Scientific information is fully available to the public. You can read thousands upon thousands of papers on science in Arxiv.com. One problem with this is that those who don't have significant education usually find them hard to read, as they are written for a professional level of serious scientists and aggregating their individual contributions is a serious endeavor. Also, there are groups like NASA, NOAA, CDC, NTSB, etc., in the USA and similar groups around the world where presenting information to the public is a significant objective. I will add that by cooperate efforts I meant efforts of groups inside corporations or other entities. Teammates have to work as a team. And, failure at that is a significant reason for people being dropped for those teams. It is a serious part of our education system to teach cooperative problem solving, as THAT is the real world.
You're just ignoring climate science. And, you are ignoring the health expenses involved in burning fossil fuel in our cities and neighborhoods. As for EVs, most people who buy EVs are not making some sort of sacrifice for climate. They like the cars because they have outstanding performance, cost less per mile to drive, are super clean and quite and have all sorts of really cool technology - technology that sometimes could possibly be put in ICE cars, but ICE manufacturers rarely do that.
Much more information is available to the public than is reported on by media and politicians. That is so. But full information is not available, as much is unaffordable to the average or below average income individual. Public information including political discourse, media of all types (except perhaps podcast), and public education curriculum is HIGHLY curated to form narratives. The curated information from public sources of information is not intended to educate, but to train or indoctrinate. I am not criticizing researchers here, but those tasked with informing the public. Those tasked with informing the public are spreading misinformation, disinformation and lies of omission. My responsibility is to provide information those sources don’t want you to see. All of which curate information to form a narrative. Most often a narrative that supports perpetuation and growth of that bureaucracy as opposed to actually solving problems. Your use of NASA as an example is evidence for my point. NASA has no business creating climate change narratives. It’s far outside the scope of it’s mission and it engages in climate change narratives as a means of perpetuating and growing it’s bureaucratic scope. If NASA was serious about SOLVING the CO2 issue it would be informing you on the benefits of biochar. And as we saw recently with the CDC it certainly provided information, but often it was disinformation. That IS NOT the job of the CDC. Yet it engages in dissemination of disinformation to make sure the bureaucracy not only survives, but grows. I see. How would these groups function correctly if their sources of information are incomplete? I’m not sure how disinformation etc. would have less effect on corporations than individuals. Individuals running corporations and other groups are subject to the same media, educational system, and government bureaucracy forms of information as you or I. Of what value is teamwork if the team is working towards a goal set on false premises and founded on disinformation and lies of omission? Our educational system is real—a real failure for the most part. Just in this thread I was told this when I said CO2 does not reflect infrared radiation but instead absorbs it. “No scientist would agree with you. No kid who passed junior high science would agree with you. I'm sorry that physical facts are inconvenient for your agenda. It won't make the facts go away. ——- My best friend is a physics PhD. I've gone over this with him. I assure you that the embarrassment is on the other side of the glass.” This is what you are getting from your “real world” educational system. Sorry, not impressed.
There are fixed numbers of rebates for EVs. Tesla ran out of rebates last August until the end of the year. So, you can gauge Tesla success without rebates on their sales record during that 6 month period.
NASA is a major source of climate information. Suggesting it isn't their business is nonsense. Also, biochar is a solution (maybe). NASA doesn't state solutions - they examine our physical universe, including Earth. As for teamwork, you are confusing the issue entirely. Effective teamwork has to do with whether a group can be function or not. Those who can't be effective while working in teams get fired. Whether the team is working on an appropriate goal using appropriate methods is an entirely different question. I'm sorry if you just can't deal with a world where we have highly qualified scientists throughout that world, answering important questions.
Do you know what the acronym NASA stands for? The work NASA does on climate change was not at all related to the original charter of the organization. It is not their business but they have made it their business to perpetuate and grow their organization. Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy in action. LOL. Here are a few quotes from official NASA publications. It’s unfortunate you’ve been misled about NASA as well. So you want a team working together on solutions that address wrong problems or problems that don’t exist? And those who wish to base goals on factual information and complete information should be ousted? I’m not sure what you are advocating here. But teamwork is your strawman. I tried to address the strawman but you aren’t happy with that. No worries. You can have your team of folks who aren’t well educated and informed. I’m out. I have no interest in partnering with people who choose disinformation and false premises. Dude. I’m a scientist by education and in every metric except publication. I can answer your questions. Why would I be unable to deal with a world of scientists? Every post I make here dealing with details of climate science I support with peer reviewed studies from such scientists! Why would I intentionally cite something I “can’t deal with”? SMH. This place is getting nutty.
Tesla had 20 years to be successful and profitable before Biden's fuel economy rules that made ICE engine manufacturers pay them for credits to survive and they never made a profit. All that goes away if EPA properly loses its right to regulate CO2. Wait for it, it's coming.
