Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Well, I'll venture a guess that your logic wanes.

Your characterization 'want to give the government powers to change the weather', is an error of logic.

If I let you continue to use my car, and you wreck it each time you use it, and I have an epiphany by refusing to let you use the car in the future, my refusal to let you drive it again does not equal 'changing you', it equals, remove the reason why my car is getting wrecked.

See, discontinuing societies' behaviours which contribute to climate change doesn't equal 'giving government the power to change the weather'.

You are committing a logical fallacy.

We're not changing the weather, we are changing behavior, which IS doable.

 

You don't say where you got your figures - nice trick!

The following is the ERCOT analysis of this event.

Page 16 shows the net generator outages and derates by fuel type.

It shows that the outages and derates from natural gas SWAMP those of any other fuel type.

https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/20...r_Outages_By_Cause_Updated_Report_4.27.21.pdf


As for your charges of killing people, it was WELL KNOWN in Texas by authorities there that the power system had significant issues related to resilience against cold weather. These were not just hypothetical, as previous cold weather events had shown what can happen. Further, Texas chose to isolate itself from other electricity markets.

Those factors of gross mismanagement were DEVESTATING.

 

If you go back far enough you can find less strong understanding of any topic in the world.

But, what the heck is the point of that?

I showed you a report of 20 years of strong predictive capability of climate models. Finding worse models 20 years before that doesn't invalidate these models.

 

I'm not sure what's to discuss at this point. This post of yours:

...pretty much confirmed that this was never about science for you. This is something you believe and any evidence is just to buttress your belief, just like an intelligent designer would use a gap in the fossil record. He's looking for evidence that makes the case he already believes and so are you.

 

That's a credit for this individual.

But, it is NOT a justification for believing one individual and rejecting the entire world full of other very qualified scientists.

The next steps would be ones of seeing where other scientists disagree and determining how other scientists view the results proposed by your individual - why they disagree.

In fact, there might not be as much disagreement as you think. There could well be explanations for perceived differences.

That is what science works out.

 

I showed you facts.

Blaming that on me is a little bit stupid.

 

I also showed you facts and you dismissed it because of your stated policy of ignoring failed predictions and only acknowledging successful ones.

 

I don't know of any post where you cited predictions that failed. I know you claimed they exist, and I'm sure they probably do.

But, the only real issue is whether there are successful predictions.

I cited 20 years of successful predictions.

Obviously, predictive models of climate, like other aspects of science, have improved continuously over the decades.

And, they will surely continue to improve.

 

Then why don't we simply go to war and crush the Chinese? Several problems solved right there. Much lower greenhouse emissions from them. China being eliminated as an economic competitor with the U.S. And we'd make billions helping them rebuild.

 

So you don't know of any post huh? You did a few days ago.



I'm not going to reargue the same things over and over with you because you keep forgetting what we discussed.

 

LOL!!

 

That post supports what I've said all along, obviously.

All aspects of climate science have improved over time, and that includes predictive models.

There ARE predictive models from the 1980's that have been strong and there have been ones that are weak. But, that is irrelevant at this point (unless someone wants to point out how stupid our past policy decisions have been).

The point TODAY is that predictive models have been very good for at least 20 years.

And, I cited that.

 

Besides the total ridiculousness, damaging China would increase their production of greenhouse gasses over time.

China is highly motivated to reduce greenhouse gas production. Let's not set that back.

 

<dupe>

 

Oh, like Kamala Harris? And Merrick Garland, Jen Psaki, and Nancy Pelosi? Were they not taking "well known actions to protect against COVID"?

Once again, you try to make some kind of political attack, and fall flat on your face.

Oh, and one of the most active people speaking out against the COVID restrictions was none other than Robert Kennedy Jr. Obviously a secret Republican.

Here is something many of us do know. Like during the Spanish Flu, most of those "protections" were just placebos. Using any kind of cloth covering or dust mask was almost pointless. As my wife pointed out early on, anything short of an N95 or KN95 mask was damned near worthless when the pathogen is a virus. As well as no glove mandates, since the main transmission of COVID was by touching surfaces, not breathing.

For all the good a handkerchief does across the face, everybody might as well have been wearing Plague Masks like Moon Knight.

