Scientific American endorses Kamala Harris

[HarleyER]

You're welcome.

You made several claims that were contrary to established scientific results. Whether you intend it or not, you have repeated many widely used anti-science positions. Perhaps you have bad sources of information influencing your position.

I haven't read the editorial. Based on the headlines they are objectively correct about the presidential choice and what is good science based policy on climate and other named topics. The choice publish an editorial is up to the editorial staff of the magazine. It is not "science" to make the choice to speak up or not.

Grocery sacks aren't a scientific topic.

You made several claims that were contrary to established scientific results.

It would be helpful to know what claims you think I've made that are contrary to established scientific results or "anti-science" positions. What I have done is simply brought up issues that would dispute preconceived notions that some do not like to talk about.

I haven't read the editorial. Based on the headlines they are objectively correct

I haven't read the article either. Just from the title page: "Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record". You think this sound objective?

Grocery sacks aren't a scientific topic.

They were in my days.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It would be helpful to know what claims you think I've made that are contrary to established scientific results or "anti-science" positions. What I have done is simply brought up issues that would dispute preconceived notions that some do not like to talk about.

I only need one quote:

I would have stopped at simply saying that Climate warming is a hoax. The Chinese communist party is probably partly responsible but it certainly is being perpetrated by someone. While the Chinese are building coal burning plants at an astonishing rate, the west is wringing their hands over the environmental impact.

That is not only non-scientific, against established facts, but anti-scientific.

 

[sjastro]

If renewable energy was so effective and efficient as you are claiming, then why isn't China putting 100% of their resources behind it?

It has nothing to do with the effectiveness and efficiency of renewables but a supply vs demand problem.
China cannot keep up with the demand for renewable energy and continues to commission coal powered stations to make up the difference.

From 2020-2023 China commissioned 50-60 GW in coal powered capacity but 100-120 GW of solar and wind capacity.
Why would China invest in twice as much renewable capacity if it is unreliable?
It makes a mockery of your argument.

Don Trump stated that you don't produce any energy from wind turbines when there is no wind. This doesn't seem to be rocket science.

It doesn’t take rocket science either to understand the context in which Trump makes this statement along with windmill noise causing cancer and the death of “billions of birds”.
Does Trump devote equal time on the negative aspects of fossil fuels such as pollution?
It is to cast renewable energy in a negative light which is the mantra of right wing politics in your country.

True, but China is the third leader producer and is the world's leader in lithium processing, with 60% of the world's lithium refining capacity for batteries.

Cease and desist with moving the goalposts.
You were caught out making incorrect statements, take ownership of your mistakes and learn from them instead of engaging in this exercise of deflection.

There is no blind faith. There's no cost benefit studies on what this will cost the US nor are the any impact studies on how these costs will impact other programs. What happens when you take farm land out of production for solar farms. You might have energy but also starvation.

This is absolute rubbish.
Where do you come up with this garbage there are no cost benefit or environment impact studies?

Here are some facts in Australia the operational cost for a coal powered plant in $60-$80 MWh, by comparison it is $40-$50 MWh for renewables.
This doesn’t take into consideration transport costs for coal or market fluctuations for coal prices which will increase as coal supplies are phased back due to increased renewable demand.
I’m sure similar figures apply in your country.
Then there are the environmental impact studies which are mandated by law for any construction projects including wind and solar farms.

The most ridiculous part of your post is about wind farms taking up farm land leading to starvation.
Did you consider the possibility windfarms will be constructed on federal crown land or offshore?

No, what you posted was simply a hit piece on Trump. Not an objective anaylysis of the benefit and costs of implement plans by both candidates. This isn't an attempt at derailing anything. It is simply trying to provide a balanced perspective to this discussion.

What I posted was a response to your distasteful comment about ‘illegal’ immigrants defecating on footpaths.

You are correct. You've presented facts that are often touted but they are not the entire story. I remember one of our Executive Officer wanting to get sell off all of our computers and rent them. She stated based upon her "facts" were that it would be cheaper than buying them. I pleaded with her to do a cost benefit study, and she said there was simply no need since she had all the "facts" in front of her. To make a long story short, her decision ended up costing thousands of wasted dollars and led to her dismissal. We had to go out and buy all new computers.

