The 'settled science' actually isn't, dissent is being suppressed.

Let us know when you can show a semi truck pulling an actual 50,000 lb trailer with batteries

 

????? The Paris Agreement.

 

Speaking of fake experts and magnified minority, how many climate scientists are on the list? Among the 1600 "scientists" I see a retired teacher, radiologist, financial advise specialist, geologist.....in other words the list is a list of climate change denialists and worthless.

 

Generally because it's not needed. A good engineer designs to do the job required and not more. Mostly because an automobile has other uses (passenger and cargo space, etc.) that will be sacrificed if there's too much powertrain.

Light duty generally runs 1-5L of displacement. A semi truck will run from 9-16L of displacement, 3 times as big. Putting one of those in the family car would leave no room for driving it.

 

What about semi-tractors?

 

What's hard about blowing up a solar charger? One well placed shot from an F35 would do it.

Or you could just let night fall and it would be just as effective.

 

Again, you could and some have. Heck, I've seen jet engines in motorcycles.

But as a practical matter when you consider things like repair and parts distribution, regulatory requirements, etc. it really makes no sense.

 

Again, you're all about the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy.

What exactly is so super duper top secret squirrel about climate science?

Other than it's not empirical and entirely based on models that can be easily manipulated?

 

Nothing about this bogus list? It is laughable.
Frame my comment anyway you like, if that makes you feel better, but if I had cancer I would consult an oncologist rather than a dentist.

 

Good. And if I needed a new roof I'd consult a roofer rather than a climate scientist.

But I do know how to do a roof.

 

And if I needed climate science I'd consult a climate scientist rather than a roofer.

 

And I'd consult a physicist before I wasted any time with a climate scientist.

 

Settled science is never really settled. The scientific method involves questioning and experimentation. Everything in science are subject to them. But, as you say, there is no room for politics in the scientific method. The climate craze is fueled, not by facts and scientific investigation. but by money, power and control. As an example, the average global temperature has increased a mere 1 degree C over the past 100 years. There has been no increase at all over the past 8 years. That is fact thanks to the ability to measure temperature and, recently, to measure it accurately from orbiting satellites. Has there been an increase in termperature? For sure. Is it huge or critical. Obviously not. Is it increasing? not lately. This is what happens when we allow politics into the scientific method.

Since fossil fuels will eventually run out, it makes sense to explore different options for energy and that will happen naturally. It is the scientific method at work. If we can keep cool heads about it we will make the process easier and cheaper. The reason fossil fuels remain at the top of the available energy list is that they are the cheapest. Water pressure dams are also pretty cheap and we have used them for a long time. More modern ideas like nuclear or wind power are very expensive in comparison. Let it all happen naturally and it will. We have actual crises in our society that should get more attention.

 

That would make sense if you can find one that isn't saddled with politics.

 

Was that an attempt at a citation?????

 

Tons of them especially if you actually read some actual research instead of listening to what Faux tells you to think. Have you ANY idea how many scientists are involved in just the IPCC reports? Each report has over 25 authors and approx 3,000 cited research papers.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/authors/#:~:text=270 authors from 67 countries,for achieving climate-resilient development.

Were all of those people from all of those countries playing an American political agenda?

 

So a fraction of the science - that would be like asking a tyre mechanic about how a diesel engine works. Climate science is a complex study that incorporates palaeontology, archeology, history, oceanography, biology, ecology, physics chemistry etc etc etc

 

Yep! That is why it reminds me so strongly of the OISM scam. Lols you know I got onto the OISM “objectors” list by enrolling online as “Ned Kelly” and listing my specialty as “ecological criminology” (Ned was a Bushranger). Lols!

 

Yes. Such strong opinions regarding matters you know nothing about. While nations across the world have have made commitments to cut CO2 in the Paris agreement, China agreed to continue increasing CO2 until 2030, aiming for that to be their peak CO2. Not promising to reduce emissions after then but instead just not increase them any further.
Only thing the Paris agreements accomplish is move manufacturing to countries like China with no commitment to reduce CO2, from countries where they are reducing emissions.

 

UN Agenda, adopted as the Democratic party's agenda and many nations around the world.

