Where’s the capital and the technology to do that, Bunghole? FJB and the Feds were given billions to build EV charging stations and they’ve built like, what, 10?
“I don’t think anyone really wants to fossilize (we’re in America, dipshit) countries.”
I don’t think anyone really even knows what the hell this even means.
Get the hell out of here.
@dimsdale
Interesting article thanks, seems like a valid point with respect to a choice between hybrid and ev. I haven’t looked at the numbers in detail but still
As I said …. to ‘save the planet” , the planet’s ecology has to be torn up. A better solution is nuclear…. one can directly create cleaner power and also convert into hydrogen for portable use. That can power fuel cells and ICE. In twenty years with thorium based reactors, much of what is needed and what YOU want is achievable without tearing up huge areas and requiring child labor in Africa.
Debatable given longterm storage of waste, perhaps a partially solution. Thorium reactors haven’t been well researched yet as far as I know
The US built and operated an MSR in the 1960s. The chemistry and physics of running an MSR on thorium are extremely well-understood. The use of thorium results in very limited amounts of waste, compared to current high-pressure water reactors. Most “waste” from a thorium-powered MSR is useful in medicine, space exploration, and other applications that can use what are otherwise rare and expensive radionuclides produced as a by-product of an MSR-LFTR.
Now, if you’re referring to solid-fuel thorium reactors, you’re excused as correct. However, Bob is almost certainly referring to a molten salt thorium reactor.
https://www.ornl.gov/molten-salt-reactor/history
I’ll match my degree in nuclear engineering to yours any day. Storage isn’t a problem and the French have developed a nifty ceramic encasement technique.
You would be stunned (maybe) at how much thorium and radium are around us in the soil. Just as an aside, as a design project we were assigned to build the most efficient power reactor …. this wound up a HTGR reactor with mercury coolant…. over 90% efficient. Only problem was a coolant leak would kill off everything within a several hundred mile radius around the reactor.
Seriously, present 5th generation reactor designs are very good. Oh…and about 3 mile island…. if you lived 1 mile downwind of the reactor your exposure was less for the whole year than living a year in Denver.
@Daveginoly
The US went down the uranium and plutonium route for weapons research and compatibility thus while thorium may or may not (I can’t comment).be well understood it’s turning it into reactors where the issues lie. Now it maybe the case that is relatively easy to resolve but I’m sure Bob would agree that you don’t produce nuclear reactors over night. The design and build of reactors is a long process, perhaps if they had started a decade ago I would be less concerned.
@alaskabob
My concern is not with safety, I think the designs have progressed sufficiently. I’d be interested I a link for your French tech you cite sounds interesting.
So what’s your solution with respect to nuclear waste then ?
Part 1) https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances-efficiency-in-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle-what-can-oui-learn
Part 2) https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-france-plans-to-do-with-its-nuclear-waste/
part 3) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55911-y
@alaskabob
Thanks for the citations
Idiots
Imagine being an academic who invested their career around climate hysteria, and has no other way justify their position. The data must be shaped to fit the narrative. smh
“joshua”
of course the leftists dont mind eliminating the joshua trees
as “joshua” is of hebrew origin and fits right in with leftys desire to eliminate
THAT breed from the rivers to the seas
lefty cant get the chinese or the arabs or iran etc etc to stop their need/demands for fossil fuels but they can get the weaklings that are western>>globalists to capitulate to their whining demands as its all part of the new world order to
“rebalance” the economics for the sake of equity aka reparations
Reading all of these comments is almost as fun as watching pro ‘rassling. BTW, I wrestle locally as “The Carburetor,” the evil CO2 and pollution-generating heel in a deadly feud with baby-face “Captain Planet.” His little brats keep interfering in matches, depriving me of victory.
Well, it’s a living.
Increased CO2 content should help Joshua trees survive increased temperatures by reducing the trees’ need for water (by reducing water loss during transpiration). Plants have openings on their leaves that allow CO2 in, but, in doing so, allow water to escape. For every one CO2 molecule taken in, 50 H2O molecules escape. Doubling the amount of CO2 in the air would half the amount of water lost by the plant, thus allowing plants to survive under more arid conditions.
Biden green new deal won’t lower temps by 1 degree. Such a fraud.
You should be, destruction of vast tracts of land is inherent in solar power. It’s especially humorous when compared to compact power sources like nuclear.
I can’t believe you pseudo-intellectuals wasted that much time debating a couple of idiots with the scientific acumen of African witch-doctors.
Once again, if it weren’t for double-standards, the left would have none at all.