Totally irrelevant and a false equivalence fallacy to boot.

 

[sjastro]

The link below shows the average annual temperature by the National Weather Service for the last 150 years. In 1875 the average temperature was 52.5. In 2023 the average temperature was 52.2. The National Weather Service breaks it out for every year.

Now I don't have fancy graphs but a variation from 52.5 in 1875 to 52.2 in 2023 doesn't seem to tell me we have a global warming problem.

And, no, I was not being disingenuous

https://www.weather.gov/media/slc/ClimateBook/Annual%20Average%20Temperature%20By%20Year.pdf

Good grief try reading the data correctly, the last entry you quoted 52.2 is the average of 1875 to 2023.
The average for year 2023 was 55.6.

Even this fact doesn't tell you the climate is warming as it ignores everything in between.
Climate scientists use moving averages usually in thirty year blocks to smooth out the noise caused by weather fluctuations.
For example they calculate the average from 1875-1904, then 1876-1905 and so on up to 1994-2023.

This presents a very different picture and shows the moving average temperature is steadily increasing.

 

[HarleyER]

I only need one quote:

That is not only non-scientific, against established facts, but anti-scientific.

My comment: I would have stopped at simply saying that Climate warming is a hoax. The Chinese communist party is probably partly responsible but it certainly is being perpetrated by someone.

One hundred companys are Strategic Partners with the World Economic Forum.

The World Economic Forum, by the own admission, is pushing Climate Change. One of the members of the WEF are the Chinese.

Now the question is whether:

1) there is a political motivation in tainting scientific data to promote a political agenda, or​

2) whether scientific data is legitimate and the World Economic Forum is working in the best interest to exact change.​

You seem to think that politics plays no part in science and the data is clean. I think that politics has everything to do with what we are being told. This isn't being done in the dark.

Strategic Partners of the WEF (https://www.weforum.org/communities/strategic-partnership-b5337725-fac7-4f8a-9a4f-c89072b96a0d/)

Here are the five points of the WEF as outlined by King Charles (who is also a member):

• To capture the imagination and will of humanity – change will only happen if people really want it.
• The economic recovery must put the world on the path to sustainable employment, livelihoods and growth. Longstanding incentive structures that have had perverse effects on our planetary environment and nature herself must be reinvented
• Systems and pathways must be redesigned to advance net zero transitions globally. Carbon pricing can provide a critical pathway to a sustainable market.
• Science, technology and innovation need re-invigorating. Humanity is on the verge of catalytic breakthroughs that will alter our view of what it possible and profitable in the framework of a sustainable future.
• Investment must be rebalanced. Accelerating green investments can offer job opportunities in green energy, the circular and bio-economy, eco-tourism and green public infrastructure.

Pandemic is chance to reset global economy, says Prince Charles

Prince of Wales unveils a five-point plan to stimulate sustainable economic growth

www.theguardian.com

It is absolutely naive to think that politics has nothing to do with the data you are quoting.

 

[HarleyER]

It has nothing to do with the effectiveness and efficiency of renewables but a supply vs demand problem.
China cannot keep up with the demand for renewable energy and continues to commission coal powered stations to make up the difference.

From 2020-2023 China commissioned 50-60 GW in coal powered capacity but 100-120 GW of solar and wind capacity.
Why would China invest in twice as much renewable capacity if it is unreliable?
It makes a mockery of your argument.

It doesn’t take rocket science either to understand the context in which Trump makes this statement along with windmill noise causing cancer and the death of “billions of birds”.
Does Trump devote equal time on the negative aspects of fossil fuels such as pollution?
It is to cast renewable energy in a negative light which is the mantra of right wing politics in your country.

Cease and desist with moving the goalposts.
You were caught out making incorrect statements, take ownership of your mistakes and learn from them instead of engaging in this exercise of deflection.

This is absolute rubbish.
Where do you come up with this garbage there are no cost benefit or environment impact studies?