“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”

“climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”
More on the IPCC's Admission that Climate Change Is Really an Excuse for Redistributing Wealth | National Review

US has $76K average income, China has $12K. Socialist gotta be socialists.

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
The Schneider Quote | ClimateSight

They obviously chose to be effective.

 

This is where you write stuff that just literally squircks my sensibilities regarding engineering. You sound like one of my ChE department's profs, Fleischman. He specialized in environmental stuff, which was of no interest to me as a subset of stuff I wanted to do or learn as a ChE.

One day, whilst walking up the stairs I overheard a snippet of a conversation between Doc Marvin and I think it may have been our department administrator. She was making a quip which I didn't quite catch that included some sort of inference about the hassles of having to interact with the sometimes OCD style & nature of engineers. Doc M I heard not quite his response, but I think it must have been along the lines of yeah, tell me about it. To which she replied, oh, but you're an engineer too! To which Marvin replied, no, I am a scientist, please don't call me an engineer.

To this day I find his statement bogus. Marvin was probably the most egotistical OCD prof in the whole department. And I am all but 100% certain may have very well been the member of the faculty that our admin preferred least to do anything for.

You know what there is a big difference between with regard to engineering? It's not the kids in the Arts & Sciences college's chemistry, physics, or maths departments, nope. My guess, probably the theatre arts department. English department certainly is a challenge for a good chunk of engineers too. I'm actually better at it than I am at math though, so, there are exceptions to just about everything. Actually, engineers are not bad with English, too wordy perhaps is the biggest problem. Hahaha.....

Dude, there is no engineering without science. More aptly than asserting that it is not science would be to assert that it is applied science.

You seem to be stuck with the idea that science is only applicable to finding out stuff about stuff that is not already known. Have I finally formulated the correct words to describe this inane s you offer about how science is incapable of proving anything? And that it has nothing to do with engineering? By that definition, it wouldn't have anything to do with chemistry or physics either unless it was research related? You know engineers work in research too, right?

You know that only a bachelors in engineering offers an education in quantitative, i.e. mathematically applied science?

I'll give you an exception to this, meteorology. If there is any education that counts for being a climate scientist, this is the degree to have. Not oceanography, not geology, certainly not economics. Physics, sure, why not, I'll accept that. Have you checked the degrees sported by members of the IPCC?

I don't mean to be an elitist going on about degrees, but getting mine was an epic battle and I learned a lot of stuff that I thought about stuff was incorrect. Charles & Boyles laws for example turned out to be a bit more complicated than I had appreciated.

Having gone through that process yourself, how is it that you somehow accept folks as being climate scientists that don't even have degrees in a department that would even be qualified as being science? Much less when their professional specialization is something like "Disaster Risk Management"

Here's a table I made long ago with the intent to post it here at PF regarding the quals of the 30 authors listed in the AR6 Synthesis Report. How about my man on row 12, Oliver Geden, the anthropologist. This is the climate scientist you suggest we defer to?

 

Do you need an Introduction to Energy Storage Batteries primer as well?

 

Thank you for establishing that you lack basic knowledge of military logistics.

A fossil fuel driven electricity generator in the field used for running electronic equipment like radar and communications presents a LOGICAL VULNERABILITY. If the enemy can sever the fuel supply the equipment becomes useless for it's intended purpose. Portable solar panels and batteries means that vulnerability no longer exists.

FTR the military was using solar in Afghanistan and no, it had NOTHING to do with the withdrawal. Ukraine is effectively sinking Russian warships, which are capable of carrying nuclear missiles, with cheap air and sea drones.

Anyone paying attention can see that military strategies of the past as used by the Russians are being thwarted and defeated by new technology that embraces EV and Green technology.

 

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/every-electric-semi-truck-model-in-one-graphic/

 

With all due respect how we evolved was impacted by the climates we inhabited. Knowledge of those climates is essential to knowledge of our current climate and how changes will impact our ability to survive.

Did you know that sea temperature changes can impact the ability of fish to learn? Why does this even matter? Because our survival depends upon the survival of fish and other species.

We would be foolish to ignore the contributions of scientists from all fields if their work has any bearing on how climate change is altering our ability to survive.