Sounds more like the politics and bureaucracy above the science level. I'm talking more of the development of a hypothesis, designing an experiment(s), analyzing the results, and compiling a document for review.
Oops, you forgot to investigate federal support!!! And, THAT was what the topic was about. So, you can start with tax breaks.
Huh? You're only interested in those that confirm your biases. I look at both sides and apply many years of math, science and engineering to decide; whether it comes WUWT or a peer-reviewed study.
No. And, I'm certainly not interested in you examining papers in the fields of climatology. We need to be finding sources of scientific examination of the NUMEROUS papers concerning results in all areas of climatology.
As long as that source presents a balanced sample of the papers; Unfortunately, there's been complaints that publishers being prejudiced.
Yes, we do need significant improvement of our three electrical grids. Today it is vulnerable to natural and enemy attack, its design makes it difficult to add new sources of electricity, and it is far too expensive to ship this energy over long distances. I really don't believe we should worry about EV mandates, as if they become a problem, such direction can be changed. Even China set emission standards years in advance, and the result was that manufacturers ignored those limits until a few short months before the new requirements became final. Then, car manufacturers begged for more time - and they got a significant extension from the Chinese government. The US is FAR more likely to ease distasteful regulation than is China. The bigger issue is that China has a number of companies that make EVs of the price, nature and quality that the world wants. Right now, only Tesla can do that in the USA. All others are selling comparative junk or are losing too much money to be sustainable. We should want the US to remain in the automobile industry.
And China continues to built coal plants. And work and are still classified according to third world standards until 2030. EVs aren't the answer.
I don't believe that those approaching this issue would limit to published papers - and especially not just papers published in the USA. All over the world, there are educational institutions, science corporations and government groups who study climatology. They don't just monitor publications, as publishers have criteria that don't particularly match the interests of science. Journals have limited space and reject papers for reasons such as having previously published on the same finding, etc. And, it is important for scientists to keep aware of who is doing the leading work in various areas - basically, where the best experts are.
China is cutting back on coal and is the world leader in clean energy. Yes, EVs aren't "the" answer. Everybody knows that. There is no single answer when it comes to that level of granularity. Today, 2/3 of our oil consumption is used in transportation. That is a LOT of oil that can be saved by moving to electricity for transportation when we can. And, of course that saving depends on our progress on clean energy.
Not what I've read. Yeah, I know. And how will we supply the electricity? Don't hold your breath on that.
Okay, change the math from US dollars to whatever the currency is in Australia. It's a fungible global commodity. Any differences in price will be in whatever taxes you charge.
Nobody you should have be having to accept something. It should either be proven or disproven that's what science does. You were talking about a religion
China's clean energy is growing faster than coal, which is clearly leveling off. They have long stated that this is the direction they are taking - growing clean energy, but with coal filling in as necessary for the economy. Then, coal fading out. Solar panel prices have been diving - as have battery prices. The combination is leading to solar farms in America where there are industrial sized batteries adjacent. There have been advances in these farm designs, as farmers and ranchers actually like there to be shade.
Science primarily depends on proof of fallacy. Positive proof doesn't exist for most if not all of the questions of primary interest in climatology. Natural sciences all have to deal with that.
So they produce more trash to sell to idiots that isn't good. they've also lied about their genocide too never trust communists. That's because demand is dropping.
Science depends on removing bias. You can't do that when you are possessed by the climate change cult. There is no place for fanatics in science. No proof for the climate change Armageddon exists at all that's why I call it a cult. You believe because you wish to not because of anything to do with science.
Proof? Everything I've seen says the opposite. LOL, Oh, you're serious. Again - source. Which means more slave and child labor and more construction vehicles belching smog into the atmosphere. . And where would that be? Do you have any sources for all this wonderfulness.
Who said anything about the climate issue? I just mentioned how to calculate the price of gasoline. What does that have to do with climate? Unless, of course, your government is taxing the hell out of fossil fuels. But that's accounted for in the equation. Works anywhere in the world.