Here are some facts in Australia the operational cost for a coal powered plant in $60-$80 MWh, by comparison it is $40-$50 MWh for renewables.
This doesn’t take into consideration transport costs for coal or market fluctuations for coal prices which will increase as coal supplies are phased back due to increased renewable demand.
I’m sure similar figures apply in your country.
Then there are the environmental impact studies which are mandated by law for any construction projects including wind and solar farms.

The most ridiculous part of your post is about wind farms taking up farm land leading to starvation.
Did you consider the possibility windfarms will be constructed on federal crown land or offshore?

What I posted was a response to your distasteful comment about ‘illegal’ immigrants defecating on footpaths.

Totally irrelevant and a false equivalence fallacy to boot.

Does Trump devote equal time on the negative aspects of fossil fuels such as pollution?

I would say that no one on the right is against renewable energy. We're certainly not trying to shut down solar panels or windmills unless they affect bird or whale migration.

On the other hand, environmentalists in the US/Europe disregard these issues, wanting to stop coal and oil production, and mandate to people what they should drive, cook on, etc. Hardly seems like the model you are describing the Chinese use.

Cease and desist with moving the goalposts.
You were caught out making incorrect statements,

This isn't a cat-and-mouse game. Australia is the largest producer of lithium while China is third. But China's process of extracting lithium is far more environmental friendly then Australias. China also ranks #1 in processing of lithium which controls 60% of all processing facilities. (Challenging China’s dominance in the lithium market)

What you fail to mention is that by 2030 (six years away) there will be a 37% shortfall in lithium supplies. Thus I like to know how one can mandate electric vehicles by 2035 when knowing there will be a 37% shortfall.

Where do you come up with this garbage there are no cost benefit or environment impact studies?

Oh, I'm sure there are and they say exactly what they want to be said.

What I posted was a response to your distasteful comment about ‘illegal’ immigrants defecating on footpaths.

I can't help it if some would like to sound very noble on environmental causes all the while ignoring the environment around them.

 

[HarleyER]

Good grief try reading the data correctly, the last entry you quoted 52.2 is the average of 1875 to 2023.
The average for year 2023 was 55.6.

Even this fact doesn't tell you the climate is warming as it ignores everything in between.
Climate scientists use moving averages usually in thirty year blocks to smooth out the noise caused by weather fluctuations.
For example they calculate the average from 1875-1904, then 1876-1905 and so on up to 1994-2023.

This presents a very different picture and shows the moving average temperature is steadily increasing.

Good grief try reading the data correctly, the last entry you quoted 52.2 is the average of 1875 to 2023.
The average for year 2023 was 55.6.

Even this fact doesn't tell you the climate is warming as it ignores everything in between.

I've posted the link by the National Weather Service on the temperature for the last 150 years. There is little variation (just a few degrees between the years). I'm certainly am not going to post a 150 line entry table that tells one that nothing has changed but it is available at the link or simply googling "Average Temperatures for the last 150 years". You can try variations like "Average High" or "Average Low", but it all comes out the same.

I can't help it if you want to ignore scientific data by the National Weather Service.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My comment: I would have stopped at simply saying that Climate warming is a hoax. The Chinese communist party is probably partly responsible but it certainly is being perpetrated by someone.

My reply (restated): our basic understanding of how the climate system works goes back to when the CCP was more anti-intellectual than you appear to be.

One hundred companys are Strategic Partners with the World Economic Forum.

The World Economic Forum, by the own admission, is pushing Climate Change. One of the members of the WEF are the Chinese.

I really don't care. The "WEF" has nothing to do with the science.

Now the question is whether:

1) there is a political motivation in tainting scientific data to promote a political agenda, or​

2) whether scientific data is legitimate and the World Economic Forum is working in the best interest to exact change.​

You seem to think that politics plays no part in science and the data is clean. I think that politics has everything to do with what we are being told. This isn't being done in the dark.

There is a response I find appropriate to this offensive claim, but the CF rules prohibit from even abbreviating it.

