Climate Change Deniers and Apologists sinking together.

[Guest]

Again, I believe in replenishing the earth and in developing practical renewable energy, but I don't believe in spending billions of debt dollars in the BS name of "climate change."

Do you know exactly what the money is being spent on? Do you know what the results are for that spending? I suspect you don't have any idea, but are against it because your tribe is against it. Billions is a small amount compared to all the things governments spend taxpayer money on. Increasing our knowledge on climate, which includes many areas including the sun, is valuable knowledge regardless of whether the planet is warming or not. If you agree that climate changes, then why would the term climate change be a bs name?

Some basic reasons...

Why take your beliefs from people who are not experts and have major political reasons for being against the idea of man-made climate change? Why not get your information from the people who spend the time to figure it out? For those who may want a good starting point to get a better understanding of the climate try here.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

It talks about many factors including the sun and it's importance to climates of the earth.

[_canpakes]

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

It talks about many factors including the sun and it's importance to climates of the earth.

What is so strange about Amore's opposition to spending money on this research is that she ends up referring to factors that are only known about because we have invested some money and time into researching them.

[_Themis]

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

It talks about many factors including the sun and it's importance to climates of the earth.

What is so strange about Amore's opposition to spending money on this research is that she ends up referring to factors that are only known about because we have invested some money and time into researching them.

Climate science has been very important to areas outside of climate change. Farming, ranching, forestry, etc have benefited from this research. It's fine to suggest money is being wasted or misspent, but one needs to show specifically how. You cannot do that without knowing what the money is specifically being spent on and what the results of that spending are.

[_Quasimodo]

I just had this sent to me by Toyota, no less (I own a couple and they send me stuff once in a while). Short article.

Toyota Opens the Door and Invites the Industry to the Hydrogen Future

LAS VEGAS, (Jan. 5, 2015) – Toyota is opening the door to the hydrogen future, making available thousands of hydrogen fuel cell patents royalty free. Announced today at the 2015 Consumer Electronics Show, this Toyota initiative will spur development and introduction of innovative fuel cell technologies around the world.

This can't be bad news.

Oops, forgot the link:
http://pressroom.toyota.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4901

[_DrW]

I just had this sent to me by Toyota, no less (I own a couple and they send me stuff once in a while). Short article.

Toyota Opens the Door and Invites the Industry to the Hydrogen Future

LAS VEGAS, (Jan. 5, 2015) – Toyota is opening the door to the hydrogen future, making available thousands of hydrogen fuel cell patents royalty free. Announced today at the 2015 Consumer Electronics Show, this Toyota initiative will spur development and introduction of innovative fuel cell technologies around the world.

This can't be bad news.

Oops, forgot the link:
http://pressroom.toyota.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4901

Hey Quasi,

Thanks for posting this. The cynic in me says that Toyota has decided to do this because, as is, these patents aren't really worth that much. Until there is a lot more infrastructure for hydrogen production and refueling, none of these patents are going to be all that valuable, as a practical matter.

This infrastructure won't be put in place until folks start building more FCEVs, and for that they will need access to the technology that can make them economically viable. So, releasing the patents is in Toyota's best financial interest, I would think - especially if they have enough of a head start to bring FCEVs to the market later this year

FCEVs are going to have an uphill battle in the near and intermediate term, I think. They are going to be expensive and of limited application. (Note that the energy density of highly compressed hydrogen is only about 5.5 MJ/L, as compared to about 36 MJ/L for good ol' diesel - gasoline is only slightly lower.)

Toyota say that they are going to place FCEVs in some specific test applications in 2015. It will be interesting to see how that goes. My guess: not all that well.

__________________

Nothing against Toyota and Lexus. They make a great cars. A lot of Toyota models are clearly the best out there for the money.

[_Quasimodo]

Hey Quasi,

Thanks for posting this. The cynic in me says that Toyota has decided to do this because, as is, these patents aren't really worth that much. Until there is a lot more infrastructure for hydrogen production and refueling, none of these patents are going to be all that valuable, as a practical matter.

This infrastructure won't be put in place until folks start building more FCEVs, and for that they will need access to the technology that can make them economically viable. So, releasing the patents is in Toyota's best financial interest, I would think - especially if they have enough of a head start to bring FCEVs to the market later this year

FCEVs are going to have an uphill battle in the near and intermediate term, I think. They are going to be expensive and of limited application. (Note that the energy density of highly compressed hydrogen is only about 5.5 MJ/L, as compared to about 36 MJ/L for good ol' diesel - gasoline is only slightly lower.)

Toyota say that they are going to place FCEVs in some specific test applications in 2015. It will be interesting to see how that goes. My guess: not all that well.

__________________

Nothing against Toyota and Lexus. They make a great cars. A lot of Toyota models are clearly the best out there for the money.

I have no doubt that Toyota is not doing this for strictly altruistic motives. Large corporations seldom do that, but the fact that they would, I think, is a good sign. Your comment that Toyota would itself benefit greatly from more FCEVs being produced worldwide makes sense to me. I hope they make billions more on the idea and everyone else does, as well.