Yep, the SC is forcing the EPA to follow the law. Already in the case of power production. The EPA regulating things not under their jurisdiction is just what I’m talking about with bureaucracy growing to preserve and project power. Even violating the law is acceptable if doing so preserves and grows the bureaucracy. Even better if supplying disinformation to the public scares them into accepting the violation of law.
When someone starts talking about things "they don't want you to see" it is almost, invariably, a con or disinformation.
The problem with Tyson's rule is that not all theoretical science is true. It is only the best explanation we have currently for what we observe and experience. Science evolves.
And the opposite of that is, "Would you stay in a burning building just to spite everyone else that was running out?" Would you jump off a cliff if everyone else did? That depends on why everyone else is jumping off the cliff.
But UNTIL that theoretical science is disproven it is the best explanation we have. Furthermore there are those who reject the theories but don't have a good reason for doing so. There is no good reason to reject the theory of evolution. There is no good reason to reject the idea of climate change and human activity being the driver. There is no good reason to reject the big bang theory.
NASA has long included the study of our upper atmosphere as well as Earth's surface. Obviously, they have platforms for doing that. There are numerous uses for that information. Yes, you didn't answer the teamwork comment I made, which is not that surprising as teamwork comes up in myriad ways. The views of climatologists around the world align with observations by NASA, NOAA and other sources. Your attempt to write them off as fake on the grounds that they don't confirm your personal view is not a scientific approach.
The rebates we have are NOT there due to some desire to make Tesla more profitable. Tesla gets rebates, because the government can not write a law that says Stellantis, Ford, Toyota, etc., all get rebates on their EVs, but Tesla doesn't. Government can't single out a corporation like that. As for EPA, I sincerely see NO POSSIBILITY that the sales success of Tesla is because of the EPA. Remember that Tesla was MONUMENTALLY successful during the second half of 2022 when Teslas got no rebates. The number of rebates is fixed (and otherwise limited, too). Tesla rebates got used up by August 2022. I've posted this to you before, and you have had NO response. Besides that, the EPA is NOT the sole reason for rebates on EVs. As mentioned before, US manufacturers are having a seriously tough time making the transition to having viable EV products. In the end, the USA is thought to need a viable AND competitive auto industry.
I welcome you to provide evidence anything I’ve posted about the science of climate change is disinformation. I’m uninterested in false accusations. Everything I post of scientific concern on climate change is backed by peer reviewed studies or meta analysis of peer reviewed studies. I routinely encourage those who disagree with my posts to present better evidence than I provide. Please do so or refrain from unsupported allegations. Thanks.
I asked you to clarify your teamwork strawman. If you do so I’m happy to address it. Please show me what I have posted on climate change that is not supported by the best science available. I will wait. But please be specific and use the PF quote function. I’m not a fan of false accusations. I don’t like to see the posters who make them be discredited when they can’t back them up. I don’t post personal views on the science of climate change. Sorry. That is your approach, not mine. I substantiate even my rebuttals of your incorrect claims about what NASA actually does.
There is no factor in that famous equation that includes gravity. In fact, E=Mc^2 comes from special relativity, which doesn't include gravity.
Sorry. I'm perfectly fine with my view of your opinion that NASA is crap and not doing what you happen to think it should be doing. I was VERY clear in my comments on teamwork.
I'll continue to follow the IPCC, as it is a professional assessment of the combined areas of the science of climatology.
LOL. When did I say NASA was crap? I use NASA as a source quite often. You should know this. NASA is not doing what it was commissioned to do. This is a fact. What I think is irrelevant. Here is our exchange on “teamwork”. The first mention of cooperation was a strawman presented by you. I responded by saying I’m all for teamwork and that it’s important a team be pursuing correct goals. I have no idea what people are getting at with strawman arguments so you will have to explain further. It seems you have further discredited yourself by failing to quote anywhere my posts have conflicted with peer reviewed science. I’m sorry you have done that. You are an intelligent guy who has so much more potential to realize if you would choose science over unsubstantiated opinions.
You are welcome to follow anyone you like. I prefer to think for myself and consume ALL available information, not just that curated to form a narrative—from either side. I will continue to point out your errors on science as well as the errors of others using peer reviewed studies to back up my posts. You and others will continue to post errors because your knowledge base is severely limited. You and others will continue to post fallacies and unsubstantiated opinions in reply. So it goes.
Nope. If it were burning I'd try to save as many as I could. Same as my position on climate change, try to save as many as I can from this insidious con game.
I never said "rebates". What's happening is outright theft due to EPA regulations. You could try looking it up but I have no doubt you could understand it.
You do not have a team of the caliber of the full international physics, chemistry and climatology brought to bear by the IPCC. In fact, there are thousands of papers on climatology and its various fields, so when you say "all available information" let's say I have serious doubts.