Strategic Partners of the WEF (https://www.weforum.org/communities/strategic-partnership-b5337725-fac7-4f8a-9a4f-c89072b96a0d/)

Here are the five points of the WEF as outlined by King Charles (who is also a member):

• To capture the imagination and will of humanity – change will only happen if people really want it.
• The economic recovery must put the world on the path to sustainable employment, livelihoods and growth. Longstanding incentive structures that have had perverse effects on our planetary environment and nature herself must be reinvented
• Systems and pathways must be redesigned to advance net zero transitions globally. Carbon pricing can provide a critical pathway to a sustainable market.
• Science, technology and innovation need re-invigorating. Humanity is on the verge of catalytic breakthroughs that will alter our view of what it possible and profitable in the framework of a sustainable future.
• Investment must be rebalanced. Accelerating green investments can offer job opportunities in green energy, the circular and bio-economy, eco-tourism and green public infrastructure.

Pandemic is chance to reset global economy, says Prince Charles

Prince of Wales unveils a five-point plan to stimulate sustainable economic growth

www.theguardian.com

I really don't care what some self-important group of rich jerks and irrelevant monarchs say. They don't do science. My position is not based on their preferences or desires. It is based on data.

It is absolutely naive to think that politics has nothing to do with the data you are quoting.

I actually haven't quoted data, that is @sjastro. You haven't reached the level of quality in your responses that I would waste time digging up real data for you. You've moved to straight up anti-science conspiracy theory.

 

[HarleyER]

My reply (restated): our basic understanding of how the climate system works goes back to when the CCP was more anti-intellectual than you appear to be.

I really don't care. The "WEF" has nothing to do with the science.

There is a response I find appropriate to this offensive claim, but the CF rules prohibit from even abbreviating it.

I really don't care what some self-important group of rich jerks and irrelevant monarchs say. They don't do science. My position is not based on their preferences or desires. It is based on data.

I actually haven't quoted data, that is @sjastro. You haven't reached the level of quality in your responses that I would waste time digging up real data for you. You've moved to straight up anti-science conspiracy theory.

I really don't care. The "WEF" has nothing to do with the science.

Look, we seem to be getting nowhere and you seem to be getting upset, so we'll leave it here. There are plenty of YouTube videos on the WEF from their own mouths on their agenda. They even have a website. It isn't hidden and they aren't shy about what they are attempting to do to run to a one world government. If you don't think that billionaire politicans, industry leaders, and businesses don't sway science to fit their narrative to achieve their ends, there is nothing more to talk about. Certainly environmentalists want to believe this of the oil companies.

Just remember the secular "Golden Rule": "He who has the gold makes the rules."

There is a response I find appropriate to this offensive claim

Any more offensive than that I'm "anti-intellectual", "anti-science", or I'm digging up "anti-science conspiracy theory"? Thanks for your time.

 

[Astrid]

Look, we seem to be getting nowhere and you seem to be getting upset, so we'll leave it here. There are plenty of YouTube videos on the WEF from their own mouths on their agenda. They even have a website. It isn't hidden and they aren't shy about what they are attempting to do to run to a one world government. If you don't think that billionaire politicans, industry leaders, and businesses don't sway science to fit their narrative to achieve their ends, there is nothing more to talk about. Certainly environmentalists want to believe this of the oil companies.

Just remember the secular "Golden Rule": "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Any more offensive than that I'm "anti-intellectual", "anti-science", or I'm digging up "anti-science conspiracy theory"? Thanks for your time.

"You are getting emotional so I win" is one usually reserved for use on women

 

[Hans Blaster]

Look, we seem to be getting nowhere and you seem to be getting upset, so we'll leave it here.

I don't like conspiracy theory. You are insulting science and scientists. I have no tolerance for either.

There are plenty of YouTube videos on the WEF from their own mouths on their agenda. They even have a website. It isn't hidden and they aren't shy about what they are attempting to do to run to a one world government. If you don't think that billionaire politicans, industry leaders, and businesses don't sway science to fit their narrative to achieve their ends, there is nothing more to talk about. Certainly environmentalists want to believe this of the oil companies.

As I said a couple times already. I don't care what the WEF agenda is. It does not control or set science. It does not alter facts.

Just remember the secular "Golden Rule": "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Any more offensive than that I'm "anti-intellectual", "anti-science", or I'm digging up "anti-science conspiracy theory"? Thanks for your time.

Don't do anti-science stuff and propagate conspiracy theories and you won't get such responses.