I have been doing a little reading on hydrogen production this morning and it seems there is some interesting research taking place. This is a US Department of Energy website. It looks like they are doing some serious work:

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html

You know more about these things than I do. Please let us know if you have any thoughts.

[_Gunnar]

To me the stupidest and most ignorant item on the list Amore provided was this one:

9. The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, combined with everyone on the planet, we contribute around 8 or 9 percent of human carbon dioxide production.

The carbon dioxide exhaled by human beings and all other animals combined cannot possibly result in a net increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide because every bit of carbon exhaled by living organisms comes directly or indirectly from plants which get all their carbon from the atmosphere. Thus all the carbon dioxide exhaled by all living animal species combined can never do anything more than just barely replace the CO2 taken from the atmosphere in the first place by the plants upon which all animal species (including humans, of course) absolutely depend on directly or indirectly for their food.

[_DrW]

To me the stupidest and most ignorant item on the list Amore provided was this one:

9. The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, combined with everyone on the planet, we contribute around 8 or 9 percent of human carbon dioxide production.

The carbon dioxide exhaled by human beings and all other animals combined cannot possibly result in a net increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide because every bit of carbon exhaled by living organisms comes directly or indirectly from plants which get all their carbon from the atmosphere. Thus all the carbon dioxide exhaled by all living animal species combined can never do anything more than just barely replace the CO2 taken from the atmosphere in the first place by the plants upon which all animal species (including humans, of course) absolutely depend on directly or indirectly for their food.

We don't have school age kids at home any more, so I gave our our friendly neighborhood middle school (substitute) teacher (also my wife) a call to ask about when kids learn the basics of the carbon cycle. She said kids certainly have to know this in detail by 8th grade, and that she thinks many probably understand the basics even before entering Middle School.

She told me there was a website for National School Physical Science Standards, so I checked it out. And sure enough, it placed the carbon cycle at grade level 5-8.

So, looks like we have a real "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" kind of question here.

It also looks as though we have folks writing climate change denier (TM) website content who don't even have the scientific competence of a smart 5th grader.

Astounding, is it not?

One is left to wonder about the scientific understanding of those who would just copy and paste the kind of assertion you just destroyed.

[_Gunnar]

To me the stupidest and most ignorant item on the list Amore provided was this one:

9. The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, combined with everyone on the planet, we contribute around 8 or 9 percent of human carbon dioxide production.

The carbon dioxide exhaled by human beings and all other animals combined cannot possibly result in a net increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide because every bit of carbon exhaled by living organisms comes directly or indirectly from plants which get all their carbon from the atmosphere. Thus all the carbon dioxide exhaled by all living animal species combined can never do anything more than just barely replace the CO2 taken from the atmosphere in the first place by the plants upon which all animal species (including humans, of course) absolutely depend on directly or indirectly for their food.

We don't have school age kids at home any more, so I gave our our friendly neighborhood middle school (substitute) teacher (also my wife) a call to ask about when kids learn the basics of the carbon cycle. She said kids certainly have to know this in detail by 8th grade, and that she thinks many probably understand the basics even before entering Middle School.

She told me there was a website for National School Physical Science Standards, so I checked it out. And sure enough, it placed the carbon cycle at grade level 5-8.

So, looks like we have a real "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" kind of question here.

It also looks as though we have folks writing climate change denier (TM) website content who don't even have the scientific competence of a smart 5th grader.

Astounding, is it not?

One is left to wonder about the scientific understanding of those who would just copy and paste the kind of assertion you just destroyed.

Astounding indeed!

I miss that show, especially the original version in which the bonus question at the end (if you got that far) was worth a million dollars. There were several episodes of that program in which, had I been the contestant, I would have become a millionaire (only before Uncle Sam took his cut, of course). I have an electronic home version of the original game, and I usually "win" the million.

Almost every time I watched that program I was astonished by the apparent ignorance of the contestants, especially some of the celebrity contestants. One supposedly highly educated and successful lawyer couldn't even get past the ridiculously easy first grade questions!

Based on the ignorance and lack of intelligence displayed in that TPNN article that Amore cut and pasted, if that is typical of the intelligence and competence of Tea Party candidates, they should all be disqualified from running for any public office--including dog catcher!

[_honorentheos]

At least we agree that "climate change" is a mask for "money change."
And it seems that many ignorantly don't care how steep we get in debt.

Amore, in all seriousness the argument you're having has moved on. "Climate change resilience" is a term used daily in the industry I work in. It's only when I interact on places like this board or read the crazy crap my Utah family and friends post on Facebook that I still get glimpses of that kind of thinking. Once one catches up to the times, the only real difference between the liberals and conservatives on this issue is that the liberals continue to talk about how to slow or address climate change while the conservative focus mainly on how to mitigate the effects and reduce personal/institutional risk.

It's like running into someone who argues cigarettes aren't bad for you because there's scientific evidence to support the claims the tobacco industry use to make.