And I hate to bust your bubble, but COVID is a virus. And no matter how much "medical science" has advanced, there is still no cure for a virus. They were able to come up with a vaccine, but it's effectiveness is still questionable, and the virus is still mutating so in the end that may have little effect. This is likely going to be a 3 year outbreak, just like the Spanish Flu a century ago. But you know, that was not ended by a vaccine. You know that, right?

Clearly you need to do some research into how a virus works, especially a highly virulent one. If you want, I can suggest some really good books on the subject. If you read one or two, you might even have a grasp of how little medical science can do about a virus outbreak. The only effective solution is going back to one of centuries back, and that is quarantine.

First, try "The Hot Zone", by Richard Preston. This was one of the first books to deal with the 1989 ebola outbreak in Virginia.

Then, try one of several books by Dr. William Close. The father of actress Glenn Close, he worked in the Congo and Zaire and was highly involved in the 1977 ebola outbreak there. He was also one of the first researchers into the "history" of the HIV virus, as he knew of it long before it even had a name and had saved blood and tissue samples of those who had it back in the early 1970s.

Another is "Deadliest Enemy", by Michael T. Osterholm and writer Mark Olshaker. That was published in 2017, and was specifically discussing the threat of an influenza pandemic. Like Spanish Flu, Swine Flu, or SARS-MERS-COVID. This book was a must read for many of us that follow this kind of thing, and was juts as stark and frightening as Hot Zone was 2 decades before.

You obviously know even less about pandemics than you do about the climate. The fact is, COVID is going to be roughly a 3 year outbreak, like almost all pandemics in the past. And while "medical science" can save a few more than before, there is still not a damned thing they can do other than treat the symptoms and hope it is enough for the body to pull through on its own.

Because in reality, for the most part Spanish Flu, Swine Flu, H1N1, and COVID are really not any more "deadly" than the annual flu. The only difference is that they are all highly virulent, and spread incredibly easily. Which in the end causes even more people to contract it. Every year, on average 5-10% of the US population gets the flu. But in the case of COVID, it is now believed that as many as 60% of the population contracted it.

So are you really saying that 60% of the population were not taking precautions?

You should be ashamed of yourself for making such false statements.

 

And since when has that been the job of the Government?

Well, unless you lived in say the CCCP, North Korea, or the Soviet Union.

So tell me, what "behaviors" have you changed? What in the Constitution gives the Government the right to change our "behaviors"?

 

Right.

And which models gave predictions that are proven to be accurate in relationship to the climate?

I noticed, that you dismissed the other saying it was there, but yet you did not reference a single one. Therefore, we simply have to take your word on that?

That is not how this works. As usual, you give no real evidence, just make a statement and expect us all to believe it without any proof.

You know, kinda like how you earlier claimed that since Europe can make mass transit work, there is something wrong with the US that it can not make it work. Not even trying to do any kind of analysis to see what the difference is. Then when I actually make such an analysis as to why, you are amazingly quiet.

 

It is for me.

 

Delusion.

Laws of Thermodynamics.
Stefan Boltzmann Law.

Those specific laws of science are the main laws of science that you (and other warmizombies) consistently violate.

Delusion (see above, as well as my post history).

 

You're conflating behavior out of bounds to the government to behavior brought about by government.

If I perform cunnilingus on and to the utter delight of my wife, this is behavior which most reasonable people would agree is, or should be (if not), out of bounds to the government.

But, if I drive a car that is polluting the air we breathe, that is behavior within the bounds of government, which is to say, behavior within the purview of government, which is precisely why in the 70s a law creating the requirement of all cars with catalytic converters was made.

Capiche?

 

Yes. There are plenty of scientists out there who do not know about those laws or act as if those laws say things that they do not actually say. --- That's why I use the laws themselves as sources, not any particular scientists.

 

Same with my cousin and I, and we both were largely correct about how all of that stuff played out (and how it is still playing out). We are largely "uneducated" (in terms of college courses) and can still figure this all out.

 

You mean, such as a coal powered car?? (otherwise known as "electric" cars) --- Since you claim that "fossil fuels" (you mean carbon based fuels) are "polluting" the air.

 

You are pretending 21.8% is 100%.

You're not exactly a math ninja...

 

Yes, you're one of those internet geniuses that knows more than the thousands of scientists that have been working on this since the 1970s.

What science are you going to turn upside down next, high energy physics?