 

[sjastro]

I would say that no one on the right is against renewable energy. We're certainly not trying to shut down solar panels or windmills unless they affect bird or whale migration.

On the other hand, environmentalists in the US/Europe disregard these issues, wanting to stop coal and oil production, and mandate to people what they should drive, cook on, etc. Hardly seems like the model you are describing the Chinese use.

Non sequitur.
I asked you if Trump devotes equal time on the negative aspects of fossil fuel such as mining and oil exploration being destructive to the environment, air pollution, water table contamination, noise pollution disrupting wildlife habitats etc.

This isn't a cat-and-mouse game. Australia is the largest producer of lithium while China is third. But China's process of extracting lithium is far more environmental friendly then Australias. China also ranks #1 in processing of lithium which controls 60% of all processing facilities. (Challenging China’s dominance in the lithium market)

What you fail to mention is that by 2030 (six years away) there will be a 37% shortfall in lithium supplies. Thus I like to know how one can mandate electric vehicles by 2035 when knowing there will be a 37% shortfall.

Non sequitur.
Your response is irrelevant to my corrections of your gross errors in claiming EVs did not have a carbon footprint which included disposal, China was the sole lithium supplier and your country did not mine lithium.

Oh, I'm sure there are and they say exactly what they want to be said.

Non sequitur.
You have not provided evidence your country knows nothing about the economic and environmental impacts made by renewable technologies, and wind and solar farms will result in the mass starvation of Americans.

I can't help it if some would like to sound very noble on environmental causes all the while ignoring the environment around them.

Non sequitur.
Your response is not a defence of “illegal” immigrants defecating on footpaths, neither is it supported by evidence.

 

[sjastro]

I've posted the link by the National Weather Service on the temperature for the last 150 years. There is little variation (just a few degrees between the years). I'm certainly am not going to post a 150 line entry table that tells one that nothing has changed but it is available at the link or simply googling "Average Temperatures for the last 150 years". You can try variations like "Average High" or "Average Low", but it all comes out the same.

I can't help it if you want to ignore scientific data by the National Weather Service.

Let me be perfectly frank with you, it is one thing of misreading the data which can be attributed to a simple error but it is really dumb to not own up to it.

If you had read the table correctly in the first place there is no way known you would have made the post as it shows the average temperature for 2023 to be 3.4° F higher than in 1875 which is clearly not the case of “it all comes out the same”.
If the best you can do is to defend your error by claiming the data does not show any appreciable temperature changes when it clearly does, then all you have accomplished is making yourself look foolish in the process.

Any further discussions with you are a waste of my time as you are incapable of conducting a coherent discussion, denies the facts, engages in conspiracy theories and immigrant bashing.

 

[HarleyER]

"You are getting emotional so I win" is one usually reserved for use on women

It would have been far more exciting if you would have just said I was a cynical ignorant misogynist.

 

[HarleyER]

I don't like conspiracy theory. You are insulting science and scientists. I have no tolerance for either.

As I said a couple times already. I don't care what the WEF agenda is. It does not control or set science. It does not alter facts.

Don't do anti-science stuff and propagate conspiracy theories and you won't get such responses.

I don't like conspiracy theory. You are insulting science and scientists. I have no tolerance for either.

How very nobel to defend science and sientists. But, there is no "conspiracy theory". Just go to WEF websiite and watch the WEF YouTube videos. They're not shy of telling you what they would like to do.

As I said a couple times already. I don't care what the WEF agenda is. It does not control or set science.

No, but they control the funding. And funding controls science. Scientists or leaders aren't as nobel as you might think.

 

[HarleyER]

Non sequitur.
I asked you if Trump devotes equal time on the negative aspects of fossil fuel such as mining and oil exploration being destructive to the environment, air pollution, water table contamination, noise pollution disrupting wildlife habitats etc.

Non sequitur.
Your response is irrelevant to my corrections of your gross errors in claiming EVs did not have a carbon footprint which included disposal, China was the sole lithium supplier and your country did not mine lithium.

Non sequitur.
You have not provided evidence your country knows nothing about the economic and environmental impacts made by renewable technologies, and wind and solar farms will result in the mass starvation of Americans.

