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

If climate science incorporates physics, when do they get around to solving the problems climate science has with thermodynamics?

 

Aren't all batteries "Energy Storage Batteries"?

 

Well, since you have read the IPCC YOU can tell ME

 

2 questions:

1. How many of those are actually sold and in service?

2. And here I quote, "This presents challenges for long-hauling, where the average diesel-powered semi can travel up to 2,000 miles before refueling. Compare this to the longest range electric model, the Tesla Semi, which promises up to 500 miles. A key word here is “promises”—the Semi is still in development, and nothing has been proven yet." How is that going to be solved?

 

Easy, ignore it.

 

Did you miss the word “Upcoming?”
BTW are you aware that diesel engines are to be banned in many cities across the globe by 2027?

 

Mate I am not about to waste my life chasing down some vague conspiracy theory someone has cooked up out of nowhere

 

There are millions of diesel tractor trailers on the road in the US. They are going to be banned?

 

There are multiple means by which Energy can be Stored, but thanks for acknowledging that you do need a primer.

 

I said cities - google it up. There are already international requirements for additives like “Adblue” to reduce the harmful nitrogen oxides produced by diesel cars

 

Tractor trailers don't deliver to cities?

 

????

Any diesel motor will produce nitrogen oxides - and nitric oxide is quite toxic

 

So 18 wheelers will be banned?

 

Sorry, "faux" has nothing to do with my comments. Have you any idea of what can happen to a scientist who opines against the current politicized science?

Perfect example of what I said above. These 270 authors didn't actually conduct any research or experimentation at all. Doing that would be scientific. They supported the political agenda. In fact they ignored the actual facts. It is pure politics. Want to know what sort of facts they ignored? The first is that the planet has warmed one single degree C over the past 100 years. The second is that there has been zero warming for the past 8 years and almost none for the preceding 20 years. Climatic temperature rises and falls. It is just a matter of how you choose to propose an analysis of it. Could there be some warming caused by humanity. Yes but there certainly hasn't been enough to worry about. These 270 authors did a good job protecting their jobs.

 

OK

Fish don't learn. "Can impact" and "has impacted" are quite different from each other.

Yes but we would be even more foolish to go off half cocked over politicized science which doesn't even deal with the climatic facts. And we appear to be very foolish indeed.

 

Yes. It just means we're not the only stupid people on the planet.

 

NOx is an actual pollutant and has been for years. CO2 is not a pollutant and never has been.

 

There sure are, but that's an awful strange way to spell "fuel tank".

 

Fish learn how to navigate complex coral reefs.

Only the climate science deniers are guilty of going "half cocked over politicized science" FACTOIDS that are IRRELEVANT.

You had a GOP Congressman so IGNORANT he didn't know the difference between the climate and the seasons.

Don't get any more FOOLISH than that.

 

That you have NEVER heard of hydro storage, salt storage, flywheel storage, etc, etc establishes that you lack even the most cursory understanding of the topic thereby rendering any further interaction pointless from my POV.

Have a nice day!

 

I have numerous posts here at PF in which I document my opinion and make various arguments about this particular subject.

Folks are more than welcome to browse them, and I'll not complain to the mods about being stalked about it. I suggest a useful search is "IPCC" and my account. There's three pages of results to this search.

Let me see if I can make my opinion on the subject succinctly clear with a categorical syllogism.


All climate scientists agree that CO2 emissions from burning stored organic reserves have created an existential threat to life on Earth.

Some climate scientists are not formally trained in science.

Some of the consensus therefore is not based on science.

 

Anything in excess is and can be a pollutant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model

 

Hmmmm interesting response but I do love when Americans seem to think their politics are the only ones in the world.

 

Go google this. And it isn’t just about CO2

 

Thank you.