Non sequitur.
Your response is not a defence of “illegal” immigrants defecating on footpaths, neither is it supported by evidence.

I asked you if Trump devotes equal time on the negative aspects of fossil fuel such as mining and oil exploration being destructive to the environment, air pollution, water table contamination, noise pollution disrupting wildlife habitats etc.

Probably just as much as Kamala Harris devotes to defending fossil fuels.

Your response is irrelevant to my corrections of your gross errors in claiming EVs did not have a carbon footprint which included disposal,

If I search on the life of an EV battery I get 10-20 years is the life expectancy. HA! Anything in my home that runs on batteries is lucky if it last one year. This is science today. I love to see them tell that to the EV drivers in Chicago.

Your response is not a defence of “illegal” immigrants defecating on footpaths, neither is it supported by evidence.

Tell that to the people in San Francisco or even Springfield, Ohio.

 

[HarleyER]

Let me be perfectly frank with you, it is one thing of misreading the data which can be attributed to a simple error but it is really dumb to not own up to it.

If you had read the table correctly in the first place there is no way known you would have made the post as it shows the average temperature for 2023 to be 3.4° F higher than in 1875 which is clearly not the case of “it all comes out the same”.
If the best you can do is to defend your error by claiming the data does not show any appreciable temperature changes when it clearly does, then all you have accomplished is making yourself look foolish in the process.

Any further discussions with you are a waste of my time as you are incapable of conducting a coherent discussion, denies the facts, engages in conspiracy theories and immigrant bashing.

If you had read the table correctly in the first place there is no way known you would have made the post as it shows the average temperature for 2023 to be 3.4° F higher than in 1875 which is clearly not the case of “it all comes out the same”.

I didn't say the average temperature would be 3.4 F higher. I said the temperature in 1875 was 52.2. In 2023 the average temperature was 52.3. That would make the change difference .3 degree, not 3.4 degree. Below is the link to the table:

https://www.weather.gov/media/slc/ClimateBook/Annual%20Average%20Temperature%20By%20Year.pdf

It is not I who did not read the table correctly.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How very nobel to defend science and sientists. But, there is no "conspiracy theory". Just go to WEF websiite and watch the WEF YouTube videos. They're not shy of telling you what they would like to do.

I really don't care what some rich-guy club does or says. They do not rule the data or the science of climate.

No, but they control the funding.

They do not. Science funding comes primarily from government agencies.

And funding controls science.

This is an insulting trope circulated by those who know nothing of how science works, and use to attack scientists and scientific results.

Scientists or leaders aren't as nobel as you might think.

I know far more scientists than you do, and it isn't close.

 

[Astrid]

It would have been far more exciting if you would have just said I was a cynical ignorant misogynist.

Sorryah, but I don't just
say things.

 

[HarleyER]

I really don't care what some rich-guy club does or says. They do not rule the data or the science of climate.

They do not. Science funding comes primarily from government agencies.

This is an insulting trope circulated by those who know nothing of how science works, and use to attack scientists and scientific results.

I know far more scientists than you do, and it isn't close.

I really don't care what some rich-guy club does or says. They do not rule the data or the science of climate.

Wow, that sounds really objective as one who is seeking the truth. /sarc

So these billionaires who lead major corporations and governments, and who have a political agenda among which is climate change, have no input into information coming from their corporations/governments? OK, if that is what you believe.

They do not. Science funding comes primarily from government agencies.

Yes, government funding from a government whose mission is bent towards climate change. I suppose I would never get funding simply because I don't buy into the party line.

I know far more scientists than you do, and it isn't close.

Yes, perhaps you do know more scientists than me. But everyone one of us is a sinner. You just wave a lucrative contract in someone's face and see how fast they'll jump on it.

For many years I was a contractor and then worked directly for the federal government. I know how the game is played. Government writes a contract to persue a particular agenda. If the contract isn't directly assigned, contractors bid on those to fulfill the requirements of that contract. A contractor would never go against the wishes or specifications of the contract.

Thus you have a tons of "scientific facts" showing global warming/cooling, all the while the National Weather Service shows there has been no significant change in the average temperature for the last 150 years.